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 .
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, 19, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (US 12195247) (hereinafter Casey) in view of Vetter (US 4165815).
Regarding Claim 1
Casey teaches a container system (below – Fig. 1B, 2, 4, and 10B) 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, and rotatable between an unlocked position and a locked position; a bottom cap (110) removably attached to the bottom end of the body, the bottom cap comprising an outer sidewall and an inner circular sidewall 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 (250/820) configured to secure the top cap to the body when the top cap is in the locked position; and a bottom cap securing mechanism configured to secure the bottom cap to the body (Col. 7, Ln. 7 – Col. 11, Ln. 52).
Casey further teaches the top 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 an inner circular sidewall, wherein the top cap locking mechanism comprises a plurality of protrusions (820) disposed on an inner surface of the top cap, and wherein the plurality of gaps (400) between the ridge sections (250) are sized and shaped to receive the plurality of protrusions disposed on the inner surface of the top cap and allow the plurality of protrusions to pass through gaps between the ridge sections, wherein the ridge sections are configured to align with the plurality of protrusions of the top cap when rotated to prevent removal of the top 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 top cap (Col. 7, Ln. 7 – Col. 11, Ln. 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
231
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
214
519
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Casey does not teach 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 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 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.
Vetter teaches a container system (below -Fig. 6) comprising: a body (33) comprising: a top end having a top opening; a bottom end having a bottom opening; a first interior chamber; a second interior chamber; and a divider wall separating the first interior chamber from the second interior chamber; a top cap (32) removably attached to the top end of the body, and rotatable between an unlocked position and a locked position; a bottom cap (37) removably attached to the bottom end of the body, the bottom cap comprising an outer sidewall (shown at 37) and an inner circular sidewall (shown at 39) 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 (34) configured to secure the top cap to the body when the top cap is in the locked position; and a bottom cap locking mechanism (39) configured to secure the bottom cap to the body (Col. 2, Ln. 50 – Col. 3, Ln. 10).
Vetter further teaches the top cap locking mechanism and the bottom cap locking mechanism having the same configuration (i.e. an outer sidewall and an inner circular sidewall recessed from the outer sidewall and extending superiorly from the outer sidewall, wherein an outer surface of the inner sidewall of a lower portion is attached to the inner surface of an outer sidewall of an upper portion via a locking mechanism), as can be seen in Fig. 6 below.
PNG
media_image5.png
603
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Casey and Vetter are analogous inventions in the field of multi-compartment containers. As Vetter teaches it is known in the art to use a single type of locking mechanism to attach a top cap to a top end of a container body as well as to attach a bottom end of a container body to a bottom cap, it would have appeared obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Casey such that the top cap locking mechanism at the connection between the top cap and top end of the body were replicated in the connection between the bottom end of the body and the bottom cap. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 2
Casey in view of Vetter (hereinafter “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.
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches the top cap (115) comprises a top cap circular sidewall (800), and the top cap locking mechanism comprises a plurality of top cap protrusions (820) disposed on an inner face of the top cap circular sidewall and a top end ridge (250) with a plurality of gaps (400) disposed on an outer surface of the top end of the body, and wherein the plurality of gaps in the top end ridge are sized and shaped to receive the plurality of top cap protrusions and allow the plurality of top cap protrusions to pass through the top end ridge.
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches the body (105) has a cylindrical shape.
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches the body, the top cap, and the bottom cap each comprise an alignment indicator (i.e. notches and gaps).
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Casey does not specifically 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.
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 shape of the notches on the top cap and modified bottom cap to be arrows, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). With regards to the 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 a vertical line along the body aligning the top and bottom cap alignment mechanisms in order to ensure that the top and bottom caps were properly aligned in their desired positions. As such, the claim of 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 does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
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 knurled portion or one or more grip enhancing textures to facilitate grasping (405/825/504).
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches a height of the divider wall is such that a volume of the first interior chamber is more than twice a volume of the second interior chamber, as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding Claim 12
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches a height of the divider wall is such that a volume of the first interior chamber is more than four times a volume of the second interior chamber, as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding Claim 22
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Casey further teaches the body comprises an inner flange (240) extending inferiorly from the divider wall and at least partially forming the second interior chamber, wherein the inner circular sidewall of the modified bottom cap is positioned between the inner surface of the body and the inner flange.
Regarding Claim 13
Casey teaches a container system (Fig. 1B, 2, 4, 10B) 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; wherein the first end comprises a first ridge (205); a top cap (115) configured to attach to the first end of the hollow body and rotate between an unlocked position and a locked position, the top cap comprising a 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; an inner circular sidewall 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 within the hollow body (Col. 7, Ln. 7 – Col. 11, Ln. 52).
Casey further teaches the first ridge having a plurality of ridge sections (205), wherein adjacent ridge sections are separated by one of a plurality of gaps (400), the first ridge disposed on an outer surface of an inner circular sidewall, wherein the plurality of gaps between the ridge sections are sized and shaped to receive the plurality of protrusions (820) disposed on an inner surface of the top cap 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 top cap when rotated to prevent removal of the top 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 of the first plurality of protrusions around a circumference of the inner surface of the top cap (Col. 7, Ln. 7 – Col. 11, Ln. 52).
Casey does not teach the second end comprises a first plurality of protrusions; and the bottom cap comprises 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 the 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 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.
Vetter teaches a container system (Fig., 6) comprising: a hollow body (33) comprising: a first end; a second end; and an internal divider separating an interior of the body into two compartments; wherein the first end comprises a first portion of a top locking mechanism (34) and the second end comprises a first portion of a bottom locking mechanism (not shown); a top cap (32) configured to attach to the first end of the hollow body and rotate between an unlocked position and a locked position, the top cap comprising a second portion of the top locking mechanism configured to align with the first portion of the top locking mechanism of the hollow body when rotated; and a bottom cap configured to attach to the second end of the hollow body, the bottom cap comprising: an outer sidewall; an inner circular sidewall 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 within the hollow body; and a second portion of a bottom locking mechanism on an outer surface of the inner circular sidewall, wherein the first portion of a bottom locking mechanism is configured to align with the second portion of a bottom locking mechanism of the hollow body when rotated to prevent removal of the bottom cap (Col. 2, Ln. 50 – Col. 3, Ln. 10).
Vetter further teaches the top cap locking mechanism and the bottom cap locking mechanism having the same configuration (i.e. an outer sidewall and an inner circular sidewall recessed from the outer sidewall and extending superiorly from the outer sidewall, wherein an outer surface of the inner sidewall of a lower portion is attached to the inner surface of an outer sidewall of an upper portion via a locking mechanism), as can be seen in Fig. 6 above.
Casey and Vetter are analogous inventions in the field of multi-compartment containers. As Vetter teaches it is known in the art to use a single type of locking mechanism to attach a top cap to a top end of a container body as well as to attach a bottom end of a container body to a bottom cap, it would have appeared obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Casey such that the top cap locking mechanism at the connection between the top cap and top end of the body were replicated in the connection between the bottom end of the body and the bottom cap. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 14
Casey in view of Vetter (hereinafter “modified Casey”) teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Casey further teaches the hollow body (105) has a cylindrical shape.
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Casey further teaches the hollow body, the top cap, and the bottom cap each comprise an alignment indicator (i.e. notches and gaps).
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Casey does not specifically 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.
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 shape of the notches on the top cap and modified bottom cap to be arrows, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). With regards to 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 a vertical line along the hollow body aligning the top and bottom cap alignment mechanisms in order to ensure that the top and bottom caps were properly aligned in their desired positions. As such, the claim of 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 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. Casey further teaches the body, top cap, and bottom cap each comprise a knurled portion or one or more grip enhancing textures to facilitate grasping (405/825/504).
Regarding Claim 19
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Casey further teaches a height of the internal divider is such that a volume of one of the two compartments is more than twice a volume of the other compartment, as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Casey teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Casey further teaches a height of the internal divider is such that a volume of one of the two compartments is more than four times a volume of the other compartment, as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
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) 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.
Further, regarding the rejection above, Casey clearly teaches a “locking mechanism” per the Applicant’s description (a ridge/groove and protrusions). Also, Vetter teaches a “locking mechanism” per the Applicant’s own description in Paragraph [0062] (i.e. threading to tighten the covers to the body). As such, the Applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach “locking mechanisms” has been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 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 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights