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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required:
In paragraph 0074, line 2, “Plunder Cap – 504” should read “Plunger Cap – 504.”
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because (***note that for convenience, paragraph references reflect the PG Pub version of the specification). :
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered:
“A magnetically activated Lock” (Claims 7, 9-10, 17, 19-20) (In this case, Key elements of a claimed locking capability are not given part numbers and are not shown in the drawings – See paragraph 0048 and 0074 of the specification – where a magnet (no part number) in a bottom of a container “…may repel the magnet (not identified by part number), depressing the spring (no part number, no drawing support), and pushing the magnet through a hole (no part number, no drawing support) in the screw threads (no drawing support), locking the cover in position (locking mechanism unclear), and preventing the top base 201 from being unscrewed from the container base 207.);
The drawings fail to show the following features, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d):
Para 0048: Driving Magnet, A Spring, Hole in Screw Threads, resulting in a locking action. (No part numbers for these key structure, no depiction in the drawings.)
Para 0074: Driving Magnet, A Spring, Hole in Screw Threads, resulting in a locking action. (No part numbers for these key structure, no depiction in the drawings.)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “a label side surface of rectangular shape” is interpreted to mean a side surface that is capable of receiving a label in all instances of occurrence (Starting in Claim 1). Looking to the specification, paragraph 0045, the side surface may or may not have a label, and many different modes of the application or printing of a label are covered in the specification.
The following terms are interpreted in light of the specification with the Examiner’s Interpretation added for clarity:
Claim 1 – “A label side surface” – a surface on the side of the container capable of receiving a label. (See Per MPEP 707.07 (f), paragraph 7.37.09; 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 primary reference has as side surface capable of receiving a label.
Claim 1 – “Cosmetic material in the void” - . (See Per MPEP 707.07 (f), paragraph 7.37.09; If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.). In this case, the primary reference has a void that is capable of receiving a cosmetic substance.
Claim 1 – “top directional magnet” and “bottom directional magnet” – Magnets – by their nature have poles. The poles have to be arranged in a way that results in the surfaces they are mounted on to attract towards each other. This force is known to be perpendicular to the general primary plane of the magnet.
Claim 1 – “first and second magnetic force alignment (paraphrase)” – see above, the poles of the magnet are arranged such that the magnets form an attraction force.
Claim 4 – “a plurality of correlated magnets” – a multiple magnet assembly that results in an attractive force between the upper and lower surfaces of stacked containers.
Claim 6 – “depressible surface” is interpreted to mean the top surface has a button structure to activate a pump in the vertical direction.
Claim 7 – “magnetically activated lock” – per paragraph 0074 – the container mechanism is locked when the intermediate surface (bottom or middle container) has a magnetically attached container on top – preventing actuation of a pump mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “a magnetically activated lock” is now shown in drawings or sufficiently described in the original disclosure. In this case, the “magnetically activated lock” does not show “a driving magnet, spring, hole in screw threads” that results in a locking mechanism that is clearly shown which results in an inability to determine the metes and bounds of the claim or to even examine the claim, since the structures that could perform those functions are not claimed, illustrated and defined in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerasani (US 20180368623 – hereafter referred to as Cerasani) in view of Gong et al. (WO 2022241407 – hereafter referred to as Gong). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for Cerasani follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
843
1440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram A
In regards to Claim 1, Cerasani teaches a cosmetic container (Cerasani – First Container – 102, Note that the preamble of a “cosmetic container” is a statement of intended use, and the preamble is not considered a limitation – per MPEP 2111.02, Section II.) comprising:
a square top surface (Top Wall – 158) (Paragraph 0035 describes the design choices that the container may take, including “…having other shapes, such as oval, elliptical, triangular , or square shapes…”) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.) with rounded corners; a label side surface (Side Wall – 132) of rectangular shape, with vertical edges that curve to adjacent sides; three other side surfaces of identical rectangular shape as the label side surface; a square bottom surface (Bottom Wall – 134) with rounded corners and recessed edges;
a void (Interior Space – 130) between the square top surface (Paragraph 0035 – Shape teaching), the label side surface (132) (Flows from having four side surfaces, one of which has a label applied), the three other side surfaces (Square container taught in Paragraph 0035), and the square bottom surface (134) (Paragraph 0035); cosmetic material (Intended use - Per MPEP 707.07 (f), paragraph 7.37.09 – the structure is present to perform the claimed function) in the void (130) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.);
where a top directional magnet (Lid Magnet - 168) is embedded in the square top surface (158) (Shape structure taught below) with a first magnetic force direction (Oriented towards the top – Annotated Diagram A, Item A1) relative to the label side surface (132) (Side Surface taught in modifying reference.) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.);
and where a bottom directional magnet (Cup Magnet – 140) is embedded in the square bottom surface (Bottom Wall – 134) (Shape structure taught below) with a second magnetic force direction (Oriented towards the bottom – Annotated Diagram A, Item A2) relative to the label side surface (Side Surface taught in modifying reference) positioned such that the first magnetic force direction (A1) and the second magnetic force direction (A2) are aligned (Interpreted as, the magnetic poles are arranged where the top and bottom surfaces attract each other.) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.).
Cerasani does not explicitly claim a container system that has a specific container structure and stacking features of a rectangularly shaped container with rounded corners that EXPLICITLY functions as a cosmetic storage system.
Gong – in a similar disclosure on stackable, modular container system capable of containing cosmetics with magnetic attachments elements – does teach the missing structural elements. See Examiner’s Annotated Diagram B for Gong that follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
836
1441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram B
Gong teaches a similar container system where the container shape has: a square top surface (Gong – Figure 3, Annotated Diagram B) with rounded corners (Figure 3); a label side surface (Body Side – 1220 – and Paragraph 0028) of rectangular shape (See Figure 1 of Annotated Diagram B, where shape is rectangular), with vertical edges that curve to adjacent sides (Figure 1, Diagram B); three other side surfaces (1220 of identical rectangular shape as the label side surface (Note – application of a label to a side surface does not generate a patentable difference to the structure of the container); a square bottom surface (Figure 1, Diagram B) with rounded corners and recessed edges (Annotated Diagram A, Item B that teaches recessed edges between bottom surface feature – B and top surface feature – 1240) and four side rectangular structures that create a void for storage of material – 1220 (MOTIVATION: improve a reusable medicine packaging with designs to improve organization, tracking and storage of the container – Paragraph 0004.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the container of Cerasani with the shape structure of Gong, providing the rectangular – square top surface – rounded corners, motivated by the benefit of improving organization, tracking and stacking capabilities of containers – Paragraph 0004.
In regards to Claim 8, Cerasani – as modified above – teaches a container assembly (100): where the square top surface (158) is detachable from the label side surface (132) and the three other side surfaces (132), exposing the void (130).
In regards to Claim 9, Cerasani – as modified above – teaches a container assembly (100): where the square top surface (158) has a screw portion (Threads – 136) formed at an outer peripheral edge (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 4 where 136 is at the outer peripheral edge of the container, meeting this limitation.).
In regards to Claim 11, Cerasani teaches a stack of cosmetic containers (Cerasani, Container Assembly – 100 and NOTE THAT the preamble of a “cosmetic container” is a statement of intended use, and the preamble is not considered a limitation – per MPEP 2111.02, Section II.) comprising: a first cosmetic container (Container – 102 and Figure 1 of Diagram A) comprising:
a square top surface (Top Wall – 158) with rounded corners (Paragraph 0035 describes the design choices that the container may take, including “.having other shapes, such as oval, elliptical, triangular, or square shapes…”); a label side surface (Side Wall – 132) (Side surface capable of receiving a label) of rectangular shape, with vertical edges that curve to adjacent sides (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.); three other side surfaces of identical rectangular shape as the label side surface; a square bottom surface (Bottom Surface – 134) with rounded corners and recessed edges; a void (Interior Space – 130) between the square top surface (158), the label side surface (132), the three other side surfaces, and the square bottom surface (Bottom Wall – 134); cosmetic material in the void (Interior Space – 130) (Intended use - Per MPEP 707.07 (f), paragraph 7.37.09 – the structure is present to perform the claimed function);
where a top directional magnet (Lid Magnet – 168) is embedded in the square top surface (Top Wall - 158) with a first magnetic force direction (Annotated Diagram A, Item A1) relative to the label side surface (Peripheral Wall -132); and where a bottom directional magnet (Cup Magnet – 140) is embedded in the square bottom surface (Bottom Wall – 134) with a second magnetic force direction (Diagram A, Item A2) relative to the label side surface (132) positioned such that the first magnetic force direction (A1) and the second magnetic force direction (A2) are aligned (Interpreted as, the magnetic poles are arranged where the top and bottom surfaces attract each other.) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.);
and a second cosmetic container (Container -104 in Figure 1) (NOTE THAT the same structures in the container set – 100, will receive the same part number with a ‘ annotation – e.g. – Top Surface – 158’) comprising: a second square top surface (Top Surface – 158’) with the rounded corners (Paragraph 0035 describes the design choices that the container may take, including “…having other shapes, such as oval, elliptical, triangular , or square shapes…”) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.), the second square top (Top Wall – 158’) surface magnetically attached to the square bottom surface (Bottom Wall – 134’); a second label side surface (132’) of the rectangular shape, with vertical edges that curve to second adjacent sides (132’); second three other side surfaces of second identical rectangular shape as the second label side surface; a second square bottom surface (134’) NOT EXPLICTLY TAUGHT (with the rounded corners and the recessed edges) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.);;
a second void (130’) between the second square top surface (158’), the second label side surface (132’), the second three other side surfaces (132’), and the second square bottom surface (134’); second cosmetic material in the second void (130’) (Intended use - Per MPEP 707.07 (f), paragraph 7.37.09 – the structure is present to perform the claimed function) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.);;
where a second top directional magnet (168’) is embedded in the second square top surface (158’) with the first magnetic force direction (A1’) relative to the second label side surface (132’); and where a second bottom directional magnet (140’) is embedded in the second square bottom surface (134’) with the second magnetic force direction (A2’) relative to the second label side surface (132’) positioned such that the first magnetic force direction (A1) and the second magnetic force direction (A2) are aligned, and the label side surface (132) and the second label side surface (132’) are aligned (See Figure 1 of Annotated Diagram A, where the label surfaces are vertically aligned.) (NOTE THAT: SHAPE DEPENDANT STRUCTURES CLAIMED FOR THE CONTAINER ARE TAUGHT BY THE MODIFYING REFERENCE BUT ARE A MATTER OF DESIGN CHOICE.);.
Cerasani does not explicitly claim a container system that has a specific container structure and stacking features of a rectangularly shaped container with rounded corners that EXPLICITLY functions as a cosmetic storage system.
Gong – in a similar disclosure on stackable, modular container system capable of containing cosmetics with magnetic attachments elements – does teach the missing structural elements. See Examiner’s Annotated Diagram B for Gong annotations.
Gong teaches a similar container system where the container shape has: a square top surface (Gong – Figure 3, Annotated Diagram B) with rounded corners (Figure 3); a label side surface (Body Side – 1220 – and Paragraph 0028) of rectangular shape (See Figure 1 of Annotated Diagram B, where shape is rectangular), with vertical edges that curve to adjacent sides (Figure 1, Diagram B); three other side surfaces (1220 of identical rectangular shape as the label side surface (Note – application of a label to a side surface does not generate a patentable difference to the structure of the container); a square bottom surface (Figure 1, Diagram B) with rounded corners and recessed edges (Annotated Diagram A, Item B that teaches recessed edges between bottom surface feature – B and top surface feature – 1240) and four side rectangular structures that create a void for storage of material – 1220 (MOTIVATION: improve a reusable medicine packaging with designs to improve organization, tracking and storage of the container – Paragraph 0004.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the container of Cerasani with the shape structure of Gong, providing the rectangular – square top surface – rounded corners, motivated by the benefit of improving organization, tracking and stacking capabilities of containers – Paragraph 0004.
In regards to Claim 18, Cerasani teaches a stack of cosmetic containers (Cerasani, Container Assembly – 100 and NOTE THAT the preamble of a “cosmetic container” is a statement of intended use, and the preamble is not considered a limitation – per MPEP 2111.02, Section II.) where the second square top surface (158’) is detachable from the second label side surface (132’) and the second three other side surfaces (132’), exposing the second void (130’) (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 2 where this configuration is illustrated.).
In regards to Claim 19, Cerasani teaches a stack of cosmetic containers (Cerasani, Container Assembly – 100 and NOTE THAT the preamble of a “cosmetic container” is a statement of intended use, and the preamble is not considered a limitation – per MPEP 2111.02, Section II.) where the second square top surface (158’) has a second screw portion (136’) formed at an outer peripheral edge (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 4 where 136 is at the outer peripheral edge of the container, meeting this limitation.). .
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerasani in view of Gong et al. (WO 2022241407 – hereafter referred to as Gong) and in further view of Moore (US 20170057694 – hereafter referred to as Moore.). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram C for Moore follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
801
1448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram C
In regards to Claim 2 and 12 (Same limitations, Similar Dependencies), the container system of Cerasani – as modified in the parent claim – teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Cerasani – as previously modified – does not teach different shapes or arrangements of magnets with the directional magnets (168 and 140).
Moore – in a similar disclosure on directional magnets does teach using shapes, arrangements and arrays of magnets, including where the top directional magnet comprises two flat rectangular magnets (Moore, Magnet Shapes covered in Paragraph 0023.) embedded in the square top surface at a right angle to each other (Moore, Magnet arrays are taught and discussed in paragraph 0024.) (MOTIVATION: To improve magnetically coupled containers – Paragraph 0017.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the Magnetic Connection Shape and Array of Cerasani, providing use and configuration of connection magnetic structures taught by Moore (Paragraph 0023 and 0024 for various magnet shapes and arrays), motivated by the benefit of providing improved magnetically coupled containers – Paragraph 0017. Moreover, simple substitution of a known element (Single magnet connection means) for another (Use of different magnet shapes and arrays of magnets – per Annotated Diagram C, Figures 1-3, Figures 6-7.) with a predictable result (attachment structures for stackable containers) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Further, MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, Part C states that the particular placement of parts with respect to each other is a matter of design choice (In this case, the magnets would be arranged so that the poles of the magnets attract each other – to meet the claimed connection function.). See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
In regards to Claim 3 and 13 (Same limitations, Similar Dependencies), the container system of Cerasani – as modified in the parent claim – teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Cerasani – as previously modified – does not teach different shapes or arrangements of magnets with the directional magnets (168 and 140).
Moore – in a similar disclosure on directional magnets does teach using shapes, arrangements and arrays of magnets, including where the top directional magnet is a semicircular magnet (Moore, Paragraph 0023-0024). (MOTIVATION: To improve magnetically coupled containers – Paragraph 0017.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the Magnetic Connection Shape and Array of Cerasani, providing use and configuration of connection magnetic shapes taught by Moore (Paragraph 0023 and 0024 for various magnet shapes and arrays), motivated by the benefit of providing improved magnetically coupled containers – Paragraph 0017. Moreover, simple substitution of a known element (Single magnet connection means) for another (Use of different magnet shapes and arrays of magnets – per Annotated Diagram C, Figures 1-3, Figures 6-7.) with a predictable result (attachment structures for stackable containers) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 4 and 14 (Same limitations, Similar Dependencies), Cerasani teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Cerasani – as previously modified – does not teach different shapes or arrangements of magnets with the directional magnets (168 and 140).
Moore – in a similar disclosure on directional magnets does teach using shapes, arrangements and arrays of magnets, including where the top directional magnet comprises a plurality of correlated magnets (Moore, Paragraphs 0028 and 0029 – talk of using a plurality of correlated magnets, where correlated is interpreted to means magnets that attract each other.) (Moore, Paragraph 0023-0024 – use of different magnet shapes.). (MOTIVATION: To improve magnetically coupled containers – Paragraph 0017.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the groups of magnets and Array of Cerasani, providing use and configuration of groups of magnetic shapes taught by Moore (Paragraph 0028-0029, multiple magnets on a connection surface), motivated by the benefit of providing improved magnetically coupled containers – Paragraph 0017. Moreover, simple substitution of a known element (Magnetic connection means) for another (Use of different magnet shapes and arrays of magnets – per Annotated Diagram C, Figures 1-3, Figures 6-7 and Paragraph 0028-0029.) with a predictable result (attachment structures for stackable containers) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerasani in view of Gong et al. (WO 2022241407 – hereafter referred to as Gong) and in further view of Ahmad (US 11930945 – hereafter referred to as Ahmad.).
In regards to Claim 5 and 15 (Same limitations, Similar Dependencies), Cerasani – as modified above – teaches all the limitations of the parent claim, including a void (130), square top surface (158) and top directional magnet (168).
Cerasani – as previously modified – does not teach a removable metallic spatula that is held by a magnet.
Ahamad does teach: a removable plastic scoop with magnets for attaching to the interior of a container lid (Ahmad – Column 3, Lines 62-Column 4, Line 2) (MOTIVATION: to improve accessibility and retention of scoops for use is a product requirement measurement – Column 1, Lines 62-67.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the Container System of Cerasani (100), providing scoop storing structure of Ahmad (Ahmad – Column 3, Lines 62-Column 4, Line 2), motivated by the benefit of improving the accessibility and retention of scoops for use is a product requirement measurement – Column 1, Lines 62-67. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (utensils retained in lids of dispensing containers) according to known methods (Magnetic fasteners) to yield predictable results (securing utensil in container) is rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerasani in view of Gong et al. (WO 2022241407 – hereafter referred to as Gong) and in further view of Brugger (US20160279653 – hereafter referred to as Brugger.).
In regards to Claim 6 and 16 (Same limitations, Similar Dependencies), Cerasani – as modified above – teaches all the limitations of the parent claim, including a top surface (158).
Cerasani – as modified above – does not teach a depressible surface pump.
Brugger – in a similar disclosure on containers – does teach a pump top surface (Push Button Base – 76) that is part of the previously taught upper surface of the container (in this case – Brugger has a surface at 78 – Lower end): where the previously taught square top surface comprises a depressible surface (76), the depressible surface activating a pump (Push Button – 3, where pump function is described in Paragraph 0003) (Motivation: improve axial activation of the dispensing function – Paragraph 0007.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the Container System of Cerasani (100), providing pump dispensing structure of Brugger (Push Button – 3, flush with lower surface – 78 and depressible surface – 76). Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Push Button dispensing in containers) according to known methods (Dispensing in a direction and from a surface that meets design requirements) to yield predictable results (push button dispensing from the top surface of the container) is rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 7 and 17 (Same limitations, Similar Dependencies), Cerasani – as modified above – teaches all the limitations of the parent claim, including where the depressible surface (76) further comprises a magnetically activated lock (See 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), 112(a) and 112 (b) rejections above.) The current claim – as structured and described in the specification and drawings does not allow this claim to be examined.
In regards to Claim 10 and 20 (Same limitations, Similar Dependencies), Cerasani – as modified above – teaches all the limitations of the parent claim, including where the screw portion (Cerasani – 136) further comprises a magnetically activated lock. (See 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), 112(a) and 112 (b) rejections above.) The current claim – as structured and described in the specification and drawings does not allow this claim to be examined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seidler (US 6831541) teaches Figures 1-7 with magnet arrays for closing as well as general features relevant to the scope and structure of the claimed invention.
Reyes (US 20140069915) teaches Figures 1-5 with magnet arrays and magnet shapes as design configuration options as well as general features relevant to the scope and structure of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John M. Hoppmann whose telephone number is (571) 272-7344. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOHN MARTIN HOPPMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 6 April 2026
Prosecution Insights