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 .
Remarks
In response to applicant’s amendment, dated 02/05/2026, the examiner acknowledge the amendments to claims 1 and 3-5. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The examiner acknowledges the correction to the Abstract and withdraws the objection to the Specification set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/05/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/05/2025, the examiner has considered applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims and withdraws the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7 and 18-20 are 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.
The limitations of claims 7, 18 and 19 are included in amended claim 1.
(Claim 7): “wherein the pedestal attaches continuously along an inside portion of the base”;
(Claim 18): “a hinge”;
(Claim 19): “wherein the hinge attaches to the base and to the cap”.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and therefore includes the deficiencies of claim 19.
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.
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 5 and 17-20 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.
Claim 5 sets forth the limitation:
“wherein the one or more dividers form one or more optical accessory slots within the optical accessory case which optical accessory slots are separated from each one of the one or more other optical accessory slots by the divider, the pedestal, and the column”.
The “divider” comprises the “pedestal” and the “column”. (See Claim 1). It appears the limitation should read that the slots are separated the divider, or alternatively, by the pedestal and the column. (emphasis added by examiner)
Claim 17 sets forth the limitation:
“wherein when the optical accessory is in a closed position the latch removably connects to the anchor”. (emphasis added by examiner)
It appears the limitation should be the “optical accessory case”. The optical accessory would be the item inserted into the slots of the case. Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and therefore include the deficiencies of claim 17
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter, et al. (US Des. 412,062) in view of Scott, et al. (US 5,535,884) and Chan (US D479,729)
[AltContent: textbox (Anchor)][AltContent: textbox (Latch)][AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: textbox (Cap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
460
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Potter (Des. 412,062) – Figure 2
[AltContent: textbox (Divider: pedestal)][AltContent: textbox (Divider: column)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
624
930
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chan (D479,429) – Figure 2
[AltContent: textbox (Divider: pedestal)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
576
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Scott, et al. (US 5,535,884) – Figure 1
[AltContent: textbox (Divider: pedestal)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
581
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Scott, et al (US 5,535,884) – Figure 3A
Regarding claim 1, Potter discloses “a cap (Fig. 2 – cap), which forms a top of the optical accessory case; a base (Fig. 2 – base), which forms a bottom of the optical accessory case, and which is connected to the cap by a hinge (Fig. 2 – hinge)”
Potter does not teach “one or more dividers attached to the base, each one of the one or more dividers further comprising: a pedestal attached continuously to the base along an inside portion of the base; and a column attached to the pedestal.”
However, Scott teaches a case with dividers on the lower base part of the case (See Scott: Figs. 1 & 3A, ref.# 22 (divider: pedestal)), wherein the dividers are attached continuously to the base along an inside portion of the base (See Scott: column 2, lines 29-36; and wherein the case is made of Lexan (See Scott: column 3, lines 34-35) which is commonly known to be a brand of a transparent polycarbonate material. Further, Scott teaches to insert disc between the divider in order to prevent them from becoming scratched (See Scott: column 3, lines 1-4).
Likewise, Chan teaches a case with dividers wherein the dividers have a pedestal section (i.e., lower section) and a column section (i.e., middle upper section) (See Chan: pedestal & column) in order to prevent disks from becoming scratched, wherein the central column prevents scratches from the top section of the disk while allowing the side exposed for easily holding the disk when removed or inserted.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify Potter by including “one or more dividers attached to the base, each one of the one or more dividers further comprising: a pedestal attached continuously to the base along an inside portion of the base; and a column attached to the pedestal” in addition to making the case out of Lexan in order to prevent damage to the disk (or disk like structure, i.e., filter, lens, etc.) and to allow a user to see what disks, filters or lenses are inside the case without opening the case.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “wherein the column extends upward beyond an upper edge of the base.” (The divider resulting from combining Scott and Chan would extend beyond the upper edge of the base of Potter.)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “wherein at a point of attachment between the pedestal and the column, where a bottom portion of the column attaches to an upper portion of the pedestal, the bottom portion of the column is less wide than the upper portion of the pedestal.” (The divider resulting from combining Scott and Chan would satisfy the claimed limitation.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “wherein the entire column is less wide than the pedestal .” (The divider resulting from combining Scott and Chan would satisfy the claimed limitation.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “wherein the one or more dividers form one or more optical accessory slots within the optical accessory case which optical accessory slots are separated from each one of the one or more other optical accessory slots by the divider, the pedestal, and the column.” (The divider resulting from combining Scott and Chan would satisfy the claimed limitation.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “wherein an upper portion of the pedestal does not extend above the upper portion of the base.” (The divider and case resulting from combining Potter, Scott and Chan would satisfy the claimed limitation.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “wherein the pedestal attaches continuously along an inside portion of the base.” (The divider and case resulting from combining Potter, Scott and Chan would satisfy the claimed limitation.)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “wherein at least a portion of the optical accessory case is transparent.” (The case resulting from combining Potter, Scott and Chan would satisfy the claimed limitation. See Scott, column 3, lines 34-35: Lexan)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “wherein at least a portion of the optical accessory case is semitransparent.” (The case resulting from combining Potter, Scott and Chan would satisfy the claimed limitation. See Scott, column 3, lines 34-35: Lexan)
Regarding claim 10, Potter discloses “wherein the optical accessory case is cylindrically shaped.” (See Potter, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses “a plurality of slots positioned on both sides of the one or more dividers.” (The divider and case resulting from combining Potter, Scott and Chan would satisfy the claimed limitation.)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Potter, Scott and Chan discloses all the structure set forth in the claims except “wherein the size of one or more of the plurality of slots differs from another one of the plurality of slots.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the size of the slot such that one or more of the slots differ from another slot, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105, USPQ 233. Plus, one skill in the art would be motivated to select different size slots in order to accommodate optical accessories (i.e., CDs, filters, lens, etc.) of different thicknesses.
Regarding claim 13, Potter discloses “a latch.” (See Potter, Fig. 2: latch)
Regarding claim 14, Potter disclose “wherein the latch attaches to the cap.” (See Potter, Fig. 2: latch & cap)
Regarding claim 15, Potter discloses “an anchor.” (See Fig. 2: anchor)
Regarding claim 16, Potter discloses “wherein the anchor is attached to the base.” (Fig. 2: anchor & base)
Regarding claim 17, Potter discloses “wherein when the optical accessory is in a closed position the latch removably connects to the anchor.” (See Fig. 2: latch & anchor)
Regarding claim 18, Potter discloses “a hinge.” (See Fig. 2: hinge)
Regarding claim 19, Potter discloses “wherein the hinge attaches to the base and to the cap.” (Fig. 2: base, cap and hinge)
Regarding claim 20, Potter discloses “wherein the hinge attaches to the base at opposite end to the anchor.” (Fig. 2: base, cap and hinge)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xiao (CN 213366545) and Chung (US 5,617,950) teach a case with a cap, base, hinge and dividers.
Osborn (US 7,441,663) teaches a divider comprising a pedestal and column sections.
Kelly 9US 2,344,919) teaches a case with a cap, base and hinge.
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 RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/RODNEY E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
April 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights