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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15, 16 and 18-20 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. The claims are considered vague and indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim 15 recites that “the outer surface being flush between the shell and the outer lower overmold” on lines 19-20, however, the outer surface is an element of the shell. It is unclear how the outer surface can be flush between the shell and the overmold when the outer surface is part of the shell.
The dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swett (U.S. 3,391,816) in view of Laurent (WO 2020216960A1) and Fukuda (JP 05124642A). Swett teaches a container assembly 10 having a movable divider, shown in figure 1, comprising a container body 11 having first and second opposing side walls 17, first and second opposing end walls 18, and a bottom wall 15 to define a cavity (figure 1), wherein the first and second opposing side walls 17 have a top and a bottom, wherein the first and second opposing end walls 18 have a top and a bottom, wherein the bottom wall 15 is adjacent the bottom of the first and second opposing side walls and the bottom of the first and second opposing end walls (figure 1), wherein an opening to the cavity is provided adjacent the top of the first and second opposing side walls and the top of the first and second opposing end walls (figure 1), a lid 13 that can seal against the top of the first and second opposing side walls and the top of the first and second opposing end walls to close the cavity (figure 2), and, a moveable divider 12 having first and second ends, a top and a bottom (figure 1), wherein the divider has a rigid inner member 20 and an outer seal member 22, 23, wherein the divider has an offset 23 that mates with the side walls of the container body, wherein the divider is sized such that the divider can be placed vertically in the container body (figure 1), with the bottom of the divider adjacent the bottom wall of the container body and the first and second ends of the divider adjacent the opposing side walls of the container body, and stay in place due to compression by the outer seal member at the first and second ends of the divider against the opposing side walls of the container body (figure 1).
Swett discloses the claimed invention except for the outer seal extending parallel to the rigid inner member and except for the offset. Laurent teaches that it is known to provide a moveable divider with an outer seal member that extends parallel to the rigid inner member (see elements 13 and 15; figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Swett with the outer seal member extending parallel to the rigid inner member, as taught by Laurent, in order to simplify construction, by providing a divider with a less complicated shape, and to provide the moveable divider which improved connection with the container about the entire perimeter.
Fukuda teaches that it is known to provide a container with an offset (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of Swett with the walls having an offset, as taught by Fukuda, in order to prevent slipping of the partition. As shown at lead lines 3 and 4 of Fukuda, the offset is step shaped.
Regarding claim 2, the divider is sized such that the divider can be placed vertically in the container body anywhere between the first and second opposing side walls and stay in place due to the compression by the outer seal member at the first and second ends of the divider against the opposing side walls of the container body (figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, the outer seal member comprises a wiper seal (as modified by Laurent above; element 15 of Laurent).
Regarding claim 4, the inner member of the divider is generally planar 20.
Regarding claim 7, the outer seal member extends about an entirety of a periphery of the divider (as modified by Laurent).
Regarding claim 8, the outer seal member at the top of the divider sealingly engages an inner surface of the lid when the lid is secured to the container body (as modified by Laurent).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swett (U.S. 3,391,816) ) in view of Laurent (WO 2020216960A1) and Fukuda (JP 05124642A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. 2022/0212839).
Regarding claim 5, the modified container of Swett discloses the claimed invention except for the pivotable retention flaps. Zhang et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with pivotable retention flaps (see element 2; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of Swett with the pivotable retention flaps, as taught by Zhang et al., in order to lock the lid onto the container in a manner that prevents accidental removal.
Regarding claim 9, the modified container of Swett discloses the claimed invention except for the notches of the divider. Zhang et al. teaches that it is known to provide a divider with notches (see figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of Swett with the notches, as taught by Zhang et al., in order to prevent interference with the locking feature of the lid.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swett (U.S. 3,391,816) ) in view of Laurent (WO 2020216960A1) and Fukuda (JP 05124642A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inskeep et al. (U.S. 2008/0017537). The modified container of Swett discloses the claimed invention except for the overmold. Inskeep et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with an overmold (see paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of Swett with the overmold, as taught by Inskeep et al., in order to provide slip resistance, as disclosed in Inskeep et al.
Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swett (U.S. 3,391,816) in view of Laurent (WO 2020216960A1) and Pehar et al. (U.S. 2020/0095029).
Regarding claim 15, Swett teaches a container assembly 10 having a movable divider, comprising a container body 11 having first and second opposing side walls 17, first and second opposing end walls 18, and a bottom wall 14 to define a cavity, wherein the first and second opposing side walls have a top and a bottom, wherein the first and second opposing end walls have a top and bottom, wherein the bottom wall is adjacent the bottom of the first and second opposing side walls and the bottom of the first and second opposing end walls (figure 1), wherein an opening to the cavity is provided adjacent the top of the first and second opposing side walls and the top of the first and second opposing end walls (figure 1), a lid 13 that can seal against the container body to close the cavity, and, a moveable divider 12 having first and second ends, a top and a bottom, wherein the divider has a rigid inner member 20 and an outer wiper seal member 22, 23, wherein the divider is sized such that the divider can be placed vertically in the container body, with the bottom of the divider adjacent the bottom wall of the container body and the first and second ends of the divider against the first and second opposing side walls (figure 1), respectively, and stay in place due to compression by the outer wiper seal member at the first and second ends of the divider against the opposing side walls of the container body (figure 3).
Further regarding claim 15, Swett discloses the claimed invention except for the separate outer seal extending about the entire perimeter and the overmold. Laurent teaches that it is known to provide a moveable divider with a separate outer seal member that extends about the entire perimeter (see elements 13 and 15; figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Swett with a separate outer seal member extending about the entire perimeter, as taught by Laurent, in order to simplify construction, by providing a divider with a less complicated shape, and to provide an improved seal with the container about the entire perimeter.
Pehar et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with an overmold (see elements 6 and paragraph [0051]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of Swett with an overmold, as taught by Pehar et al., in order to protect the container from external forces, as disclosed in Pehar et al.
Regarding claim 16, the divider 12 is sized such that the divider can be placed vertically in the container body anywhere between the first and second opposing side walls and stay in place due to the compression by the outer seal member at the first and second ends of the divider against the opposing side walls of the container body (figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, the outer seal member at the bottom of the divider engages the bottom wall of the container body (figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, the outer seal member at the top of the divider sealingly engages an inner surface of the lid when the lid is secured to the container body (col. 2 lines 63-71; figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, the inner member of the divider is generally planar (figure 1), wherein the outer wiper seal member extends parallel to the inner member (as modified by Laurent above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13 and 14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Swett does not teach that the offset is step-shaped. The examiner disagrees with this position. The primary reference of Swett is modified by Fukuda to teach an offset. The secondary reference of Fukuda teaches an offset which is shown at lead lines 3 and 4 in figure 1. As shown in figure 1 of Fukuda, the offset is step-shaped, to the degree set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that the modified invention of Swett does not teach an outer lower overmold wherein the outer surface is flush between the shell and the outer lower overmold. First it should be noted that the newly added limitation that the that the outer surface is flush between the shell and the outer lower overmold is confusing since the outer surface is an element of the shell. Second, the secondary reference of Pehar et al. (U.S. 2020/0095029) has been added to the rejection for the teaching of providing a container with an overmold. The embodiment in figure 2C of Pehar et al. shows an overmold that is flush with the outer surface (see the lower portion of the container).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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. Avilés 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights