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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h)(3) because the plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 40 of figure 2 is not directed to the hole as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 26 of figure 2 is not directed to the top surface as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 26 of figure 4 is not directed to the top surface as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 24 of figure 10 is not directed to the inner lid as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 124 of figure 5 is not directed to the cavity as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 118 of figure 5 is not directed to the finger as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 122 of figure 5 is not directed to the protruding boss as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 72 of figure 11 is not directed to the cavity as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 70 of figure 5 does not depict a thickness as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with reference character 112 of figure 3 is not directed to the bosses as disclosed. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(t) because the sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, within the sight as defined in paragraph (g) of this section. These numbers, if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. The numbers can be placed on the right-hand side if the drawing extends too close to the middle of the top edge of the usable surface. The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 144, 142, 136.
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 circular sealing ring being positioned at the intersection of the lower surface and the downwardly extending wall of the inner lid of claim 6, the shaped protrusion or outward ramp on the top surface of claim 11, the latch pressing against the opposing set of side walls in the circumferentially spaced grooves of claim 12 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: figure 10A is not present in the brief description of the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification includes figure 12 which is not present in the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “24” has been used to designate inner lid, vertical wall, inner, lower lid, and button body.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: snap-on of claim 4.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 17 not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a circular button” of line 16 should be corrected to “the circular button”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “thru” should be corrected to “through”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an inner lid” of line 20 should be corrected to “the inner lid”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the circumferentially spaced retaining protrusions” of line 5 should be corrected to “the circumferentially retaining protrusions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the container that said first sealing point”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the desiccant backet” of line 2 should be corrected to “the desiccant basket”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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 1-10 and 12 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of mechanical attachment coupling to a standard container. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of coupling to a flexible retaining ring. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation of claim 12 of “the latch pressing against the opposing set of side walls of in the circumferentially spaced grooves” fails to comply with the enablement requirement. How can the latch contact both opposing side walls of a groove when the cap is rotated in one circumferential direction? When rotating clockwise the latch would press against the sidewall in the clockwise direction and when rotating counterclockwise the latch would press against the sidewall in the counterclockwise direction. As the latch must move outwardly to fit within a groove, the width of the latch must be less than the width of the groove such that contact with both sidewalls is not possible. The Wands factors of MPEP 2164.01(a) have been considered. Based upon the state of the prior art presented in the attached PTO-892, the level of ordinary skill in the art presented in those references, the level of predictability (strong in the mechanical arts), and the amount of direction provided (as presented above), the quantity of experimentation needed to make the claimed invention commensurate in scope with the claims is undue.
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 1-16 and 18-23 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation at least one rigid finger, and the claim also recites the rigid finger which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The limitation of claim 1 of “means of a mechanical attachment coupling to a standard container” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification does not even state the claimed function of mechanical attachment coupling to a standard container. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the mechanical attachment coupling to a standard container. The use of the term means is not adequate structure for performing the mechanical attachment coupling function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect mechanical attachment coupling. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The limitation of claim 1 of “a circumferentially retaining protrusions has a mechanical means of coupling to a flexible retaining ring” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification does not state the claimed function of coupling to a flexible retaining ring. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently on the circumferentially retaining protrusions, to perform the coupling. The use of the term mechanical means is not adequate structure for performing the coupling to a flexible retaining ring function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect coupling. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner surface" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is led to be indefinite as it recites both “the downwardly extending wall extends downwards creating an internal cavity” and “the downwardly extending wall of the internal cavity”. It is unclear which is a sub component of the other.
Claim 1 is led to be indefinite as the limitation of “defined on the exterior surface with a circumferentially retaining protrusions has a mechanical means of coupling to a flexible retaining ring” is unclear. What has the mechanical means of coupling? It appears that the circumferentially retaining protrusions are capable of mechanically coupling to a flexible retaining ring.
Claims 2-4 recites the limitation "the child-resistant lid container" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the shaped protrusion" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the latch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the upper surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “fine” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Mesh is led to be indefinite by usage of the term fine.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the base surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sealed medicine container assembly" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the desiccant package" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the base surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the means to engage the rigid finger is a newly recited structure or refers back to the means to engage each rigid finger of claim 1. The claim will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 6 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear which internal cavity is being referred to at line 2. The claim will be interpreted as if it were the internal cavity of the inner lid.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the inner surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the intersection" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lower surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the inside circular surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 6 is drawn to the sub-combination of a child-resistant cap assembly only, for use with some container, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a child-resistant cap assembly and a container. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 6 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 3-5, requiring the circular sealing ring be constantly pressed against the inside circular surface of the container). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the container is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the container are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 6 is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said first sealing point" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outside atmosphere" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the medicine container assembly" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lower lid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the lower lid is a newly recited structure or refers back to the inner lid of claim 1.
Claims 7-8 recite the limitation "the child-resistant packaging container" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the rim" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the container" in lines 2 and 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said second sealing point" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the medicine container assembly" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the upper lid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the upper lid is a newly recited structure or refers back to the outer lid of claim 1.
Claim 8 is led to be indefinite as “the upper lid can rotate radially around the x-axis” is unclear. Is the upper lid rotating about an axis that extends radially? In light of the original disclosure it appears that the upper lid can rotate circumferentially about the x-axis.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the x-axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the medicine container is a newly recited structure, refers back to the container, or refers back to the child-resistant packaging container.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the markings" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 11 is drawn to the sub-combination of a child-resistant cap assembly only, for use with some packaging container, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a child-resistant cap assembly and a packaging container. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 11 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on line 2, requiring the child-resistant cap assembly be connected to a packaging container, and the structural limitation on lines 26-27, requiring the female fastening interfacing with male fastening on the container). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the packaging container is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the packaging container are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 11 is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the vertical wall" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the x-axis" in lines 16 and 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation a least one latch, and the claim also recites the latch which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term “effortless” in claim 11is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effortless” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term movement has been rendered indefinite by usage of the term effortless. What may be considered effortless to one (adult male) would not be considered effortless to another (child). Additionally, usage of the term effortless raises the question of breaking the laws of nature as this could be interpreted as require zero effort (or force) to move. Examiner suggests striking “effortless”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the downwardly extending wall" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the downwardly extending wall is a newly recited structure or refers back to a vertical wall of the inner lid, or a vertical wall of the outer lid.
Claim 11 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if a latch of line 25 is a newly recited structure or refers back to the at least one latch.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the inner surface" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the circular button" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the x-axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation of claim 12 of “a tip of the latch to move outwardly and radially by the shaped protrusion protruding into the circumferentially spaced grooves” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if the tip of the latch of the shape protrusion is protruding into the grooves.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the opposing set of side walls" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the child-resistant cap" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation at least one latch slot, and the claim also recites the latch slot which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “sliding into an opposing side wall of the circumferentially spaced grooves of the outer lid”. Does the latch enter the opposing side wall? Does the latch contact the opposing side wall?
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the desiccant element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the inner cap assembly" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the x-axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation at least one latch, and the claim also recites the latch which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the rigid finger" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation at least one latch slot, and the claim also recites the latch slot which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if a vertical wall is a newly described structure or refers back to the downwardly extending wall of claim 18. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 19 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if a wall is a newly described structure or refers back to the downwardly extending wall of claim 18. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the underside" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the flexible retaining protrusions" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the exterior surface" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the x-axis" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the flexible retaining protrusions are a newly recited structure or refer to the circumferentially spaced retaining protrusions.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first bottom edge" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the vertical wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the vertical wall is a newly described structure or refers back to the downwardly extending wall of claim 18. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the tip of the rigid finger is a newly recited structure or refers back to the tip of the latch of claim 18.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the exterior surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the X axis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation of claim 21 of “thereby retracting backward into the latch slot that said a child-safety feature” is led to be indefinite. Initially, it is unclear what is being retracted backward. From the disclosure it appears the tip retracts backwards, however reading the claim it appears to indicate that the outer lid be retracted backwards. Additionally, “that said a child-safety feature” cannot be deciphered or understood.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the curved tip" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the curved tip of the rigid finger is a newly recited structure or refers back to the tip of the latch of claim 18.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the exterior surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the X axis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the cap assembly" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the container refers back to the child-resistant packaging container of claim 18 or to a newly recited container which is capable of assembly with the child-resistant packaging container.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the curved tip" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the curved tip of the rigid finger is a newly recited structure or refers back to the tip of the latch of claim 18.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the activate button" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the activate button is a newly recited structure or refers back to the activate button body of claim 18.
The limitation of claim 23 of “wherein the curved tip of the rigid finger has a longer edge and a short edge extended into the circumferentially spaced grooves when pressed on the activate button” is led to be indefinite. Does the curved tip press on the activate button? The limitation will be interpreted as if the curved tip of the rigid finger has a longer edge and a short edge which are configured to extend into the circumferentially spaced grooves when the activate button body is pressed.
The claims are replete with indefiniteness issues. The Examiner has made an effort to address each instance, however due to the numerous issues the analysis may not be exhaustive.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 fails to further limit claim 1 from which it depends because every limitation of claim 9 is optional. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13-16, and 18-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 102283157, US 20190127139, and DE 202015101020 are considered pertinent to push buttons with fingers, EP 0609955 and US 3181718 are considered pertinent to pushing downwards to moving arms out of engagement, US 5114029, US 4832218, and US 4729487 are considered pertinent to pushing down to engage for removal, and US 3696955 and US 3430796 are considered pertinent to ramps that move arms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736