DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims directed to a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-20 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. Regarding claim 1, there is no support in the original disclosure for upwardly oriented first opening and upwardly oriented integrated recess and thus it constitutes new matter. In particular, the original disclosure is silent regarding the positioning of the opening and recess.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, due to the lack of written description in the original disclosure, it is not clear what the term “upwardly oriented” is defined as. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the term “upwardly oriented”.
Regarding claims 8-10, the scope of the claims are unclear because they are dependent upon a cancelled claim.
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) 1-2, 5, 12, 14-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,040,602 to Talgo in view of US 2023/0048637 to Terry et al. (Terry).
Regarding claim 1, Talgo discloses a portable container and dispenser (Fig 1) comprising a container (10) capable of holding solid, the container comprising a three-dimensional unitary body comprising an outer surface, an inner surface, a first lateral side (A, Fig 1 below), a second lateral side (B, Fig 1 below), top side (C, Fig 1 below), bottom side (D, Fig 1 below) and wherein when viewed from lateral side, the unitary body is substantially “L”-shaped (Fig 1), wherein the unitary body comprising an upper substantially rectangular portion (20) and a lower substantially rectangular portion (22), an interior hollow storage cavity (26, Fig 3) substantially formed from inner surface of the body, wherein the interior cavity is disposed substantially through the unitary body (Fig 3), a upwardly oriented first opening (below 30, Fig 3) disposed on outer surface of the unitary body, wherein the first opening provides access to interior hollow storage cavity, a first lid docking station (40) adjacent the first opening, a grab handle (38) disposed on a front side of upper rectangular portion, a detachable lid (30) configured to removably secure to first lid docking station and lid docking station to accept the detachable lid, wherein the lid is configured to enclose the storage cavity (Fig 3). In particular, the container is capable of holding a solid since it has the structure as recited. Talgo does not teach an upwardly oriented integrated recess. Terry discloses a portable container and dispenser (Fig 1) and in particular discloses an upwardly oriented first opening (42) and an upwardly oriented integrated recess (47), the integrated recess is not configured to provide access to interior, hollow storage cavity (26). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an integrated recess to Talgo as suggested by Terry in order to dispose of a hand of a user when grasping the handle by hand (Terry, €0028).
PNG
media_image1.png
665
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Talgo further discloses first lid docking station (40) comprising a first external threads (42) and detachable lid (30) comprising first internal thread complementary to first external thread (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, Talgo further discloses the container and dispenser capable of being formed using blow molding since it has the structure as recited (col. 2, ll. 65-67). Note that product by process limitations are given little patentable weight and so long as prior art has the structure as recited, then it can be made by the process as recited.
Regarding claim 12, Talgo further discloses first opening disposed on top side (C, Fig 2 above) of the upper substantially rectangular portion (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 14-16, Talgo teaches the dispenser of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the recited dimensions of the unitary body. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions of the unitary body to that recited in order to facilitate dispensing since it has been held that limitations relating to size were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Talgo further discloses the dispenser capable of performing the recited function since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 18, Talgo teaches the dispenser of claim 17 but does not explicitly teach the recited dimensions of the unitary body. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions of the unitary body to that recited in order to facilitate dispensing since it has been held that limitations relating to size were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Talgo further discloses the dispenser capable of having the recited two alternative positions since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 20, Talgo further discloses the dispenser comprising at least one stabilizing element (50) on rear side of lower portion (22) of the unitary body (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talgo in view of Terry and US 2018/0127170 to Kasper et al. (Kasper).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Talgo teaches the dispenser of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach the threads continuous. However, Kasper discloses a dispenser (Fig 2) and in particular discloses detachable lid (45) and docking station (43) with continuous thread (47) (Fig 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the threads continuous in order to facilitate engagement.
Claim(s) 4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talgo in view of Terry and US Patent No. 4,781,314 to Schoonover et al. (Schoonover).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Talgo teaches the dispenser of claim 2 but does not teach a second lid docking station. However, Schoonover discloses a dispenser (Fig 1) and in particular discloses first (42) and second lid docking station (52), second lid docking station (52) comprising a second external thread which is complementary to a first internal thread of a detachable lid (50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a second lid docking station to Talgo as suggested by Schoonover in order to facilitate dispensing.
Regarding claim 11, Talgo teaches the container of claim 1 but does not teach a second opening. However, Schoonover discloses a dispenser (Fig 1) and in particular discloses first (42) and second lid docking station/opening (52), second lid docking station/opening (52) comprising a second external thread which is complementary to a first internal thread of a detachable lid (50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a second lid docking station/opening to Talgo as suggested by Schoonover in order to facilitate dispensing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach an upwardly oriented first opening and upwardly oriented integrated recess not configured to provide access to storage cavity. Assuming arguendo that applicant has support for the claimed recitation of an upwardly oriented first opening and integrated recess, applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Talgo discloses the opening (below 30) to be upwardly oriented and furthermore, Terry discloses both an upwardly oriented opening (42) and an upwardly oriented integrated recess (47) that is configured to provide access to storage cavity (26). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an integrated recess to Talgo as suggested by Terry in order to dispose of a hand of a user when grasping the handle by hand (Terry, €0028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 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 Stashick can be reached at (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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
