DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 14, and 17 have been amended, Claims 2-3 and 15 have been canceled, and Claims 4-13, 16, 18-20 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 05/22/2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (DE 102014100343 B3) in view of Jin et al. (US 20110139789 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Berner teaches a multi-piece container (1) for retaining a flower bulb (23), the container (1) comprising:
A bottom piece and a top piece (Fig. 3 shows that container 1 comprises a bottom piece and a top piece.);
The bottom piece including a base (13) and a sidewall (11) extending from an outer edge of the base and terminating at an upper periphery defining an upper periphery opening (Fig. 3 shows that sidewall 11 extends from an outer edge of base 13 and terminates at an upper periphery defining an upper periphery opening [where tongue and groove mechanism 7.2 is located].), the base (13) defining an interior base surface and an exterior base surface (Figs. 3-4 show that base 13 defines an interior base surface [shown in Fig. 4] and an exterior base surface [shown in Fig. 3].), the sidewall (11) defining an internal surface and an external surface (Figs. 3-4 show that base 11 defines an interior base surface [shown in Fig. 4] and an exterior base surface [shown in Fig. 3].), and the interior base surface and the internal surface define a first chamber portion (18; Fig. 3 shows that the internal base surface and the internal surface define a first [lower] chamber portion 18.) and a reservoir below and in fluid communication with the first chamber portion (Fig. 3 shows that the interior base surface and the internal surface also define a reservoir [which comprises openings 15] below and in fluid communication with first [lower] chamber portion 18.); and
The top piece having a bottom periphery defining a bottom periphery opening (Fig. 3 shows that the top piece has a bottom periphery that defines a bottom periphery opening [where tongue and groove mechanism 7.1 is located].), a sidewall (5) extending from the bottom periphery to a top periphery defining a top central opening (Fig. 3 shows that sidewall 5 extends from the bottom periphery to a top periphery that defines a top central opening 2.);
Wherein the upper periphery and the bottom periphery are configured to be complementary to facilitate a secure, substantially water-tight connection between the bottom piece and the top piece (Fig. 3 shows that the upper periphery and the bottom periphery comprises a tongue and groove mechanism 7.1 and 7.2, respectively. A tongue and groove mechanism 7.1,7.2 is capable of complementing the upper and bottom periphery to facilitate a secure and substantially water-tight connecting between the bottom and the top piece of container 1.);
Wherein a flower bulb (23) is placed within the container (1) so that a bulb portion rests above the reservoir (Figs. 2 and 6.6 show that a flower bulb 23 is placed within container 1 so that a bulb portion rests above the reservoir [which comprises openings 15].);
Wherein the top central opening (2) is configured to allow the stem portion of the flower bulb to extend through and above the top central opening (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 4; Top central opening 2 provides an opening for a shoot tip. This means that top central opening 2 allows a stem portion of the flower bulb 23 to extend through and above the top central opening 2.).
However, the system of Berner fails to explicitly state that a resilient member is positioned within the reservoir, wherein the resilient member is a spring configured to urge a stem portion of the flower bulb above the top central opening.
Jin teaches a resilient member (3) is positioned within a reservoir (2; shown in Fig. 1), wherein the resilient member is a spring (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in ¶9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berner to include a resilient member positioned within the reservoir, wherein the resilient member is a spring as taught by Jin with reasonable expectation of success to provide a mechanism capable of pushing a bulb upwards and supporting the bulb.
The system of Berner as modified by Jin further teaches (references to Jin) that the resilient member is a spring (3) configured to urge a stem portion of the flower bulb above the top central opening (See ¶16-17; Spring 3 is design to lift upwards. Therefore, spring 3 would be capable of urging a stem portion of the flower bulb 23 of Berner above the top central opening 2 of Berner.).
Regarding Claim 7, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Berner further teaches that the reservoir defines a reservoir volume (Fig. 3 shows that the reservoir [which comprises openings 15] defines a reservoir volume.), and the first chamber portion defines a chamber volume (Fig. 3 shows that the first [lower] chamber portion 18 defines a chamber volume.), and wherein the reservoir volume is less than the chamber volume (Fig. 3 shows that the reservoir volume is less than the chamber volume.).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Berner as modified by Jin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the upper periphery opening defines a diameter ranging between about twenty-two centimeters (22 cm) and forty-two centimeters (42 cm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to adjust the size of the diameter of the upper periphery opening of the system of Berner as modified by Jin to accommodate larger bulbs, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Berner as modified by Jin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the bottom periphery opening defines a diameter ranging between about twenty-two centimeters (22 cm) and forty-two centimeters (42 cm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to adjust the size of the diameter of the bottom periphery opening of the system of Berner as modified by Jin to accommodate larger bulbs, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Berner as modified by Jin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the top central opening (2) defines a diameter ranging between about two centimeters (2 cm) and six centimeters (6 cm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to adjust the size of the diameter of the top central opening of the system of Berner as modified by Jin to accommodate plants with larger stems as they grow, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Berner further teaches that the upper periphery of the bottom piece includes one or more interlocking components (7.2; Pg. 5 states that 7.2 is a part of a tongue and groove mechanism [that’s located on the upper periphery of the bottom piece shown in Fig. 3].), and the bottom periphery of top piece includes one or more interlocking components (7.1; Pg. 5 states that 7.1 is a part of a tongue and groove mechanism [that’s located on the bottom periphery of the top piece shown in Fig. 3].) that are complementary to the one or more interlocking components of the upper periphery (Pg. 5 states that 7.1 and 7.2 form a tongue and groove complementary mechanism.).
Regarding Claim 12, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 11.
The system of Berner as modified by Jin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the one or more interlocking components (7.2) on the upper periphery of bottom piece comprise slots. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the tongue and groove mechanism of the system of Berner as modified by Jin with slots to provide an interlocking system that’s cost effective and provides more precise positioning, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 11.
The system of Berner as modified by Jin teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the one or more interlocking components (7.1) on the bottom periphery of top piece comprise studs. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the tongue and groove mechanism of the system of Berner as modified by Jin with studs to provide an interlocking system that’s cost effective and provides more precise positioning, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (DE 102014100343 B3) as modified by Jin et al. (US 20110139789 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 200490025 Y1).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Berner as modified by Jin fails to explicitly state that the container further comprises one or more projections disposed on the internal surface of the bottom piece.
Lee teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention teaches a plant potting device.), the system of Lee teaches a container (10) comprising a bottom piece (10b) comprising one or more projections disposed on the internal surface of the bottom piece (Fig. 4 shows that bottom piece 10b include projections on the internal surface [close to coupling part 13] of the bottom piece 10b.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berner as modified by Jin to include one or more projections disposed on the internal surface of the bottom piece as taught by Lee with reasonable expectation of success to provide stability and support to the bulb.
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Berner as modified by Jin and Lee, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
The system of Berner as modified by Jin and Lee further teaches (references to Lee) that the each of the one or more projections defines a supportive surface (Fig. 4 shows that the one or more projections define supportive elevated surfaces.) and each of the supportive surfaces are defined on a parabolic plane (Fig. 4 further shows that each of the elevated supportive surfaces are defined on a parabolic plane.).
Regarding Claim 6, the system of Berner as modified by Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Berner as modified by Jin fails to explicitly state that the container further comprises one or more projections disposed on the interior base surface of the bottom piece.
Lee teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention teaches a plant potting device.), the system of Lee teaches a container (10) comprises one or more projections (20) disposed on the interior base surface of the bottom piece (Fig. 4 shows that container 10 comprises one or more projections 20 disposed on an interior base surface of the bottom piece 10b.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berner as modified by Jin to include one or more projections disposed on the interior base surface of the bottom piece as taught by Lee with reasonable expectation of success to provide a stable bed for the bulb.
Claims 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (DE 102014100343 B3) in view of Lee et al. (KR 200490025 Y1) and Jin et al. (US 20110139789 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Berner teaches a multi-piece container (1) for entrapping a flower bulb (23), the container (1) comprising:
A bottom piece and a top piece (Fig. 3 shows that container 1 comprises a bottom piece and a top piece.),
The bottom piece including a base (13) and a continuous sidewall (11) extending from an outer edge of the base and terminating at an opening defining a continuous upper periphery (Fig. 3 shows that sidewall 11 extends from an outer edge of base 13 and terminates at an opening [where tongue and groove mechanism 7.2 is located] which defines a continuous upper periphery.),
The base (13) defining an interior base surface and an exterior base surface (Figs. 3-4 show that base 13 defines an interior base surface [shown in Fig. 4] and an exterior base surface [shown in Fig. 3].),
The continuous sidewall (11) defining an internal surface and an external surface (Figs. 3-4 show that base 11 defines an interior base surface [shown in Fig. 4] and an exterior base surface [shown in Fig. 3].),
The interior base surface and the internal surface define a first chamber portion (18; Fig. 3 shows that the internal base surface and the internal surface define a first [lower] chamber portion 18.) and a reservoir below the first chamber portion (Fig. 3 shows that the interior base surface and the internal surface also define a reservoir [which comprises openings 15] below the first [lower] chamber portion 18.),
The top piece defining a bottom periphery opening defining a bottom periphery (Fig. 3 shows that the top piece defines a bottom periphery opening [where tongue and groove mechanism 7.1 is located] that defines a bottom periphery.), and
The bottom periphery and the upper periphery configured to be concentric to facilitate a connection between the bottom piece and the top piece (Fig. 3 shows that the bottom periphery and the upper periphery are capable of being concentric to facilitate a connection between the bottom and top piece.); and
Wherein the top piece is configured to allow the stem portion of the flower bulb to extend through and above the top central opening (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 4; Top central opening 2 provides an opening for a shoot tip. This means that top piece allows a stem portion of the flower bulb 23 to extend through and above the top central opening 2.).
The system of Berner teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that one or more projections bifurcate the first chamber portion and the reservoir by supporting a substantial portion of the flower bulb above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion. Berner teaches that a substantial portion of the flower bulb (23) is supported above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion (Figs. 2 and 6.6 show that a flower bulb 23 is supported above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion.). Lee teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention teaches a plant potting device.) a container (10) comprising one or more projections bifurcate the first chamber portion and the reservoir (Fig. 4 shows that container 10 comprises one or more projections [located near coupling part 13] that bifurcate the first chamber portion and one or more projections 20 that bifurcate the reservoir.) that are capable of supporting a substantial portion of the flower bulb (shown in Fig. 4; The one or more projections [located near coupling part 13] are capable of supporting a substantial portion of a flower bulb.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the mechanism supporting a substantial portion of the flower bulb above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion of the system of Berner with one or more projections that bifurcate the first chamber portion and the reservoir by supporting a substantial portion of the flower bulb above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion to provide a more stable support system, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
The system of Berner as modified by Lee fails to explicitly state that a resilient member is positioned within the reservoir, wherein the resilient member is a spring.
Jin teaches a resilient member (3) is positioned within a reservoir (2; shown in Fig. 1), wherein the resilient member is a spring (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in ¶9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berner as modified by Lee to include a resilient member positioned within the reservoir, wherein the resilient member is a spring as taught by Jin with reasonable expectation of success to provide a mechanism capable of pushing a bulb upwards and supporting the bulb.
The system of Berner as modified by Lee and Jin further teaches (references to Jin) that the resilient member is a spring (3) configured to urge a stem portion of the flower bulb above the top central opening of the top piece (See ¶16-17; Spring 3 is design to lift upwards. Therefore, spring 3 would be capable of urging a stem portion of the flower bulb 23 of Berner above the top central opening 2 of the top piece of Berner.).
Regarding Claim 16, the system of Berner as modified by Lee and Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
Berner further teaches that the reservoir defines a reservoir volume (Fig. 3 shows that the reservoir [which comprises openings 15] defines a reservoir volume.), and the first chamber portion defines a chamber volume (Fig. 3 shows that the first [lower] chamber portion 18 defines a chamber volume.), and wherein the reservoir volume is less than the chamber volume (Fig. 3 shows that the reservoir volume is less than the chamber volume.).
Regarding Claim 17, Berner teaches a multi-piece container (1) for entrapping a flower bulb (23), the container (1) comprising:
A bottom piece and a top piece (Fig. 3 shows that container 1 comprises a bottom piece and a top piece.),
The bottom piece including a base (13) and a continuous sidewall (11) extending from an edge of the base and terminating at an opening defining a continuous upper periphery (Fig. 3 shows that sidewall 11 extends from an outer edge of base 13 and terminates at an opening [where tongue and groove mechanism 7.2 is located] which defines a continuous upper periphery.),
The base (13) defining an interior base surface and an exterior base surface (Figs. 3-4 show that base 13 defines an interior base surface [shown in Fig. 4] and an exterior base surface [shown in Fig. 3].),
The continuous sidewall (11) defining an internal surface and an external surface (Figs. 3-4 show that base 11 defines an interior base surface [shown in Fig. 4] and an exterior base surface [shown in Fig. 3].),
The interior base surface and the internal surface define a first chamber portion (18; Fig. 3 shows that the internal base surface and the internal surface define a first [lower] chamber portion 18.) and a reservoir below the first chamber portion (Fig. 3 shows that the interior base surface and the internal surface also define a reservoir [which comprises openings 15] below the first [lower] chamber portion 18.),
The top piece defining a bottom periphery opening defining a bottom periphery (Fig. 3 shows that the top piece defines a bottom periphery opening [where tongue and groove mechanism 7.1 is located] that defines a bottom periphery.), and
The bottom periphery and the upper periphery configured to be concentric to facilitate a connection between the bottom piece and the top piece (Fig. 3 shows that the bottom periphery and the upper periphery are capable of being concentric to facilitate a connection between the bottom and top piece.); and
Wherein the top piece is configured to allow the stem portion of the flower bulb to extend through and above the top central opening (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 4; Top central opening 2 provides an opening for a shoot tip. This means that top piece allows a stem portion of the flower bulb 23 to extend through and above the top central opening 2.).
The system of Berner teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that one or more projections bifurcate the first chamber portion and the reservoir by supporting a substantial portion of the flower bulb above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion. Berner teaches that a substantial portion of the flower bulb (23) is supported above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion (Figs. 2 and 6.6 show that a flower bulb 23 is supported above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion.). Lee teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention teaches a plant potting device.) a container (10) comprising one or more projections bifurcate the first chamber portion and the reservoir (Fig. 4 shows that container 10 comprises one or more projections [located near coupling part 13] that bifurcate the first chamber portion and one or more projections 20 that bifurcate the reservoir.) that are capable of supporting a substantial portion of the flower bulb (See Fig. 2; The one or more projections are capable of supporting a substantial portion of a flower bulb.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the mechanism supporting a substantial portion of the flower bulb above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion of the system of Berner with one or more projections that bifurcate the first chamber portion and the reservoir by supporting a substantial portion of the flower bulb above the reservoir and within the first chamber portion to provide a more stable support system, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
The system of Berner as modified by Lee fails to explicitly state that a resilient member is positioned within the reservoir, wherein the resilient member is a spring.
Jin teaches a resilient member (3) is positioned within a reservoir (2; shown in Fig. 1), wherein the resilient member is a spring (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in ¶9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berner as modified by Lee to include a resilient member positioned within the reservoir, wherein the resilient member is a spring as taught by Jin with reasonable expectation of success to provide a mechanism capable of pushing a bulb upwards and supporting the bulb.
The system of Berner as modified by Lee and Jin further teaches (references to Jin) that the resilient member is a spring (3) configured to urge a stem portion of the flower bulb above the top central opening of the top piece (See ¶16-17; Spring 3 is design to lift upwards. Therefore, spring 3 would be capable of urging a stem portion of the flower bulb 23 of Berner above the top central opening 2 of the top piece of Berner.).
Regarding Claim 18, the system of Berner as modified by Lee and Jin, as shown above, discloses the limitations of Claim 17.
Berner further teaches that the upper periphery of the bottom piece includes one or more interlocking components (7.2; Pg. 5 states that 7.2 is a part of a tongue and groove mechanism [that’s located on the upper periphery of the bottom piece shown in Fig. 3].), and the bottom periphery of top piece includes one or more interlocking components (7.1; Pg. 5 states that 7.1 is a part of a tongue and groove mechanism [that’s located on the bottom periphery of the top piece shown in Fig. 3].) that are complementary to the one or more interlocking components of the upper periphery (Pg. 5 states that 7.1 and 7.2 form a tongue and groove complementary mechanism.).
Regarding Claim 20, the system of Berner as modified by Lee and Jin, as shown above, discloses the limitations of Claim 17.
Berner further teaches that the reservoir defines a reservoir volume (Fig. 3 shows that the reservoir [which comprises openings 15] defines a reservoir volume.), and the first chamber portion defines a chamber volume (Fig. 3 shows that the first [lower] chamber portion 18 defines a chamber volume.), and wherein the reservoir volume is less than the chamber volume (Fig. 3 shows that the reservoir volume is less than the chamber volume.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (DE 102014100343 B3) in view of Lee et al. (KR 200490025 Y1) and Jin et al. (US 20110139789 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Prinster et al. (US 20150156973 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the system of Berner as modified by Lee and Jin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 17.
However, the system of Berner as modified by Lee and Jin fails to explicitly state that the reservoir contains at least one nourishing component selected from the group consisting of water, plant growth regulators, peat pellet, and combination thereof.
Prinster teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention teaches a seed planting system.), the system of Prinster teaches a reservoir (114) contains at least one nourishing component selected from the group consisting of water, plant growth regulators, peat pellet, and combination thereof (¶141 states that plant growth regulators may be provided to the seed pod 100 [which includes reservoir 114].). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Berner as modified by Lee and Jin to have the reservoir contain at least one nourishing component selected from the group consisting of water, plant growth regulators, peat pellet, and combination thereof as taught by Prinster with reasonable expectation of success to influence specific physiological processes within the plant to control its growth pattern and development.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cox (US 20080105686 A1) teaches a spring-loaded compartment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643