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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Arp et al. (US-4643303-A).
Arp discloses:
1. A system (10) for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials, the system comprising: a first portion (26) of a housing; a second portion (12) of the housing detachably coupled to the first portion of the housing; and a structural element (56) positioned within an internal cavity of the second portion, wherein the structural element comprises :a floor comprising a first surface and an opposing second surface (Fig. 4); a first wall (88) projecting upwardly from the first surface of the floor; and a second wall (90) projecting upwardly from the first surface of the floor, wherein the first surface of the floor and the first and second wall partially enclose a channel (Fig. 4), wherein the first wall and the second wall each comprise: a thick region (raised portion adjacent to 94) including a first end, an opposing second end, a height, and a width; and a first thin region (at 94) including a first end, an opposing second end, a height, and a width, wherein the first end of the thick region is joined to the first end of the first thin region, wherein the height of the thick region is greater than the height of the first thin region, wherein the width of the thick region is greater than the width of the first thin region (Fig. 4).
4. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 1, wherein the first wall and the second wall each comprise: a second thin region (at 94) including a first end, a second end, a height, and a width, wherein the second end of the thick region is joined to the second end of the second thin region, wherein the height of the thick region is greater than the height of the second thin region, wherein the width of the thick region is greater than the width of the second thin region (Fig. 4).
5. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 4, wherein the first wall and the second wall each comprise: a first end cap joined to the second end of the first thin region; and a second end cap joined to the first end of the second thin region (side walls at 68), wherein a height of the first end cap and a height of the second end cap are equal (Fig. 4).
6. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 5, wherein each of the thin regions comprise: an inner surface connected to an outer surface by a top surface, wherein the top surface is perpendicular to the inner surface and the outer surface; and a curved surface (95) connecting the outer surface of each of the thin regions to the second surface of the floor (col. 5, lines 31-37).
7. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 6, wherein the first wall and the second wall each comprise a single and contiguous inner surface spanning the first end cap, the first thin region, the thick region, the second thin region, and the second end cap along a single plane (Fig. 4).
8. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 1, wherein the first wall comprises a first recess (95) and the second wall comprises a second recess (95).
14. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the housing further comprises: a planar element (14) having an interior surface and an opposing exterior surface bounded by a perimeter; and a wall (16) projecting away from the planar element and joined to the perimeter of the planar element.
15. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 14, wherein the first portion (26) of the housing further comprises: a planar element having an interior surface and an opposing exterior surface bounded by a perimeter; and a wall projecting away from the planar element and joined to the perimeter of the planar element (Fig. 1).
16. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 15, wherein the wall of the second portion comprises: a thick region (16) having an exterior surface and an interior surface, wherein the interior surface of the thick region meets an interior surface of the planar element at a seam; a thin region (Fig. 2, at bottom edge) joined to the thick region, wherein the thin region has an exterior surface and shares the interior surface with the thick region; and a lip connecting the exterior surface of the thick region with the exterior surface of the thin region, wherein a top surface joins the interior surface with the exterior surface of the thin region (Fig. 2).
17. The system for safely storing sharp or hazardous materials of claim 16, wherein the wall of the first portion comprises: a thick region (side wall of 26) having an exterior surface and an interior surface, wherein the interior surface of the thick region meets an interior surface of the planar element at a seam; a thin region (at bottom edge) joined to the thick region, wherein the thin region has an interior surface and shares the exterior surface with the thick region; and a lip connecting the interior surface of the thick region with the interior surface of the thin region, wherein a top surface joins the interior surface of the thin region with the exterior surface (Fig. 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(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arp in view of Koch (US-20150033680-A1).
Arp fails to teach wherein the system further comprises an elongated restrictive element, wherein the elongated restrictive element spans across the channel and a first portion of the elongated restrictive element is positioned within the first recess and a second portion of the elongated restrictive element is positioned within the second recess, wherein the elongated restrictive element forms a contiguous loop and is in physical contact with at least two curved surfaces.
Koch teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a storage container with an elongated restrictive element (28), wherein the elongated restrictive element spans across a channel and a first portion of the elongated restrictive element is positioned within a first recess and a second portion of the elongated restrictive element is positioned within a second recess, wherein the elongated restrictive element forms a contiguous loop and is in physical contact with at least two curved surfaces (Figs. 3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the system with a restrictive element, in order to secure instruments during transport.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arp and Koch in view of Nemard (US-20130277262-A1).
Arp fails to teach wherein the elongated restrictive element comprises an elastic band and is rigid.
Nemard teaches that it is known in the art to a restrictive element as an elastic band (col. 3, lines 3-5) that is rigid (the band can maintain its shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the system with an elastic restrictive element, in order to secure different instruments and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arp in view of Grant (US-6302271-B1).
Arp fails to teach wherein the lip of the second portion abuts the top surface of the first portion and the exterior surface of the thin region of the second portion abuts the interior surface of the thin region of the first portion.
Grant teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container system wherein a lip of the second portion abuts a top surface of a first portion and an exterior surface of a thin region (at 42) of a second portion abuts the interior surface of a thin region (at 40) of a first portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the system with the connection structure taught by Grant, in order to secure the portions together and since such a modification would be the use of a known connection arrangement.
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arp and Grant in view of Cutter (US-11427385-B1).
Arp discloses wherein the structural element is coupled to the planar element of the second portion of the housing (Fig. 2), but fails to teach a groove extending along the lip of the second portion, wherein an O-ring resides within the groove, and wherein the structural element is coupled to the planar element of the second portion of the housing using one or more clips, a weld, or an adhesive
Grant teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container system wherein component are secured together by adhesive (col. 3, lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the system with the connection structure taught by Grant, in order to secure the portions together and since such a modification would be the use of a known connection structures.
Cutter teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container system with a groove and O-ring (Fig. 8, 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the system with a groove and O-ring, in order seal certain parts of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the structure o Arp is not even remotely close to a first wall and second wall, the applicant is reminded that the claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broad recitation of walls is met by the structure of Arp.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the recess is Arp is being relied on to teach the partially enclosed channel and the wall structure, tis is not the case in the current rejection. The wall structure is taught by the physical walls of Arp and the absence of material is where the channel is partially defined. The structure of Arp reads on the walls and channel as currently claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the features or Arp are for a different purpose, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structure of Arp reads on the currently claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733