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 amendment filed 11/10/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Fig 1.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “lid retention tether” in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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) 1-2, 5, 12, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,040,602 to Talgo.
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 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.
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 17, Talgo further discloses the dispenser capable of performing the recited function since it has the structure as recited.
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 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talgo in view of US 2018/0127170 to Kasper et al. (Kasper).
Regarding claim 3, 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 US Patent No. 4,781,314 to Schoonover et al. (Schoonover).
Regarding claim 4, 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talgo in view of US 2015/0210446 to Wilkins et al. (Wilkins).
Regarding claim 6, Talgo teaches the dispenser of claim 1 but does not teach a lid retention tether. However, Wilkins discloses a dispenser (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a lid (124) having a lid retention tether (126). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a tether to the Talgo lid as suggested by Wilkins in order to keep the lid connected to the dispenser when removed from opening.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talgo in view of US Patent No. 4,658,975 to Cone.
Regarding claim 7, Talgo teaches the dispenser of claim 1 but does not teach an integrated recess. However, Cone discloses a dispenser (Fig 1) and in particular discloses the unitary body (10) comprising an integrated recess (16), the recess not configured to provide access to interior hollow storage cavity (19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an integrated recess to Talgo as suggested by Cone in order to facilitate handling.
Regarding claims 8-9, the modified Talgo teaches the dispenser of claim 7 but does not teach the recited dimensions of the recess. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions of the diameter and depth of the recess to that recited in order to facilitate handling 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 10, the modified Talgo further teaches the recess configured to receive an insert since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 14-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talgo.
Regarding claim 14-16, 18, Talgo teaches the dispenser of claim 1, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 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 attempts to cure the objection to the drawings by adding a lid retention tether as claimed. However, such an amendment is considered new matter since the original disclosure does not describe the structure or orientation of the tether as shown in the amended drawings.
In response to applicant's argument that Talgo is directed to a container for holding liquids and not solids, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights