Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US 3067896 A) in view of Scott (US 20190061589 A1).
Berg discloses:
1. A kit (figs 1-6) comprising a plurality of interlocking spill-proof containers including second container (fig 6 for example), the second spill-proof container comprising: a petri (adjacent 17/16) comprising: a body (sidewall of 17/16) having a top opening (open portion at upper end), at least one cavity (cup within), a bottom (lower wall of device); and a jacket that at least partially envelops the body (10); a cap configured for placement over the petri (adjacent 23); and at least one center section disposed between the petri and the cap (central 10 such as in fig 6);
With regards to the kit and a first container and a first spill-proof container comprising: a petri comprising: a body having a top opening, at least one cavity, a bottom and; and a jacket that at least partially envelops the body; and a cap configured for placement over the petri, the Office notes that the device provides that the device is modular with several configurations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify provide multiple containers together in a kit (such as with a first container and a the first spill-proof container comprising: a petri comprising: a body having a top opening, at least one cavity, a bottom and; and a jacket that at least partially envelops the body; and a cap configured for placement over the petri) in order to provide additional storage to the user, such as in a scenario where one type of intended contents of one size is needed and another type of intended contents of a different size is needed. Though not required, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device because it has been held that the duplication of parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). And further, though not required, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
With regards to at least one magnet disposed in a recess, Scott discloses containers with magnet (adjacent 18 with a recess 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Berg in view of Scott (by providing magnets within a recess with any container portion, such as portion of 16/17 of Berg) in order to order to provide stability to the device in order to prevent undesired spillage. Though not required as the primary reference already discloses a jacket that covers the above feature in combination, the Office notes that Scott also discloses a jack that at least partially envelops the body and that covers the at least one magnet (such as adjacent 22 in figure 6).
The Combined Reference discloses:
2. The kit of claim 1, wherein the jacket and cap of the first and second containers each have a plurality of exterior walls that form a hexagon shape. The Office notes It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape such as to that of a hexagon in order to provide additional storage within the device due to the increased area of the shape and to further provide desired aesthetics. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape because it has been held that a change in form or shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
3. The kit of claim 1, wherein the petri and cap of the first container are interchangeable with the petri and cap of the second container to form modified containers (as already explained above in claim 1; further evidenced between figs 1-3, 6 of Berg).
4. The kit of claim 1, further comprising the third spill-proof container comprising: a petri comprising: a body having a top opening, at least one cavity, a bottom and at least one magnet; and a jacket that at least partially envelops the body; a cap configured for placement over the petri; and at least one center section disposed between the petri and the cap, wherein the first, second and third containers are releasably attached to one other via the magnets contained by the first, second and third containers. The Office has already provided the reasoning above to provide multiple containers in claim 1. The same reasoning applied to claim 4.
5. The kit of claim 1, wherein the petri, cap and center sections of the first, second and third containers are interchangeable with one another to form modified containers (as already explained above in claim 1; further evidenced between figs 1-3, 6 of Berg).
7. The kit of claim 1, further comprising a third spill-proof container comprising: a center section having a plurality of embedded magnets, a first well defined by a first bottom and a first opening equipped with a first attachment mechanism, and a second well defined by a second bottom and a second opening equipped with a second attachment mechanism, wherein the first bottom and the second bottom are proximate to each other; a first portion having a first end and a second end, the first end having a means for releasably attaching to the first attachment mechanism and a first member such that when the first portion is attached to the center section via the first attachment mechanism, the first member creates a fluid-impermeable seal with the first opening, the second end having a third well with a third bottom and a third opening equipped with a third attachment mechanism; a second portion having a third end and a fourth end, the third end having a means for releasably attaching to the second attachment mechanism and a second member such that when the second portion is attached to the center section via the second attachment mechanism, the second member creates a fluid-impermeable seal with the second opening, the fourth end having a fourth well with a fourth bottom and a fourth opening equipped with a fourth attachment mechanism; a first cap having a means for releasably attaching with the third attachment mechanism and a means for creating a fluid-impermeable seal with the third opening when attached thereto; and a second cap having a means for releasably attaching with the fourth attachment mechanism and a means for creating a fluid-impermeable seal with the fourth opening when attached thereto, wherein the first, second and third containers are releasably attached to one other via the magnets contained by the first, second and third containers. The Office has already provided the reasoning above to provide multiple containers in claim 1. The same reasoning applied to claim 4. Further, Berg discloses a center section (central 10 in fig 6) having, a first well defined by a first bottom (well of 16/17) and a first opening equipped with a first attachment mechanism (opening at top and mechanism adjacent 11), and a second well defined by a second bottom (well above “19”) and a second opening equipped with a second attachment mechanism (opening adjacent 20 with mechanism in fig 1), wherein the first bottom and the second bottom are proximate to each other (as in fig 1);
a first portion having a first end and a second end (another 10 such as 10 above central with two ends), the first end having a means for releasably attaching to the first attachment mechanism and a first member such that when the first portion is attached to the center section via the first attachment mechanism (such as adjacent another 20), the first member creates a fluid-impermeable seal with the first opening (as in fig 6), the second end having a third well with a third bottom and a third opening equipped with a third attachment mechanism (such as adjacent 11 and well and bottom of 16/17);
a second portion having a third end and a fourth end (another 10 such as 10 below central with two ends), the third end having a means for releasably attaching to the second attachment mechanism and a second member such that when the second portion is attached to the center section via the second attachment mechanism (such as adjacent 11), the second member creates a fluid-impermeable seal with the second opening (as in fig 6), the fourth end having a fourth well with a fourth bottom and a fourth opening equipped with a fourth attachment mechanism (such as adjacent 20 and 19);
a first cap having a means for releasably attaching with the third attachment mechanism and a means for creating a fluid-impermeable seal with the third opening when attached thereto (top 23);
and a second cap having a means for releasably attaching with the fourth attachment mechanism and a means for creating a fluid-impermeable seal with the fourth opening when attached thereto (bottom 27).
With regards to magnets, Scott discloses containers with magnet (adjacent 18s with a recess 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Berg in view of Scott (by providing magnets within a recess with any container portion, such as portion of 16/17 of Berg) in order to order to provide stability to the device in order to prevent undesired spillage. Though not required as the primary reference already discloses a jacket that covers the above feature in combination, the Office notes that Scott also discloses a jack that at least partially envelops the body and that covers the at least one magnet (such as adjacent 22 in figure 6).
The Combined Reference discloses:
8. The kit of claim 8, wherein the caps, petri and center sections of the first, second and third containers are interchangeable with one another to form modified containers (as already explained above in claim 1; further evidenced between figs 1-3, 6 of Berg)..
9. The kit of claim 1, wherein the petris of the first and second containers differ in size (as already explained above in claim 1; further evidenced between figs 1-3, 6 of Berg)..
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gurnard (US 6786346 B1)
The Combined Reference discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Gurnard: wherein in each cap has a top surface that includes a recess sized to receive a label (such as shown with recess capable of performing the above intended use interacting with element 68 in figs 1-3, 7, 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Gurnard (by providing recess to any cap) in order to provide a decorative display to the user for useful information and/or desired aesthetics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735