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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a first neck portion defining a first step in the base side wall, and a second neck portion defining a second step in the base side wall”. According to the specification, the first step is 462 and the second step is 466. However, in view of the provided drawing, especially fig. 4; first neck (350) appears to define step 466 and second neck (354) appears to define step 462. As such for examination purpose, first step will be considered to be 466 and second step will be considered to be 462.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 9,10, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klingaman (US 3966089).
Regarding claim 1, Klingaman discloses, A container (See annotated fig. below) configured to house a consumer product (12) comprising: a base including (See annotated fig. below) ,a base bottom wall (See annotated fig. below), and a base side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the base bottom wall, an open end (See annotated fig. below) of the base side wall including, a first neck portion (See annotated fig below; neck portion above the dotted line) defining a first step (See annotated fig. below)in the base side wall, and a second neck portion (See annotated fig. below; neck portion below the dotted line) defining a second step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, the first neck portion being closer to the open end of the base side wall than the second neck portion; a cap (See annotated fig. below) configured to define a first compartment (See annotated fig. below) with the base in response to engaging the cap with the base, the cap including, a cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and a cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the cap top wall, the cap sidewallover-cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) configured to contact the second step such that a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the second neck portion of the base side wall (See annotated fig. below; at the dotted axis as below where the side surface of the second neck is, there must be a surface of the cap that is coplanar with the line/axis ).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Klingaman discloses, the first neck portion has a first thickness, the second neck portion has a second thickness, and the second thickness of the second neck portion is greater than the first thickness of the first neck portion ( outer diameter of the first and second neck share the same line as such they have equal outer diameter).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Klingaman discloses the first neck portion includes a first neck outer diameter; the second neck portion includes a second neck outer diameter; and the second neck outer diameter is equal to the first neck outer diameter( outer diameter of the first and second neck share the same line as such they have equal outer diameter).
PNG
media_image3.png
312
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Klingaman discloses, the first neck portion includes a first neck outer diameter; the second neck portion includes a second neck outer diameter; and the second neck outer diameter is greater than the first neck outer diameter (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
291
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Klingaman discloses, the base side wall has a base side wall outer diameter, the base side wall outer diameter being greater than the second neck outer diameter (See Fig. 1; base walls outer diameter is greater than the entire neck portion) .
Regarding claim 8, Klingaman discloses, an inner diameter of the first neck portion is greater than an inner diameter of the second neck portion (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image5.png
316
679
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Klingaman discloses, an inner diameter of the first neck portion is equal to an inner diameter of the second neck portion (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image6.png
316
679
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Klingaman discloses, the inner diameter of the first neck portion (as annotated in claim 9)and the inner diameter of the second neck portion (as annotated in claim 9) are less than an inner diameter of the base side wall (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image7.png
577
681
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Klingaman discloses, a thickness of the cap side wall plus a thickness of the first neck portion is equal to a thickness of the second neck portion (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image8.png
311
599
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Klingaman discloses, an outer surface of the cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) is configured to engage an inner surface of the first neck portion (See annotated fig. below) in response to engaging the cap with the base .
PNG
media_image9.png
291
661
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Klingaman discloses the second compartment is above the first compartment (See annotated fig. of claim 1) .
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aboabdo (US 10723526 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Aboabdo discloses, A container configured to house a consumer product comprising: a base including, a base bottom wall (See annotated fig. below), and a base side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the base bottom wall, an open end (See annotated fig. below)of the base side wall including ,a first neck portion (See annotated fig. below) defining a first step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, and a second neck portion (See annotated fig. below) defining a second step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, the first neck portion being closer to the open end of the base side wall than the second neck portion; a cap (See annotated fig. below) configured to define a first compartment (See annotated fig. below) with the base in response to engaging the cap with the base, the cap including, a cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and a cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the cap top wall, the cap side wall configured to contact the first step (See annotated fig. below) ; and an over-cap (See annotated fig. below) configured to define a second compartment (See annotated fig. below) with the cap in response to contact the over-cap with the base, the over-cap including, an over-cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and an over-cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the over-cap top wall, the over-cap side wall configured to contact the second step such that a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the second neck portion of the base side wall (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image10.png
742
618
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Aboabdo discloses first neck portion has a first thickness (thickness at the top where first step is created), the second neck portion has a second thickness (thickness where the second step is created), and the second thickness of the second neck portion is greater than the first thickness of the first neck portion.
Regarding claim 3, Aboabdo discloses, the first neck portion includes a first neck outer diameter (See annotated fig. below; First OD); the second neck portion includes a second neck outer diameter (See annotated fig. below, Second OD); and the second neck outer diameter is equal to the first neck outer diameter.
PNG
media_image11.png
468
503
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Aboabdo discloses an inner diameter of the first neck portion is equal to an inner diameter of the second neck portion (first and second neck has the same inner diameter; See annotated fig. of claim 10) .
Regarding claim 10, Aboabdo discloses, the inner diameter of the first neck portion and the inner diameter of the second neck portion are less than an inner diameter of the base side wall (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image12.png
468
598
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Aboabdo discloses a thickness of the cap side wall plus a thickness of the first neck portion is equal to a thickness of the second neck portion (See annotated fig. below; the sidewall and the first neck is shown to be equal to the second neck).
PNG
media_image13.png
468
503
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingaman as applied to claim 1 in view of KAWATA (US 20120073590).
Regarding claim 11, Klingaman does not explicitly disclose, the base bottom wall is circular and the base side wall of the base is cylindrical.
KAWATA discloses a container comprising a base (4) comprising base bottom wall is circular and the base side wall of the base is cylindrical (Fig. 1).
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 Klingaman to have base bottom wall is circular and the base side wall of the base is cylindrical as taught by KAWATA as it is a well-known shape for containers as it does not have any edge and thus improving ergonomics.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingaman as applied to claim 1 in view of HAYASHI (JP 2003011995).
Regarding claim 12, Klingaman does not explicitly disclose , an outer surface of the over- cap side wall is flush with an outer surface of the base side wall.
HAYASHI disclose an outer cap (1) comprising an outer surface of the over- cap side wall is flush with an outer surface of the base side wall (Fig. 1).
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 Klingaman to have an outer surface of the over- cap side wall is flush with an outer surface of the base side wall as taught by HAYASHI as it would provide a seamless connection between the over cap and the base body that allows for user to hold the container easily.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingaman as applied to claim 1 in view of Hayes (US 5850951).
Regarding claim 13 Klingaman discloses, A container (See annotated fig. below) configured to house a consumer product (12) comprising: a base including (See annotated fig. below) ,a base bottom wall (See annotated fig. below), and a base side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the base bottom wall, an open end (See annotated fig. below) of the base side wall including, a first neck portion (See annotated fig below; neck portion above the dotted line) defining a first step (See annotated fig. below)in the base side wall, and a second neck portion (See annotated fig. below; neck portion below the dotted line)) defining a second step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, the first neck portion being closer to the open end of the base side wall than the second neck portion; a cap (See annotated fig. below) configured to define a first compartment (See annotated fig. below) with the base in response to engaging the cap with the base, the cap including, a cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and a cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the cap top wall, the cap sidewall
PNG
media_image1.png
577
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
361
531
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Klingaman discloses the claimed invention except that over cap is threadably connected instead of Press-fit. Hayes shows that press fit was an equivalent structure known in the art (Col. 2; lines 50-55). In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Hayes represents evidence that Press-fit were art-recognized equivalent structures for thread. Therefore, because these two attaching mechanism were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute press-fit for thread as it would allow for easy opening. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 14, Klingaman discloses, A container (See annotated fig. below) configured to house a consumer product (12) comprising: a base including (See annotated fig. below) ,a base bottom wall (See annotated fig. below), and a base side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the base bottom wall, an open end (See annotated fig. below) of the base side wall including, a first neck portion (See annotated fig below; neck portion above the dotted line) defining a first step (See annotated fig. below)in the base side wall, and a second neck portion (See annotated fig. below; neck portion below the dotted line)) defining a second step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, the first neck portion being closer to the open end of the base side wall than the second neck portion; a cap (See annotated fig. below) configured to define a first compartment (See annotated fig. below) with the base in response to engaging the cap with the base, the cap including, a cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and a cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the cap top wall, the cap sidewall
PNG
media_image1.png
577
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
361
531
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Klingaman discloses the claimed invention except that cap is press fitted and over cap is threadably connected instead of Press-fit. Hayes shows that press fit was an equivalent structure known in the art (Col. 2; lines 50-55). In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Hayes represents evidence that Press-fit were art-recognized equivalent structures for thread. Therefore, because these two attaching mechanism were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute press-fit for thread or vice versa as either connection method would work equally well. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingaman as applied to claim 1 in view of CHANG (US 20160015148).
Regarding claim 20, Klingaman does not explicitly disclose, the cap top wall of the cap is circular, the cap side wall is cylindrical, and the over-cap side wall is cylindrical.
Chang discloses , cap top wall (11) of the cap is circular (Fig. 4, 5), the cap side wall is cylindrical (Fig. 4,5), and the over-cap (200) side wall is cylindrical.
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 Klingaman to have the cap top wall of the cap is circular, the cap side wall is cylindrical, and the over-cap side wall is cylindrical as taught by Chang as these are well known shapes for containers and are proven to be ergonomic as it provides surface without shape edges.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 11, 12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccluskey (WO 2008047087) in view of Beyers (US 20090057312).
Regarding claim 1, Mccluskey discloses, A container configured to house a consumer product comprising: a base including, a base bottom wall (See annotated fig. below), and a base side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the base bottom wall, an open end of the base side wall including, a first neck portion (See annotated fig. below) defining a first step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, and a second neck portion (See annotated fig. below) defining a second step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, the first neck portion being closer to the open end of the base side wall than the second neck portion; a cap (See annotated fig. below)configured to define a first compartment (See annotated fig. below) with the base in response to engaging the cap with the base, the cap including, a cap top wall (See annotated fig. below)), and a cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the cap top wall; and an over-cap (See annotated fig. below) configured to define a second compartment with the cap in response to contact the over-cap with the base, the over-cap including, an over-cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and an over-cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the over-cap top wall, the over-cap side wall configured to contact the second step.
PNG
media_image15.png
504
673
media_image15.png
Greyscale
However, Mccluskey does not disclose, the cap side wall configured to contact the first step and a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the second neck portion of the base side wall.
Beyers discloses a cap comprising side wall, a neck (See annotated fig. below) and a step wherein the cap side wall is configured to contact the step immediately under and being coplanar with the neck portion.
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 Mccluskey to have the cap side wall configured to contact the step and a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the neck portion of the base side wall as taught by Beyers for the purpose of preventing any dirt entering through any gap.
PNG
media_image16.png
423
575
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mccluskey discloses, the first neck portion has a first thickness (See annotated fig. below), the second neck portion has a second thickness (See annotated fig. below), and the second thickness of the second neck portion is greater than the first thickness of the first neck portion.
PNG
media_image17.png
373
497
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Mccluskey discloses the first neck portion includes a first neck outer diameter (See annotated fig. below); the second neck portion includes a second neck outer diameter (See annotated fig. below) ; and the second neck outer diameter is greater than the first neck outer diameter.
PNG
media_image18.png
373
473
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Mccluskey discloses, a depth of the first step (See annotated fig. below) is a difference between the second neck outer diameter (See annotated fig. below) and the first neck outer diameter (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image19.png
373
481
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Mccluskey discloses, the base side wall has a base side wall outer diameter (See annotated fig. below), the base side wall outer diameter being greater than the second neck outer diameter.
PNG
media_image20.png
373
492
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Mccluskey discloses, a depth of the second step (See annotated fig. below) is a difference between the base side wall outer diameter and the second neck outer diameter.
PNG
media_image21.png
377
626
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Mccluskey discloses , the base bottom wall is circular and the base sidewall of the base is cylindrical (Fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, Mccluskey, an outer surface of the over-cap side wall is coplanar with an outer surface of the base side wall (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Mccluskey as modified discloses, an outer surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with an outer surface of the second neck portion.
Regarding claim 18, Mccluskey as modified discloses, the second compartment is above the first compartment.
Regarding claim 19, Mccluskey as modified discloses an inner surface of the cap side wall is configured to engage an outer surface of the first neck portion of the base (See annotated fig. of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Mccluskey as modified discloses, the cap top wall of the cap is circular, the cap side wall is cylindrical, and the over-cap side wall is cylindrical.
Claim(s) 13, and 14is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccluskey (WO 2008047087) in view of Beyers (US 20090057312) and Hayes (US 5850951).
Regarding claim 13, Mccluskey discloses, A container configured to house a consumer product comprising: a base including, a base bottom wall (See annotated fig. below), and a base side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the base bottom wall, an open end of the base side wall including, a first neck portion (See annotated fig. below) defining a first step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, and a second neck portion (See annotated fig. below) defining a second step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, the first neck portion being closer to the open end of the base side wall than the second neck portion; a cap (See annotated fig. below)configured to define a first compartment (See annotated fig. below) with the base in response to engaging the cap with the base, the cap including, a cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and a cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the cap top wall; and an over-cap (See annotated fig. below) configured to define a second compartment with the cap in response to engaging the over-cap with the base, the over-cap including, an over-cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and an over-cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the over-cap top wall, the over-cap side wall configured to engage the second step.
However, Mccluskey does not disclose, the cap side wall configured to engage the first step and a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the second neck portion of the base side wall.
PNG
media_image15.png
504
673
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Beyers discloses a cap comprising side wall, a neck (See annotated fig. below) and a step wherein the cap side wall is configured to contact/engage the step immediately under and being coplanar with the neck portion.
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 Mccluskey to have the cap side wall configured to contact/engage the step and a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the neck portion of the base side wall as taught by Beyers for the purpose of preventing any dirt entering through any gap.
PNG
media_image16.png
423
575
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Mccluskey discloses the claimed invention except that the caps (cap and outer cap) is threadably connected instead of Press-fit. Hayes shows that press fit was an equivalent structure known in the art (Col. 2; lines 50-55). In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Hayes represents evidence that Press-fit were art-recognized equivalent structures for thread. Therefore, because these two attaching mechanism were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute press-fit for thread as it would allow for easy opening. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
As a result, Mccluskey as modified would have the cap is press-fit on the base and the over-cap is press-fit on the cap and the base.
Regarding claim 14, Mccluskey discloses, A container configured to house a consumer product comprising: a base including, a base bottom wall (See annotated fig. below), and a base side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the base bottom wall, an open end of the base side wall including, a first neck portion (See annotated fig. below) defining a first step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, and a second neck portion (See annotated fig. below) defining a second step (See annotated fig. below) in the base side wall, the first neck portion being closer to the open end of the base side wall than the second neck portion; a cap (See annotated fig. below)configured to define a first compartment (See annotated fig. below) with the base in response to engaging the cap with the base, the cap including, a cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and a cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the cap top wall; and an over-cap (See annotated fig. below) configured to define a second compartment with the cap in response to engaging the over-cap with the base, the over-cap including, an over-cap top wall (See annotated fig. below), and an over-cap side wall (See annotated fig. below) extending vertically from the over-cap top wall, the over-cap side wall configured to engage the second step, wherein, the cap is threadably engaged with the base.
However, Mccluskey does not disclose, the cap side wall configured to engage the first step and a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the second neck portion of the base side wall.
PNG
media_image15.png
504
673
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Beyers discloses a cap comprising side wall, a neck (See annotated fig. below) and a step wherein the cap side wall is configured to contact/engage the step immediately under and being coplanar with the neck portion.
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 Mccluskey to have the cap side wall configured to contact/engage the step and a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the neck portion of the base side wall as taught by Beyers for the purpose of preventing any dirt entering through any gap.
PNG
media_image16.png
423
575
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Mccluskey discloses the claimed invention except that the over cap is threadably connected instead of Press-fit. Hayes shows that press fit was an equivalent structure known in the art (Col. 2; lines 50-55). In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Hayes represents evidence that Press-fit were art-recognized equivalent structures for thread. Therefore, because these two attaching mechanism were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute press-fit for thread as it would allow for easy opening. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
As a result, Mccluskey as modified would have over-cap is press-fit on the cap and the base.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboabdo as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Aboabdo does not disclose, inner diameter of the first neck portion is greater than an inner portion of the second neck portion.
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 Aboabdo to have inner diameter of the first neck portion is greater than an inner portion of the second neck portion motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The objection regarding the specification is sustained because the reference numeral for first and second steps are incorrect and these structural are distinct and are not interchangeable. The specification must be clear for understanding the invention that corresponds with the reference numeral of the drawing provided. As explained in the objection, step 466 as per the claim and drawing has to be first step and step 462 has to be second step. However, the specification discloses them to be opposite. It is not clear and creates ambiguity, as such the objection is sustained in the current office action.
Applicants argument with regards to prior art of Kingsman failing to disclose a side surface of the cap side wall is coplanar with a side surface of the second neck portion of the base side wall is not persuasive. As explained in the rejection, when a line is drawn at a surface of the neck, the line also crosses a surface of the cap and that surface of the cap is coplanar with the surface of the neck as shown below.
PNG
media_image22.png
361
531
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736