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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The wording surrounding the newly amended limitations is a little confusing – specifically regarding the ridge sections, gap(s) and the protrusions. The Examiner believes the claims are intended to state something along the lines of:
Claim 1: “… a bottom cap locking mechanism configured to secure the bottom cap to the body, wherein the bottom cap locking mechanism comprises a ridge having a plurality of ridge sections, wherein adjacent ridge sections are separated by one of a plurality of gaps, the ridge sections being disposed on an outer surface of the inner circular sidewall, wherein the bottom cap locking mechanism comprises a plurality of protrusions disposed on an inner surface of the body, and wherein the plurality of gaps [[in]] between the ridge sections are sized and shaped to receive the plurality of protrusions disposed on the inner surface of the body and allow the plurality of protrusions to pass through the gaps between the ridge sections, wherein the ridge [[is]] sections are configured to align with the plurality of protrusions of the body when rotated to prevent removal of the bottom cap, wherein a length of each of the ridge sections around a circumference of the outer surface of the inner circular sidewall is greater than a length of each of the protrusions around a circumference of the inner surface of the body.”
Claim 13: “… a second ridge disposed on an outer surface of the inner circular sidewall, the second ridge having a plurality of ridge sections, wherein adjacent ridge sections are separated by one of a plurality of gaps, the second ridge disposed on an outer surface of the inner circular sidewall, wherein the plurality of gaps [[in the second ridge]] between the ridge sections are sized and shaped to receive the first plurality of protrusions disposed on an inner surface of the hollow body and allow the first plurality of protrusions to pass through the [[second ridge]] gaps between adjacent ridge sections, wherein the [[second ridge is]] ridge sections are configured to align with the first plurality of protrusions of the hollow body when rotated to prevent removal of the bottom cap, wherein a length of the each of the ridge sections around a circumference of the outer surface of the inner circular sidewall is greater than a length of each of the protrusions of the first plurality of protrusions around a circumference of the inner surface of the body.”
The claims have been interpreted below as the Examiner believes they were intended to be written. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (US 12195247) (hereinafter Casey).
Regarding Claim 1
Casey teaches a container system (below – Fig. 1B, 7, and 10A) comprising: a body (105) comprising: a top end (220) having a top opening; a bottom end (225) having a bottom opening; a first interior chamber (230); a second interior chamber (235); and a divider wall (200) separating the first interior chamber from the second interior chamber; a top cap (115) removably attached to the top end of the body; a bottom cap (110) removably attached to the bottom end of the body, the bottom cap comprising an outer sidewall (525/515) and an inner circular sidewall (520) recessed from the outer sidewall and extending superiorly from the outer sidewall, wherein an inner surface of the inner circular sidewall at least partially defines the second interior chamber; a top cap locking mechanism (820/250) configured to secure the top cap to the body; and a bottom cap locking mechanism (540/300) configured to secure the bottom cap to the body. Casey further teaches the bottom cap locking mechanism includes a ridge (540) being disposed on the inner circular sidewall (Col. 7, Ln. 7 – Col. 11, Ln. 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
599
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
666
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Casey does not teach the bottom cap locking mechanism comprises a ridge having a plurality of ridge sections, wherein adjacent ridge sections are separated by one of a plurality of gaps, the ridge sections being disposed on an outer surface of the inner circular sidewall, wherein the bottom cap locking mechanism comprises a plurality of protrusions disposed on an inner surface of the body, and wherein the plurality of gaps between the ridge sections are sized and shaped to receive the plurality of protrusions disposed on the inner surface of the body and allow the plurality of protrusions to pass through the gaps between the ridge sections, wherein the ridge sections are configured to align with the plurality of protrusions of the body when rotated to prevent removal of the bottom cap, wherein a length of each of the ridge sections around a circumference of the outer surface of the inner circular sidewall is greater than a length of each of the protrusions around a circumference of the inner surface of the body.
However, Casey does teach the cap locking mechanism comprises a ridge having a plurality of ridge sections (250), wherein adjacent ridge sections are separated by one of a plurality of gaps (400), the ridge sections being disposed on an outer surface of a circular sidewall, wherein the cap locking mechanism comprises a plurality of protrusions (820) disposed on an inner surface of a corresponding portion, and wherein the plurality of gaps between the ridge sections are sized and shaped to receive the plurality of protrusions disposed on the inner surface of the corresponding portion and allow the plurality of protrusions to pass through the gaps between the ridge sections, wherein the ridge sections are configured to align with the plurality of protrusions of the body when rotated to prevent removal of the cap, wherein a length of each of the ridge sections around a circumference of the outer surface is greater than a length of each of the protrusions around a circumference of the corresponding portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
351
451
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
237
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the bottom cap locking mechanism of Casey with the teachings of the top cap locking mechanism (specifically the use of ridge sections, gaps, and protrusions) as the two methods of retaining a cap to a container body are functional equivalents, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
See below for the modification.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: ][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image6.png
342
402
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
272
212
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
186
169
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image9.png
207
128
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
278
215
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches the top cap locking mechanism comprises a ridge (250) of the body that is configured to align with corresponding protrusions (820) of the top cap, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches the top cap (115) comprises a circular sidewall (805) and the top cap locking mechanism comprises a plurality of protrusions (820) disposed on an inner face of the circular sidewall and a ridge (250) with a plurality of gaps (400) disposed on an outer surface of the top end of the body (105), and wherein the plurality of gaps in the ridge are sized and shaped to receive the plurality of protrusions and allow the plurality of protrusions to pass through the ridge.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the top cap locking mechanism with the teachings of the top cap locking mechanism of Casey in order to provide a container which has a cap that is able to be conveniently locked and unlocked (Col. 11, Ln. 26-45).
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Pace further teaches the body has a cylindrical shape, as can be seen above.
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches the body and top cap each comprise an alignment indicator (825/405). Casey does not teach the bottom cap has an alignment indicator.
It would have been obvious to further modify the container system of modified Casey with the teachings of the alignment indicators of Casey in order to ensure the cap is appropriately attached. Further, at the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the bottom cap have an alignment indicator in order to ensure the top cap, body, and bottom cap are all in correct alignment. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), a duplication of parts does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. As such, the claim of the bottom cap having an alignment indicator, does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 8 and 21
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Modified Casey does not teach the alignment indicators comprise an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the top cap, an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the bottom cap, and a linear indicator disposed on an outer surface of the body, wherein the arrow disposed on the outer surface of the top cap is positioned to align with the linear indicator when the top cap is in an unlocked position and the arrow disposed on the outer surface of the bottom cap is positioned to align with the linear indicator when the bottom cap is in an unlocked position.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the alignment indicators comprise an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the top cap, an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the bottom cap, and a linear indicator disposed on an outer surface of the body, as diametrically opposed arrows with a connection is a known method for indicating a desired alignment (see for example, LaVange – US 4718567). As such, the claim of the alignment indicators comprising an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the top cap, an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the bottom cap, and a linear indicator disposed on an outer surface of the body does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record, wherein the arrow disposed on the outer surface of the top cap is positioned to align with the linear indicator when the top cap is in an unlocked position and the arrow disposed on the outer surface of the bottom cap is positioned to align with the linear indicator when the bottom cap is in an unlocked position.
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches the body, top cap, and bottom cap each comprise a grip enhancing texture to facilitate grasping – body (405), top cap (825), and bottom cap (504).
It would have appeared obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the container system of modified Pace with the teachings of the grip enhancing texture of Casey in order to allow the user to better grasp and position the caps and body when attaching and removing the caps.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Casey does not teach a height of the divider wall is such that a volume of the first interior chamber is more than twice (or four times) a volume of the second interior chamber.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the height of the divider wall such that a volume of the first interior chamber is more than twice (or four times) a volume of the second interior chamber, 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. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that the height of the divider wall being such that a volume of the first interior chamber is more than twice (or four times) a volume of the second interior chamber provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the height of the divider wall being such that a volume of the first interior chamber is more than twice (or four times) a volume of the second interior chamber does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 21
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Casey further teaches the body comprises an inner flange (240) extending inferiorly from the divider (200) and at least partially forming the second interior chamber (235), wherein the inner circular sidewall (520) of the bottom cap is positioned between the inner surface of the body and the inner flange, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 13
Casey teaches a container system (below – Fig. 1B, 7, and 10A) comprising: a hollow body (105) comprising: a first end (220); a second end (225); and an internal divider (200) separating an interior of the body into two compartments (230/235); wherein the first end comprises a first ridge (250) and the second end comprises a first plurality of protrusions (300); a top cap (115) configured to attach to the first end of the hollow body, the top cap comprising a second plurality of protrusions (820) configured to align with the first ridge of the hollow body when rotated; and a bottom cap (110) configured to attach to the second end of the hollow body, the bottom cap comprising; an outer sidewall (525/515); an inner circular sidewall (520) recessed from the outer sidewall and extending superiorly from the outer sidewall, wherein an inner surface of the inner circular sidewall at least partially defines an interior chamber (235) within the hollow body (Col. 7, Ln. 7 – Col. 11, Ln. 52).
Casey does not teach a second ridge disposed on an outer surface of the inner circular sidewall, the second ridge having a plurality of ridge sections, wherein adjacent ridge sections are separated by one of a plurality of gaps, the second ridge disposed on an outer surface of the inner circular sidewall, wherein the plurality of gaps between the ridge sections are sized and shaped to receive the first plurality of protrusions disposed on an inner surface of the hollow body and allow the first plurality of protrusions to pass through the gaps between adjacent ridge sections, wherein the ridge sections are configured to align with the first plurality of protrusions of the hollow body when rotated to prevent removal of the bottom cap, wherein a length of the each of the ridge sections around a circumference of the outer surface of the inner circular sidewall is greater than a length of each of the protrusions of the first plurality of protrusions around a circumference of the inner surface of the body.
However Casey does teach a cap connecting mechanism including a ridge disposed on an outer surface of a sidewall, the ridge having a plurality of ridge sections (250), wherein adjacent ridge sections are separated by one of a plurality of gaps (400), the ridge disposed on an outer surface of the sidewall, wherein the plurality of gaps between the ridge sections are sized and shaped to receive a plurality of protrusions (820) disposed on an inner surface of a body and allow the plurality of protrusions to pass through the gaps between adjacent ridge sections, wherein the ridge sections are configured to align with the plurality of protrusions of the hollow body when rotated to prevent removal of the cap, wherein a length of the each of the ridge sections around a circumference of the outer surface of the inner sidewall is greater than a length of each of the protrusions of the plurality of protrusions around a circumference of the inner surface of the body.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the bottom cap and second end of Casey with the teachings of the top cap and first end (specifically the use of ridge sections, gaps, and protrusions) as the two methods of retaining a cap to a container body are functional equivalents, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). See above for the modification.
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Casey further teaches the hollow body has a cylindrical shape, as can be seen above.
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Casey further teaches the hollow body and top cap each comprise an alignment indicator (825/405). Casey does not teach the bottom cap has an alignment indicator.
It would have been obvious to further modify the container system of modified Casey with the teachings of the alignment indicators of Casey in order to ensure the cap is appropriately attached. Further, at the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the bottom cap have an alignment indicator in order to ensure the top cap, hollow body, and bottom cap are all in correct alignment. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), a duplication of parts does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. As such, the claim of the bottom cap having an alignment indicator, does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Modified Casey does not teach the alignment indicators comprise an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the top cap, an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the bottom cap, and a linear indicator disposed on an outer surface of the hollow body.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the alignment indicators comprise an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the top cap, an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the bottom cap, and a linear indicator disposed on an outer surface of the hollow body, as diametrically opposed arrows with a connection is a known method for procuring alignment (see for example, LaVange – US 4718567). Applicant has not disclosed that the alignment indicators comprising an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the top cap, an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the bottom cap, and a linear indicator disposed on an outer surface of the hollow body provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the alignment indicators comprising an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the top cap, an arrow disposed on an outer surface of the bottom cap, and a linear indicator disposed on an outer surface of the hollow body does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 17
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Modified Casey does not teach body, top cap, and bottom cap each comprise a knurled portion or one or more grip enhancing textures to facilitate grasping.
Casey further teaches the body, top cap, and bottom cap each comprise a grip enhancing texture to facilitate grasping – body (405), top cap (825), and bottom cap (504).
It would have appeared obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the container system of modified Pace with the teachings of the grip enhancing texture of Casey in order to allow the user to better grasp and position the caps and body when attaching and removing the caps.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Modified Casey does not teach a height of the internal divider is such that a volume of one of the two compartments is more than twice (or four times) a volume of the other compartment.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have height of the internal divider such that a volume of one of the two compartments is more than twice (or four times) a volume of the other compartment, 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. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that the height of the internal divider being such that a volume of one of the two compartments is more than twice (or four times) a volume of the other compartment provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the height of the internal divider being such that a volume of one of the two compartments is more than twice (or four times) a volume of the other compartment does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Casey as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Foster (US 4098421).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as shown above. However, modified Casey does not teach the body, the top cap, and the bottom cap are formed of a specific material.
Foster teaches a container system (below – Fig. 2) similar to modified Pace in that it contains a body (11) having a top end with a top opening, and a top cover (13), with the top cap being removably attached to the tip end of the body. Foster further teaches the body and the top cap are formed of a rigid plastic material.
Modified Casey and Foster are analogous inventions in the field of containers with snap on containers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container system of modified Casey ace with the teachings of the system being made of hard plastic of Foster as the use of rigid plastic for these types of containers is exceptionally well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The rejection of claims 1 and 13 have been updated to better explain how Casey is used for modification, including visuals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 6 April 2026
Prosecution Insights