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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on July 30, 2025 wherein: claims 7, 21 were amended and claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 17 previously canceled. Examiner notes amendments are directed to increase invention specificity. Examiner’s further notes applicant’s arguments in aforementioned reply are directed to traverse claims rejections under 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-16, 18-24 are pending and will be examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 30, 2025 has been entered.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-16, 18-22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (E. P. O. Patent Application Publication EP1783058A1) hereinafter SCHMIDT, in view of Dixon (U. S. Patent US6296175B1) hereinafter DIXON, in further view of De Wilde et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190135503A1) hereinafter DE WILDE.
Regarding claim 1, SCHMIDT teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 below) a consumer product S3-01 comprising:
a detergent product (page 2, Description, line 6, “... detergent packaging...”) and a container S3-02,
the container S3-02 comprising:
a box 1, a cover 40 for the box 1, and a lock S3-08 to maintain the cover 40 in a closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...);
the box 1 comprising
the detergent product (page 2, Description, line 6, “... detergent packaging...”),
the box 1 comprising a base 11, 12, 15, 16, sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and an opening S3-03,
the cover 40 comprising a top 41 and flanks S2-01;
the cover 40 covering the opening S3-03 and the cover 40 covering at least a first S3-05 and a second S3-04 specific portion of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 of the box 1 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...);
the lock S3-08 comprising at least a first actuator 28 moveable from a locking position to an opening position by applying an actuation pressure (page 2, Description, lines 32-34, “... pressure must be exerted...”) onto the first actuator 28 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...);
the first actuator 28 being connected to the first specific portion S3-05;
the cover 40 comprising a first tactile discontinuity 54, 56,
the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 facing the first actuator 28,
the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 permitting displacing the first actuator 28 from the locking position to the opening position by applying the actuation pressure (page 2, Description, lines 32-34, “... pressure must be exerted...”) at the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...);
whereby the cover 40 comprises a second tactile discontinuity 53, 55;
wherein the cover 40 comprises a third tactile discontinuity 62, the third tactile discontinuity 62 facing a second actuator 27 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...);
the second actuator 27, if present, pertaining to a second lock S3-09,
the second actuator 27, if present, being moveable from a locking position to an opening position by applying a further actuation pressure (page 2, Description, lines 32-34, “... pressure must be exerted...”) onto the second actuator 27 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...),
the second actuator 27, if present, being connected to a third specific portion S3-07 of the sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 of the box 1, the third specific portion S3-07 being covered by the cover 40 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...),
wherein the cover 40 comprises a fourth tactile discontinuity 61;
wherein the first S3-05 and a second S3-04 specific portions of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the first actuator 28 pertain to a same specific sidewall 4,
whereby the third specific portion S3-07 of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the second actuator 27 pertain to a lateral sidewall 3, the lateral sidewall 3 being lateral to the specific sidewall 4,
whereby the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 pertains to the opposite flank 46;
wherein: each tactile discontinuity 53-56, 61-62 defining a centroid S4-01.
SCHMIDT fails to teach second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 directly facing the second specific portion S3-04 of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...).
SCHMIDT fails to teach third specific portion S3-07 of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the second actuator 27 pertain to an opposite sidewall 3, the opposite sidewall 3 being opposite to the specific sidewall 4.
SCHMIDT fails to teach at least one of a centroid S4-01 of the third tactile discontinuity 62 and a centroid S4-01 of the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 is aligned either with the centroid S4-01 of the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 or with the centroid S4-01 of the second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 along a direction normal to the third specific portion S3-07 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...) portion.
SCHMIDT fails to teach each tactile discontinuity 53-56, 61-62 spans less than about 8 cm2 and more than about 0.2 cm2.
SCHMIDT fails to teach each centroid S4-01 is separated S4-06 from the top 41 of the cover 40 by less than about 5 cm and by more than about 0.5 cm.
SCHMIDT fails to teach each centroid S4-01 is separated S4-05 from a distal end S4-02 of the specific flank S2-01 by more than about 0.5 cm.
SCHMIDT fails to teach the top 41 of the cover 40 spans S2-02 less than about 13 cm and more than about 6 cm along a direction normal to the first specific portion S3-05 at the centroid S4-01 defined by the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56.
SCHMIDT fails to teach wherein the detergent product (page 2, Description, line 6, “... detergent packaging...”) is in the form of unit dose detergent pouches.
However, DIXON teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 below) a tamper resistant container 102, 104, comprising a tactile discontinuity 109 directly facing a specific portion D1-01 of sidewall 206 when the cover 102 is in the closed position for ease of opening (page 7, col. 2, lines 52-55, “… finger cutout…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT with tactile discontinuity 109 as taught in the tamper resistant container 102, 104 of DIXON (i.e., directly face second specific portion S3-04) for ease of opening.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified (in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT and DIXON) relative placement among third specific portion S3-07 / second actuator 27, centroid S4-01 / centroid S4-01 of the third tactile discontinuity 62 / centroid S4-01 of the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 / centroid S4-01 of the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 / centroid S4-01 of the second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 when the cover 40 is in the closed position to meet design requirements since rearrangement of parts is held as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified (by dimensional changes) spans of each tactile discontinuity 53-56, 61-62 / separation of centroid S4-01 from top 41 / separation of centroid S4-01 from distal end S4-02 / span of top 41 in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT and DIXON to meet design criteria since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Furthermore, DE WILDE teaches (see Fig. 1 below) consumer product 1, wherein the detergent product 3 is in the form of unit dose detergent pouches for ease of use (page 13, para. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified detergent product in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT and DIXON with detergent product 3 as taught in the consumer product 1 of DE WILDE for ease of use.
PNG
media_image1.png
505
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
830
881
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
746
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
653
502
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
500
788
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
523
812
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
717
229
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
408
239
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
819
739
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the opening S3-03 is opposite the base 11, 12, 15, 16.
Regarding claim 3, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the first 54, 56 and the second 53, 55 tactile discontinuities are on a same specific flank 50, 51 of the cover 40.
Regarding claim 5, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the first 54, 56 and the second 53, 55 tactile discontinuities are on a same specific flank 50, 51 of the cover 40, and whereby the centroid S4-01 of the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 and the centroid S4-01 of the second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 are separated by a separation distance S4-03 along a direction parallel to the top 41 of the cover 40.
SCHMIDT fails to teach separation distance S4-03 being of more than about 1.5 cm and of less than about 10 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified (by dimensional changes) separation distance S4-03 in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE to meet design criteria since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 7, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the second actuator 27 is present and whereby the third tactile discontinuity 62 is facing the second actuator 27, wherein:
the first S3-05 and second S3-04 specific portions of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the first actuator 28 pertain to a same specific sidewall 4;
the third specific portion S3-07 of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the second actuator 27 pertain to a lateral sidewall 3, the lateral sidewall 3 being lateral to the specific sidewall 4; and
the third tactile discontinuity 62 pertains to a lateral flank 47, the lateral flank 47 being lateral to the opposite flank 50, 51.
SCHMIDT fails to teach third specific portion S3-07 / second actuator 27 pertain to a opposite sidewall 2, the opposite sidewall 2 being opposite to the specific sidewall 4.
SCHMIDT fails to teach third tactile discontinuity 62 pertains to an opposite flank 48, 54, the opposite flank 48, 54 being opposite to the opposite flank 50.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified (in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE) relative placement among third specific portion S3-07 / second actuator 27 / third tactile discontinuity 62 to meet design requirements since rearrangement of parts is held as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 9, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the third 62 and the fourth 61 tactile discontinuities are respectively on flank 47 / flank 46, and whereby the centroid S4-01 of the third tactile discontinuity 62 and the centroid S4-01 of the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 are separated by a separation distance S4-04 along a direction parallel to the top 41 of the cover 40.
SCHMIDT fails to teach third 62 / fourth 61 tactile discontinuities are both on the opposite flank 48.
SCHMIDT fails to teach separation distance S4-04 being of more than about 1.5 cm and of less than about 10 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified (in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE) relative placement among third 62 / fourth 61 tactile discontinuities to meet design requirements since rearrangement of parts is held as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified [in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE] (by dimensional changes) separation distance S4-04 to meet design criteria since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 11, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the first S3-05 and a second S3-04 specific portions of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the first actuator 28 pertain to a same specific sidewall 4,
whereby the third specific portion S3-07 of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the second actuator 27 pertain to an lateral sidewall 3, the lateral sidewall 3 being lateral to the specific sidewall 4,
whereby the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 pertains to the opposite flank 46,
whereby at least one of a centroid S4-01 of the third tactile discontinuity 62 and of a centroid S4-01 of the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 is facing a region between the centroid S4-01 of the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 and the centroid S4-01 of the second tactile discontinuity 53, 55.
SCHMIDT fails to teach third specific portion S3-07 / second actuator 27 pertain to opposite sidewall 2, the opposite sidewall 2 being opposite to the specific sidewall 4.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified [in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE] (by relocation) the third specific portion S3-07 / second actuator 27 on opposite sidewall 2 to meet design requirements since it is regarded placement of parts would not have modified the operation of the invention. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Regarding claim 12, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the first S3-05 and a second S3-04 specific portions of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the first actuator 28 pertain to a same specific sidewall 4,
whereby the third specific portion S3-07 of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 and the second actuator 27 pertain to a lateral sidewall 3, the lateral sidewall 3 being lateral to the specific sidewall 4,
whereby the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 pertains to the opposite flank 47.
SCHMIDT fails to teach third specific portion S3-07 / second actuator 27 pertain to an opposite sidewall 2, the opposite sidewall 2 being opposite to the specific sidewall 4.
SCHMIDT fails to teach whereby a shortest distance between at least one of a centroid S4-01 of the third tactile discontinuity 62 and of a centroid S4-01 of the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 along the flanks S2-01 and top 41 of the cover 40, is of less than 18 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified [in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE] (by relocation) the third specific portion S3-07 / second actuator 27 on an opposite sidewall 2 to meet design requirements since it is regarded placement of parts would not have modified the operation of the invention. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified [in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE] (by dimensional changes) shortest distance (to be less than 18 cm) among centroid S4-01 of the third tactile discontinuity 62 / centroid S4-01 of the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 to meet design criteria since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 13, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein each centroid S4-01 is separated from the top 41 of the cover 40 by more than about 1 cm and by less than about 3 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified [in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE] (by dimensional changes) separation distance among centroid S4-01 / top 41 within range 1 cm / 3 cm to meet design criteria since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 14, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the container S3-02 comprises a first flap 51 facing the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...), and
whereby the second actuator 27 comprises a flap 47 facing the third 62 tactile discontinuity when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...).
SCHMIDT fails to teach second actuator 27 comprises a single flap 47 facing both the third 62 and fourth 61 tactile discontinuities when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified [in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE] (by rearrangement) second actuator 27 (comprising a single flap 47 facing both the third 62 and fourth 61 tactile discontinuities) since it is regarded placement of parts would not have modified the operation of the invention. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Regarding claim 15, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the container S3-02 comprises a first flap 51 facing the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...), a second flap 47 facing the third tactile discontinuity 62 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...), and a third flap 46 facing the fourth tactile discontinuity 61 when the cover 40 is in the closed position (page 3, lines 13-16, “... locking shoulders...).
Regarding claim 16, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein the centroid S4-01 of the first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 is located in a central region of a flank 50 of the cover 40 along a horizontal direction parallel to the top 41 of the cover 40.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified [in the consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE] (by dimensional changes) first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 (to be located in central region of a flank 50) to meet design criteria since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 18, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein one or more of the specific portions (i.e., second specific portion S3-04 / first specific portion S3-05 / third specific portion S3-07) comprise a visual indication visible through the corresponding tactile discontinuities (i.e., first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 / second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 / third tactile discontinuity 62 / fourth tactile discontinuity 61), when the cover 40 is closed.
Regarding claim 19, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein each tactile discontinuity (i.e., first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 / second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 / third tactile discontinuity 62 / fourth tactile discontinuity 61) is an aperture. (page 4, line 33, “... openings...”).
Regarding claim 20, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, whereby the cover 40 is a lid.
Regarding claim 21, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) consumer product S3-01, wherein one or more additional tactile discontinuities (i.e., first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 / second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 / third tactile discontinuity 62 / fourth tactile discontinuity 61) are provided in the cover 40 the one or more additional tactile discontinuities (i.e., first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 / second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 / third tactile discontinuity 62 / fourth tactile discontinuity 61) being directly facing a corresponding specific portion (i.e., second specific portion S3-04 / first specific portion S3-05 / third specific portion S3-07) of sidewalls 2, 3, 4, 5 when the cover 40 is in the closed, at least one of the one or more additional tactile discontinuities (i.e., first tactile discontinuity 54, 56 / second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 / third tactile discontinuity 62 / fourth tactile discontinuity 61) being located on a flank (i.e., flanks S2-01) of the cover 40 opposite to another flank (i.e., flanks S2-01) on which the second tactile discontinuity 53, 55 is located.
Regarding claim 22, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) a method [albeit with different phraseology] to operate a locked consumer product S3-01, the method comprising:
unlocking the container S3-02 by grabbing the cover 40 with a first adult hand between a thumb of the first adult hand and one or more other fingers of the first adult hand, whereby the grabbing takes place across the top 41 of the cover 40, whereby fingertips of the thumb and of the one or more other fingers are simultaneously placed on the first and on the second tactile discontinuity 53-56, 61-62; and
opening the container S3-02 by rotating the pinched cover 40 away from the box 1 to expose the opening S3-03.
Regarding claim 24, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 22 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) a method to manipulate a locked consumer product S3-01 using a machine, the machine comprising a gripping device, the method comprising gripping the consumer product S3-01 by inserting the gripping device in the second tactile discontinuity 53, 55, whereby the gripping device has a profile matching a profile of the second tactile discontinuity 53, 55.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a machine to manipulate the locked consumer product S3-01 of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (via gripping with gripping device the second tactile discontinuity 53-56, 61-62) since it is held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 / III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHMIDT, in view of DIXON, in further view of DE WILDE, further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP2001315767A) hereinafter KAWAGUCHI.
Regarding claim 23, SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE (as applied to claim 22 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. SCHMIDT teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) method [albeit with different phraseology] to operate a locked consumer product S3-01, the method comprising locking the container S3-02.
SCHMIDT fails to teach the lock 27, 28, 29, 30 emitting a clicking sound upon locking.
However, KAWAGUCHI teaches (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2 below) a method [albeit with different phraseology] for locking a container 10, comprising the lock 21, 22 emitting a clicking sound (page 2, line 21, “... locking sound...”) upon locking for purposes of safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified lock 27, 28, 29, 30 in the consumer product S3-01 for the method of SCHMIDT, DIXON, and DE WILDE with the clicking sound of lock 21, 22 as taught in the method of KAWAGUCHI for purposes of safety.
PNG
media_image11.png
744
766
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
781
683
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-16, 18-24 in the reply filed July 30, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument(s) that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is/are based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bergeron et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20180273285A1): Teaches an “egg carton” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Thiolat (France Patent Application Publication FR3020349A1): Teaches a “box / cover” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Chadima (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20080054059A1): Teaches a “storing system” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Katsis (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2005102849A1): Teaches a “childproof package” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Vilas et al. (France Patent Application Publication FR2646830A1): Teaches a “self-lockable box” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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 D. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735