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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0027], the “protrusion” of the second container is disclosed with reference numeral 556. According to the drawings and other paragraphs of the Written Description the “protrusion” of the second container is disclosed with reference numeral 156.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 4 and 6, the limitations recited in each of the claims raises new matter issues. Claim 4 requires “an annular neck portion of the second container is accommodated in the recess of the first container”; and claim 6 requires “the second cap is accommodated in the recess of the first container”. The new matter in the claims is because nowhere in the specification is disclosed the bottom portion of the first container including a recess, the bottom portion of the second container including a protrusion to be accommodated in the recess of the first container, and at same time an annular neck of the second container and/or second cap of the second container is accommodated in the recess of the first container. Nowhere in the specification is disclosed an annular neck of the second container and/or a second cap accommodated in the recess of the first container and at same time the second container including a protrusion for inserting into the recess of the first container.
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 4 and 6 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. Regarding claims 4 and 6, it is unclear how a an annular neck of the second container and/or a cap of the second container could be accommodated in the recess of the first container, as required in the claims and at same time the protrusion of the second container could also be accommodated in the recess of the first container, as required in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fogel (US 2013/0134161).
Claims 1 and 2
Fogel discloses a connected container system comprising a first container (defined by container pointed by reference numeral 11 in figure 6) having at least a top portion (defined by area where cap 16 is attached), a bottom portion (36), and a side wall portion defining a cavity (defined by interior of the first container) wherein contents may be held, wherein the first container has a recess (40) on the bottom portion; a second container (defined by container pointed by reference numeral 12 in figure 6) having at least a top portion (defined by area where cap 17 is attached), a bottom portion (37), and a side wall portion defining a cavity (defined by interior of the second container) wherein contents may be held, wherein the bottom portion of the second container includes a protrusion (41) extending from the bottom portion, the protrusion being accommodated within the recess of the first container and corresponding in shape and size to the recess, thereby removably connecting the first container and the second container into a connected system (see figure 6 and [0013]).
Claim 3
Fogel further discloses the second container includes an annular neck portion (defined by portion of the second container from where cover 16 is attached) that serves as the sole opening for the passage of contents out of the cavity of the second container (see figures 5, 6, [0012] and [0013]).
Claim 5
Fogel further discloses the first container includes a first cap (16) and the second container includes a second cap (17), wherein the first cap and the second cap are provided over the cavity of the first container and the second container respectively (see figure 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant argument of the teachings of Fogel, the examiner disagrees. Figure 6, of Fogel discloses first container (defined by container pointed by reference numeral 11 in figure 6) including a recess (40) in the bottom portion, the recess sized and shape to receive a protrusion (41) extending from the bottom portion of a second container (defined by container pointed by reference numeral 12 in figure 6).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
