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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 8/24/2026, wherein claims 1 and 12 were amended. Claim 13 remains withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiller (US 2011/0121002) in view of Umholtz (US 9,038,840).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Stiller discloses a container (container 60 in Figs. 7-13) capable of holding snus, comprising: a body (at 62 in Fig. 8) defining a first compartment (compartment within four sidewalls 70 in Fig. 7) capable of storing unused snus portions; a first lid (at 64 in Figs. 7-8) pivotably coupled to the body to be able to pivot about a first pivot axis (along 80 in Fig. 9) to and from a closing position (as shown in Figs. 8 or 9) in which the first lid closes the first compartment, the first lid defining a second compartment (compartment at 92 in Fig. 7) separated from the first compartment (as shown in Figs. 9 and 13) and capable of storing used snus portions, and a second lid (at 66) pivotably coupled to the first lid to be able to pivot about a second pivot axis (along 106 in Fig. 9) to and from a closing position (as shown in Fig. 8) in which the second lid closes the second compartment, wherein the first compartment is larger than the second compartment (as shown in Fig. 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stiller discloses the claimed invention except for the snus container being injection molded as a single continuous part, and wherein the body, the first lid and the second lid are seamlessly connected and inseparable from each other. However, Umholtz teaches it is well known in the art for a container (at 10 in Fig. 4a), with a body (at 200) and lids (at 103 and 302), to be formed by injection molding as a single continuous part having living hinges between the body and lids, for the purpose of ease of manufacture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Stiller to be formed as a single continuous part with living hinges as taught by Umholtz in order to ease manufacturing. Furthermore, the parts (the body, the first lid and the second lid) of the snus container of Stiller-Umholtz are seamlessly connected and inseparable from each other.
Moreover, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Regarding claim 2, Stiller discloses the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis are parallel (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Stiller discloses the first lid is pivotably coupled to the body by means of a first pivot coupling (at 80), and the second lid is pivotably coupled to the first lid by means of a second pivot coupling (at 106) wherein the first and/or the second pivot coupling is/are located along an outwardly facing side edge of the first lid (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Stiller discloses the claimed invention except for the specific arrangement of the first and second pivot couplings relative to one another. However, Umholtz teaches it is well known in the art for a container (at 10 in Fig. 4a) to have lids attached to a body at opposing sides for the purpose of conveniently accessing the compartments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first and second pivot couplings of Stiller- Umholtz to be on opposing sides as taught by Umholtz in order to ease access to the compartments. The lids would perform the same function regardless of their pivot coupling locations. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, Stiller-Umholtz discloses the first and/or second pivot coupling is a bendable strip (living hinges as taught by Umholtz).
Regarding claim 6, Stiller discloses the first lid and/or the second lid is provided with a latching mechanism (at 110/116) for maintaining said lid or lids in the respective closed position in a latching manner.
Regarding claim 10, Stiller discloses the snus container is made from a plastic or polymer material ([0022]).
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiller (US 2011/0121002) in view of Umholtz (US 9,038,840) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bjorkholm (US 2009/0014450).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Stiller-Umholtz discloses the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the specific manufacturing method. However, Bjorkholm teaches it is well known in the art for a snuff container to be manufactured by an injection moulding process including moulds for the lower portion, lower lid and cover lid ({(0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the device of Stiller-Umholtz from an injection moulding process as taught by Bjorkholm in order to ease the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 8, Stiller-Umholtz discloses the snus container is formed as a single continuous part.
Regarding claim 11, Stiller discloses the snus container is made from a plastic material ([0022]).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights