DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 17 were amended, claim 7 was canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-20 are pending.
Specification
The amendment filed 2/20/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: "In another embodiment of the storage case an adjacent portion of the lid is deformed outward to release the seal by pressing inward and upward on the latch tab." (There is no other embodiment in which the latch tab is not pressed inward and upward or the lid being deformed outward.)
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 line 2 "top rim,:" should read "top rim[[,]];”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “flexible” in claim s 1-6 and 9-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The specification fails to outright define flexibility or materials utilized. The seal bead, lid, and body are made of the same material, as supported by [0032] and [0035] of the specification. Commonly, flexible seals are separate components fabricated separately from the container, typically of rubber or silicone (for example, O-rings). However, in this case the material is the same as the container. Does this mean that the entire container is considered flexible? In other common interpretations, the container could be considered rigid. Rigid being an antonym of flexible (Merriam-Webster). Under the present application, it is unclear what would qualify as rigid vs flexible. For the purposes of examination, the term “flexible” shall be broadly interpreted such that the entirety of the container can be considered as such. For example, most plastic materials are capable of some level of elastic deformations and shall meet the claimed limitations. Claims 8, 13-16 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 or 9 and are also rejected.
The term “the protrusion in combination with the catch producing an audible or haptic double click as the case is being closed, enabling the user to positively sense when the case has been fully latched” in claim 17-19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. What are the bounds of this limitation? For example, if the container is closed in a hurry, there will be less time between the two audible or haptic clicks. Can a user detect that there are two clicks? Would it be an audible two clicks? Audible meaning “able to be heard” (oxford languages). It is not clear that there will always be a clear ability to hear the device close every time it is shut. Similarly, if the lid is shut extremely fast, the double haptic could not be felt. As previously indicated (in the non-final rejection), adding wording such as “configured to” would more closely relate to the present inventions intended function. There is a wide range of thresholds for users when it comes to the abilities for sensing touch or noise. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the invention is “configured to” produce a double haptic noise.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the protrusion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud (US 8807359 B2) in view of Freedman (US 10669079 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Giraud discloses a child-resistant storage case comprising: a body (10) having a chamber for storage of objects or material and having a top rim (fig 16 below) defining an opening providing access to the chamber; a flange (115) extending outward adjacent to the top rim of the body; a latch opening (opening in 115) in the flange; a pivotally openable and closeable lid (24) hinged to the body to selectively cover the chamber opening in a closed and sealed position of the lid and to provide access to the chamber in an open position of the lid; a latch tab (110) extending downward from the lid to pass through the latch opening when the lid is in the closed position, with a catch (109) to secure the latch tab in the latch opening in the closed position; wherein the latch tab (110), catch (109) and adjacent portions of the top rim, lid, and flexible seal (see combination below) are configured so that simultaneously pressing both inward and upward on the latch tab by a user are required to release the catch of the latch tab and pivot the latch tab to deform adjacent portions of the lid, the top rim and the flexible seal, to thereby release the seal and release the lid from the lid's closed position.
Giraud failed to disclose a flexible seal between at least an outer surface portion of the top rim of the body and an inward facing surface portion of the lid when the lid is in the closed and sealed position. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers with hinged lids, Freedman taught of a lid with a flexible seal (deformation is necessary, in order to open/close) between an outer surface portion of the top rim (204) and an inward facing surface portion of the lid (202) in order to create a moisture tight container (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Giraud to include a flexible seal as taught by Freedman in order to allow for a moisture tight container.
Examiner Note: With regards to the flexible seal, figures 16 and 17 of Giraud show a protruding bead on the top rim. Also the term “flexible” is broadly interpreted as seal that can allow for any deformation that will allow opening and closing. It is understood that the present inventions seal is integral with the body/lid ([0035] of the specification). No material restrictions are listed.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
468
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach the flexible seal comprises a flexible beaded seal (204 of Freedman) on one of the lid and body and a complimentary recess (202 of Freedman) along the other of the lid and body.
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach further comprising a flexible upper wall (wall portion containing 204 of Freedman, with some extension below) extending about the top rim of the body, and wherein the flexible seal comprises a beaded seal (204 of Freedman) on the flexible upper wall.
Examiner Note: No further descriptions for flexible is provided by the specification of the present application. The application teaches that the flexible beaded seal is integral with the wall structure, and therefore it is understood that the upper wall is flexible (as it is thinner and comprises the same material as the beaded seal). Deformation is required of Freedman in order to enable opening of the lid.
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the flexible seal comprises a bead (204 of Freedman) on the outward facing surface of the flexible upper wall and a complementary recess (figure 3 of Freedman) on the inside of the lid for engaging the bead.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Giraud further discloses wherein the lid further comprises a flange (figure 16 of Giraud) extending outward in vertical alignment with the latch opening from a position that is below the flexible seal when the lid is in the closed position, and wherein the latch tab extends downward from the flange of the lid and through the latch opening when the lid is in the closed position.
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Giraud further discloses further comprising a side tab (figure 17 above) extending laterally outward from body adjacent to the latch tab (110).
Examiner Note: The term adjacent is relative. For example, the latch tab and side tab are adjacent to the top, and therefore adjacent to each other by being on the same level.
With respect to claim 9, Giraud discloses a child-resistant storage case comprising: a body (10) having a chamber for storage with a top rim; a upper wall (wall above top rim figure 16) extending about the top rim of the body; a flange (115) extending outward from the body adjacent to the top rim of the body; a latch opening (opening in 115) in the flange; a selectively pivotally openable and closeable lid (24) for providing access to or closing the chamber of the body; a latch tab (110) extending downward from the lid to pass through the latch opening when the lid is in the closed position, with a catch (109) to secure the latch tab in the latch opening in the closed position; wherein the latch tab, catch and adjacent portions of the lid, flexible upper wall and seal are configured such that simultaneously pressing both inward and upward on the latch tab by a user are required to release the catch of the latch tab and pivot the latch tab to deform adjacent portions of the lid, flexible upper wall and seal, thereby releasing the seal and releasing the lid from the lid's closed position and enabling pivotal opening of the lid.
Giraud failed to disclose of a flexible upper wall, a flexible seal between at least an outer surface portion of the top rim of the body and an inward facing surface portion of the lid when the lid is in the closed and sealed position. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers with hinged lids, Freedman taught of a lid with a flexible seal (deformation is necessary, in order to open/close) between an outer surface portion of the top rim (204) and an inward facing surface portion of the lid (202) in order to create a moisture tight container (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Giraud to include a flexible seal as taught by Freedman in order to allow for a moisture tight container.
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the seal comprises a flexible beaded seal (202/204 of Freedman) which comprises, on each of the lid and the flexible upper wall of the body, both a bead (204 of Freedman) and a bead receiving recess (recess in figure 3 of Freedman).
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the flexible seal comprises a beaded seal (204 of Freedman) on the flexible upper wall of the body.
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the seal comprises a bead (204 of Freedman) on the outward facing surface of the flexible upper wall and a complementary recess (figure 3 of Freedman) on the inside of the lid for engaging the bead.
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Giraud further discloses wherein the lid further comprises a flange (figure 16 of Giraud) extending outward in vertical alignment with the latch opening, and wherein the latch tab extends downward from the flange of the lid and through the latch opening when the lid is in a closed position.
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Giraud further discloses further comprising a side tab (figure 17 above) extending laterally outward from body adjacent to the latch tab (110).
Examiner Note: The term adjacent is relative. For example, the latch tab and side tab are adjacent to the top, and therefore adjacent to each other by being on the same level.
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Giraud further discloses further comprising a hinge (26 of Giraud) between the lid and body allowing the lid to move between a closed position and an open position.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud (US 8807359 B2) in view of Freedman (US 10669079 B2) and Logel (HU E028272 T2).
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein the adjacent portion of the lid is deformed outward to release the flexible seal by pressing inward and upward on the latch tab. Freedman teaches of containers with thumb tabs (121). Freedman does not further discuss the usage of thumb tabs (121). However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers with seals, Logel taught of a container with a seal structure similar to Freedman. Logel further elaborated that the thumb tabs (26 of Logel) are intended to bend the adjacent lid wall to enable disengagement of the sealing protrusions (page 4 [0040]) . The inward and upward pressure on Girauds latch tab can act as the thumb tabs of Freedman and Logel and inherently allow for outward deformation of a portion of the lid enabling disengagement of the flexible seal. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Giraud and Freedman to have an adjacent portion of the lid deform outward as taught by Logel in order to allow for additional means of releasing the seal.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein the adjacent portion of the lid is deformed outward to release the flexible seal by pressing inward and upward on the latch tab. Freedman teaches of containers with thumb tabs (121). Freedman does not further discuss the usage of thumb tabs (121). However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers with seals, Logel taught of a container with a seal structure similar to Freedman. Logel further elaborated that the thumb tabs (26 of Logel) are intended to bend the adjacent lid wall to enable disengagement of the sealing protrusions (page 4 [0040]). The inward and upward pressure on Girauds latch tab can act as the thumb tabs of Freedman and Logel and inherently allow for outward deformation of a portion of the lid enabling disengagement of the flexible seal. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Giraud and Freedman to have an adjacent portion of the lid deform outward as taught by Logel in order to allow for additional means of releasing the seal.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud (US 8807359 B2) in view of Freedman (US 10669079 B2) and Luburic (US 10974879 B2).
With respect to claim 17, Giraud discloses a child-resistant storage case comprising: a body (10) having a chamber for storage with a top rim; a flange (115) extending outward from the body adjacent to the top rim of the body; a latch opening (opening in 115) in the flange; a selectively pivotally openable and closeable lid (24) configured to enable accessing of contents of the chamber of the body when the lid is open and to enable sealing closure of the chamber of the body, and a lid flange (figure 16) extending outwardly from an outward facing surface portion of the lid, the lid flange being adapted to contact the body flange when the lid is in a closed position: a latch tab (110) extending downward from the lid flange to pass through the latch opening when the lid is in the closed position, with a catch (109) to secure the latch tab in the latch opening in the closed position, contact between the lid flange (figure 16) and the body flange (115) limiting downward displacement of the latch tab through the latch opening.
Giraud failed to disclose of a first sealing bead and a sealing bead receiving recess formed on an exterior surface of the body, the lid having a second sealing bead and a sealing bead receiving recess formed on an interior surface thereof . However in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers with hinged lids, Freedman taught of a lid with a flexible seal (deformation is necessary, in order to open/close) between a first sealing bead (204) and a second sealing bead receiving recess (202 and above) in order to create a moisture tight container (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Giraud to include a flexible seal as taught by Freedman in order to allow for a moisture tight container.
The references failed to teach a protrusion extending from the latch tab below the catch; the protrusion in combination with the catch producing an audible or haptic double click as the case is being closed, enabling the user to positively sense when the case has been fully latched. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely latched containers, Luburic taught of a protrusion portion of the latch tab below the catch that serves as a gripping portion (col 8 lines 22-28). This gripping portion being a that can cause a haptic or audible response. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch tab of Giraud to include a protrusion as taught by Luburic in order to allow the user to better grip the grip tab.
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for a protrusion extending from the latch tab below the catch; the protrusion in combination with the catch producing an audible or haptic double click as the case is being closed, enabling the user to positively sense when the case has been fully latched. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely latched containers, Luburic taught of a protrusion portion of the latch tab below the catch that serves as a gripping portion (col 8 lines 22-28). This gripping portion being a that can cause a haptic or audible response. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch tab of Giraud to include a protrusion as taught by Luburic in order to allow the user to better grip the grip tab.
With respect to claim 19, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for a protrusion extending from the latch tab below the catch; the protrusion in combination with the catch producing an audible or haptic double click as the case is being closed, enabling the user to positively sense when the case has been fully latched. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely latched containers, Luburic taught of a protrusion portion of the latch tab below the catch that serves as a gripping portion (col 8 lines 22-28). This gripping portion being a that can cause a haptic or audible response. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch tab of Giraud to include a protrusion as taught by Luburic in order to allow the user to better grip the grip tab.
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 9, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the protrusion extends in the same direction as the catch. (This claim is presumed to be dependent on a claim discussing the protrusion, this relationship is taught by the protrusion of Luburic)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to 112a and 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 9/22/2025 has been withdrawn. However, applicant failed to address the 112b rejection pertaining to claims 17 and 19 with regards to the audible or haptic double click.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4027776 A, US 4746008 A, US 20120211493 A1, US 8596493 B2, US 8648264 B2, US 20180057226 A1, US 20200140158 A1, US 10669079 B2, US 10974879 B2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735