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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 9, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 7, 2024.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species E (figures 9A-9C) in the reply filed on October 7, 2024 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 is considered vague and indefinite because it depends directly from cancelled claim 21. The metes and bounds cannot be ascertained, and the claim cannot be further treated on the merits at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peres (U.S. 8,146,758). Peres teaches a storage facilitation system 10 comprising a first storage container 12, wherein the first storage container comprises a first housing at 12 having a first central portion, a first top portion (upper portion of 12), a first bottom portion (bottom portion of 12), a first lid 11, and a second lid at 22, 23 including an adjustable aperture 19, 20, wherein the first lid 11 is adapted to be disposed on the first top portion, and wherein the second lid is adapted to be disposed on the first bottom portion (figure 4), and a second storage container 14, wherein the second storage container 14 comprises a second housing having a second central portion (at lead line 14), a second top portion (top portion of 14), a second bottom portion (bottom portion of 14), and a third lid (bottom wall of 14) adapted to be disposed on the second bottom portion, wherein the second storage container 14 is adapted to be affixed to the first storage container at the second lid 22 of the first storage container (figure 4), the second lid 22, 23 being further adapted to be disposed on the second top portion (figure 4), such that the contents of the first storage container and the second storage container are in fluid contact when the adjustable aperture is open (col. 2 lines 49-58) and the second storage container 14 is affixed to the first storage container at the second lid 22 of the first storage container (figure 4).
Regarding claim 22, the third lid (bottom wall of 14) comprises a tray (considered tray because it is flat).
Regarding claim 24, the second storage container is in fluid contact with the tray (figure 3).
Regarding claim 25, the second bottom portion includes a plurality of perforations (see elements 19 and 20 in figure 5).
Claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruning (U.S. 1,351,410). Bruning teaches a storage facilitation system, shown in figure 1, comprising a first storage container 28, wherein the first storage container comprises a first housing comprising a first central portion at lead line 28 defining a first storage compartment, a first top portion (at the upper end of 28) and first bottom portion (at lower end of 28), a first removeable housing (can be 19 or 36), wherein the first removeable housing is disposed within the first storage compartment (figure 1), a second storage container 11 adapted to be affixed to the first storage container (figure 1), wherein the second storage container 11 comprises a second housing comprising a second central portion (at lead line 11 in figure 1), a second top portion (at upper end of 11), and a second bottom portion (at lower end of 11), and a second removeable housing 9, wherein the second removeable housing 9 is disposed within the second storage compartment (figure 1), wherein the second storage container 11 is adapted to be affixed to the first storage container 28 at a side portion of the second housing (11 is secured to 28 at upper inner side of element 11) and a plate 27 having an opening (mesh of 27 comprised multiple openings) separates the first storage container from the second storage container (figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, the first removeable housing 19, 36 is disposed within the first storage container (figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, the second storage container 11 is affixed to the first storage container at an external portion of the first housing (frictionally affixed at outer surface of lower end of 28).
Regarding claim 20, a cover 31 disposed on the first top portion of the first housing 28 (figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peres (U.S. 8,146,758) in view of Chiang (U.S. 2012/0067875). Peres discloses the claimed invention except for the third storage container. Chiang teaches that it is known to provide storage system with a third storage container (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage system of Peres with the third storage container, as taught by Chiang, in order to increase the capacity of the storage system.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peres (U.S. 8,146,758) in view of Davies (U.S. 2010/0200438). Peres discloses the claimed invention except for the tray being removeable. Davies teaches that it is known to provide storage system with a third lid being a removeable tray (see lowest element 20 in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage system of Peres with the third lid being removeable, as taught by Davies, in order to provide alternative dispensing of the contents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13, 15 and 22-25 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.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that that the second housing of Bruning is not removeable. It is the examiner’s position that Bruning teaches a removeable second housing to the degree set forth in claim 16. Bruning teaches a second storage container 11 and a second housing at 9. Bruning discloses that the flange 10 of second housing 9 is “structurally connected with the outer wall 11 of the second storage container. This disclosure does not mean that housing 9 is non-removeably secured to 11 of the second storage container. Additionally the figures show that second housing 9 is not integrally formed with element 11. The disclosed “structurally connected” can mean a frictional fit. It is the examiner’s position that since the second housing is not integrally formed with the second storage container it is capable of being removed.
Applicant also argues that the need for cleaning between 9 and 11 is unnecessary if second housing 9 were removeable. Bruning discloses easing flushing of the space, this does not mean that a complete disassembly and thorough cleaning is not possible. It is the examiner’s position that sufficient force can be applied to remove second housing 9 since 9 is not integrally formed with 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736