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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 6/3/2026 wherein claims 1-3, 5, 10, 12, 16-17, 20 and 23 were amended, claims 7-9, 15, 19 are cancelled, claims 24-25 are new. Claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 20-25 are pending.
Newly submitted claims 24 and 25 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 24 incorporates matter that was not previously considered in combination. For example, as stated under remarks filed 6/3/2026, the combination includes only portions of claims 16 and 17 further this does not include a detachably coupled attachment ring and the neck including an oblique surface as claimed in claim 1.
With respect to claim 25, the claim does not include subject matter of claim 1 such as the attachment ring being detachably connected to the neck or the neck including an oblique surface.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamma2 (see Chewy webpage attached) in view of Camp (US 20230122425 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gamma2 discloses a stackable container assembly, comprising: a first container (one of the containers of figure 1 Gamma2) having: an upper surface (figure 1 Gamma2 below), a lower surface (figure 1 Gamma2), a front surface (figure 1 Gamma2) extending between the upper surface and the lower surface, the front surface defining an opening configured to receive a lid; an attachment ring (figure 1 Gamma2) provided around the opening and detachably coupled to the neck (see note below), the attachment ring defining a ring opening; and the lid (Gamma2 figure 1) coupled to the attachment ring and received within the ring opening; a second container (the smaller container of Gamma2, see figure 2) having: an upper surface (figure 1 Gamma2 on smaller container below); a lower surface (figure 1 Gamma2 on smaller container) a front surface (figure 1 Gamma2 on smaller container) extending between the upper surface and the lower surface, the front surface defining an opening configured to receive a lid, a neck extending from the front surface, the neck forming an oblique angle with the front surface, the neck including the opening; an attachment ring (figure 1 Gamma2 on smaller container) provided around the opening and detachably coupled to the neck; and the lid (figure 1 Gamma2 on smaller container) coupled to the attachment ring and received within the ring opening.
Dilabee failed to disclose an upper surface with first, second, and third recessed areas; a lower surface with first and second projecting areas configured to couple with the first and third recessed areas of another first container; and an upper surface with fourth and fifth recessed areas; a lower surface with third and fourth projecting areas configured to align with the first and second recessed areas of the first container and align with the fourth and fifth recessed areas of another second container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Camp taught of a container that included first, second, third, fourth and fifth recessed areas (see annotated fig 86A and 86C below) and first, second, third, and fourth projecting areas (see annotated fig 86A and 86C below) in order to allow for stacking (page 1 [0002] and page 23 [0299]). 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 upper/lower surfaces of Dilabee to include a plurality of recesses and projections as taught by Camp in order to allow for stacking of multiple containers.
Examiner Note: The attachment ring as shown in Chewy Gamma2 appears to be removable. This further supported by the attached amazon weblink (attached) and replacement parts. Review images show placement of ring on the Gamma2 container. From the replacement parts, it is understood that the lid and attachment ring are replaceable features and therefore detachable.
Examiner Note: Webpage for Gamma2 is: https://www.chewy.com/gamma2-vittles-vault-stackable-pet/dp/4180366?utm_source=google-product&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=20207612288&utm_content=&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20211474655&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInPz1tpublgMVpHJHAR0yjyisEAQYASABEgKgOfD_BwE
PNG
media_image1.png
474
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
387
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
968
1888
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
406
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
688
604
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further teach wherein the first recessed area and the second recessed area are spaced apart from one another by a first distance, the first recessed area and the third recessed area are spaced apart from one another by a second distance that is greater than the first distance, and the lid of the first container is larger than the lid of the second container (as seen in figure 86C of Camps stacking features) and the lid of the first container is larger than the lid of the second container (see Gamma2 figure 3) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the first container includes a plurality of first containers that are stacked one on top of another with the first projecting area and the second projecting area of an upper one of the plurality of first containers fitted into the first and third recessed areas (stacking features identified in fig 86A-C of Camp) on the upper surface of an adjacent lower one of the plurality of first containers limiting relative movement between the upper one of the plurality of first containers and the lower one of the plurality of first containers. (stacking configuration evident in figure 86C of Camp) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the second projecting area of the upper one of the plurality of first containers includes at least one concaved area (446 of Camp) within the second projecting area and the lower one of the plurality of first containers includes at least one projection (456 of Camp) dimensioned to fit into the concaved area within the second projecting area further limiting relative movement between the upper one of the plurality of first containers and the lower one of the plurality of first containers. (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the third and fourth projecting areas of the second container are dimensioned and shaped to fit into the first and second recessed areas of the first container such that the second container is stacked on top of the first container (stacking features identified in 86A-C, stacking shown in figures 86A-C of Camp) with the third recessed area positioned forward of at least a portion of the front surface of the second container(see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale). With respect to the third recessed area it would be obvious to try a positioning in front of the front surface of the second container. The containers of Gamma2 are different sizes and the third recessed area is not required to mate with the second area.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further discloses wherein the first and second recessed areas of the first container include a pair of upwardly extending projections (456 of Camp) located proximate opposite ends of the first and second recessed areas, and the third and fourth projecting areas (fig 86A-86B of Camp) of the second container are dimensioned such that when inserted into the first and second recessed areas of the first container, the second container is prevented from moving in a lengthwise direction of the first and second recessed areas of the first container by the upwardly extending projections. (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose further comprising the another first container identical to the first container, the another first container being stacked on top of the first container with the first and second projecting areas of the another first container being fitted into the first and third recessed areas on the upper surface of the first container limiting relative movement between the another first container and the first container. (configuration can be understood by annotated figures 86A and 86B of Camp above, just consider the second container another one of the first container with the appropriate nomenclature, with these stacking features being placed on Gamma2). (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 10, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose further comprising wherein the second container is stacked on top of the another first container with the fourth and fifth projecting areas of the second container being fitted into the first and second recessed areas on the upper surface of the another first container limiting relative movement between the another first container and the second container. (configuration can be understood by annotated figures 86A and 86B above, other figures of Camp also show multiple stacking arrangements. This requires stacking of three identical containers and would be considered not novel under the guidelines established In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in which “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. Gamma2 further disclose wherein the neck includes an indentation (see Gamma2 figure 4 below) configured to accommodate a bottom corner of the first container.
PNG
media_image6.png
580
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations, except for wherein the first recessed area is disposed a first distance from the opening in the first container, the second recessed area is disposed a second distance from the opening in the first container, the third recessed area is disposed a third distance from the opening in the first container, the first distance is greater than the second distance, and the second distance is greater than the third distance. However, this orientation of would have been obvious to try as there are only a finite number of orientations (4) for placement of Camps projections on Dilabee. The claim language is met by three out of the four possible orientations; having the third recessed area closest to the opening and extend parallel to the opening, or having the opening orthogonal to the stacking features (can be visualized by opening on either long wall of Camp). The only orientation that doesn’t meet the claim language is having the opening closest to the first recessed area. It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the third recessed area closest to the opening since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. Either the opening is closest to the third recess or its closest to the first recess. Thus, making the opening closest to the third recessed area (causing the first distance to be greater than the second distance, and the second distance to be greater than the third distance) would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 13, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further discloses wherein the first projecting area is disposed the first distance from the center of the opening in the first container along the first direction and the second projecting area is disposed the third distance from the center of the opening in the first container along the first direction. (refer to claim 13 rejection above. These claim limitations are met by orientation of Camps stacking feature on Dilabees container. Specifically, having the opening closest to the third recessed area. See Camps figures above for distance.)
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein: the first recessed area defines a first pair of upwardly extending projections (456 portions labeled on Fig56C, herein known as 456 of Camp) located proximate opposite ends of the first recessed area. (See claim 1, above, for combination rationale).
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 17, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein: the fourth recessed area defines a fourth pair of upwardly (456 of Camp) extending projections located proximate opposite ends of the fourth recessed area; and the fifth recessed area defines a fifth pair of upwardly extending (456 of Camp) projections located proximate opposite ends of the fifth recessed area. (See claim 1, above, for combination rationale).
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations, Gamma2 further discloses wherein the lid of the first container is threadably coupled to the attachment ring of the first container, the lid of the second container is threadably coupled to the attachment ring of the second container; and the first container includes an O-ring (see questions section of attached webpage) located between the attachment ring and the lid, the O-ring configured to seal the attachment ring and the lid when the lid is received within the attachment ring.
With respect to claim 21, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose further comprising: a flat surface extending between the first projecting area and the second projecting area (see note below, stacking features of Camp show flat surfaces); wherein the first projecting area is vertically aligned with the first recessed area and the second projecting area is vertically aligned with the third recessed area (This relationship is best illustrated in figures 86A and 86C of Camp). (See claim 1, above, for combination rationale).
Examiner Note: There are multiple flat surfaces that exist between the first projecting area and the second projecting area of Camp, any of these features can be selected to meet the claim language.
With respect to claim 22, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein at least a portion of the lid of the second container is positioned above the upper surface of the second container. This configuration is seen in the orientation of the back most container of Gamma2 Figure 1.
With respect to claim 23, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein: the upper surface of the first container extends along a first plane (upper surface plane of figure 1 Gamma2); at least a portion of the front surface of the first container extends along a second plane (see note below); and the lid in the first container extends along a third plane (plane containing the lid flat surface Gamma2), the third plane intersecting the first plane at a first oblique angle and intersecting the second plane at a second oblique angle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 17 is objected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 16 (above). Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the third recessed area defines a third pair of upwardly extending projections (456 of Camp) located proximate opposite ends of the third recessed area; a first distance is defined from a first upwardly extending projection of the first pair of upwardly extending projections to a second upwardly extending projection of the first pair of upwardly extending projections; a third distance is defined from a first upwardly extending projection of the third pair of upwardly extending projections to a second upwardly extending projection of the third pair of upwardly extending projections: and the third distance is greater than the first distance.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20220242613-A1 OR US-20100006467-A1 OR US-20250108958-A1 OR US-20240351743-A1 OR US-20240150079-A1 OR US-20240067394-A1 OR US-20230078495-A1 OR US-20220097924-A1 OR US-20220099420-A1 OR US-20210221561-A1 OR US-20190352048-A1 OR US-20170275077-A1 OR US-20140251855-A1 OR US-20110155613-A1 OR US-20090014348-A1 OR US-20080047853-A1 OR US-20050098469-A1 OR US-20250108957-A1 OR US-20230122425-A1 OR US-10308394-B1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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 extension fee 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 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights