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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/11/2025 (hereinafter “amendment”) has been accepted and entered. Claims 2-11 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The cross section tapering means (Fig. 3 does not show a narrowing or thinning at one end, i.e., tapering)
The collar having an outer border, whose contour corresponds to an inner border of the cross-section tapering means (as stated above Fig. 3 does not show a narrowing or thinning at one end, thusly not tapering means).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 1 does not show the location of the cross section tapering means and thusly the relationship between said cross section tapering means and the inner container and the lid
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-11 are 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 2 recites “the driver element comes into engagement with the cross-section tapering means when the rotational connection is established and the lid is rotated, and this causes a twisting of the inner container relative to the lid”, this is unclear. It is previously recited that the driver element protrudes towards the tapering means when the screw connection is established not that is comes into engagement, is this a different driver element? Is this a fully engaged lid? Is this twisting the lid off of the container and not further onto the outer container? Is there an intermediate step where the driver protrudes towards it before it is engaged? How does the driver element engaging the tapering means rotate the inner container relative to the lid? Are the tapering means shaped in some kind of spiral? Does this mean the inner container is held in place by the driver and the tapering means and the lid is being screwed off of the outer container and so the inner container if held down by the tapering means? What stops the driver from rotating with the lid? As the driver would just rotate along the bottom of the tapering means.
Claim 9 recites “inserted past the shaped section of the cross section tapering means to establish the rotational connection”, this is unclear. Does this mean the threads cannot make contact until the collar is past the shaped section?
Claim 9 recites “rotating the lid whereby the driver element comes into engagement with the cross-section tapering means and causes a twisting of the inner container relative to the lid”, this is unclear. Is this in the process attaching the lid i.e., the inner container is put on and then the lid is twisted into place? Then the collar would go downwardly and not up into the tapering means? Does the applicant mean unscrewing the lid? Again, how does an engagement of the driver element cause a twisting of the inner container relative to the lid? What stops the driver from rotating along the bottom of tapering means?
Claim 11 recites “includes a cross section tapering means defining a shaped section of the second opening region”, this is unclear. Is this a horizontal cross section tapering means? Tapering is becoming thinner or narrowing towards one end, and the newly added Fig. 3 does not show becoming thinner or narrowing at one end. It is unclear if tapering is used correctly.
Claim 11 recites “the inner container is releasably carried by the lid and can rotate relative to the axis of rotation, when the inner container carried by the lid is inserted in the second interior with the circumferential collar inserted past the shaped section, the rotational connection is established”, this is unclear. Is this the rotational connection between the lid and the inner container or the lid and the outer container? Does this mean the lid rotates independent of the lid? Or the lid and inner container rotate together? What is releasably carried? Does a portion of the lid have to below the inner container to thusly carry it? Does this just mean the inner container is connected to the lid? Is that connection one that allows the inner container to rotate relative to the lid?
Claim 11 recites “rotation of the inner container about the axis of rotation is blocked when the circumferential collar or the drive element comes into contact with the cross section tapering means”, this is unclear. As shown in the figures the driver element protrudes upwardly from the collar, how would the collar hit the tapering means first? If the rotational connection isn’t established before the inner container is seated it is unclear how interference with the collar would come before the driver element.
Claim 11 recites “when the inner container carried by the lid is inserted in the second interior with the circumferential collar inserted past the shaped section, the rotational connection is established”, this is unclear. If the outer container and the lid have a rotational connection (threads) then the rotational connection is already established (as the parts have threads), how does being inserted effect the connection? Does this mean the threads on the lid do not make contact with the threads of the outer container until the collar is below the shaped section?
Due to the lack of clarity of the claims and a lack of a clear relationship between the structures from the figures it is unclear to determine the structure required for the claims.
Claims not specifically mentioned are included due to their dependencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735