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 § 112
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.
Claims 11-14 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 11 depends from claim 10, which has been cancelled. Thus, making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Claims 12-14 depend from claim 11 and are therefore rejected to accordingly under 35 USC 112b for the same reason. For examination purposes, claim 11 is presumed to depend from claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinelli et al. (U.S. 2020/0339310) in view of Sunko (U.S. 2,766,901). Pinelli et al. teaches a storage container 10 comprising a container body 12 having a bottom 30, a side wall 22, 24, 26, 28 extending upward from the bottom, an internal volume 18 surrounded by the side wall (figure 3), and an open top (defined by 44) having a top rim at 44, a lid 14 placed on the open top of the container body and comprising a plate-shaped portion 52, wherein the lid is movable relative to the open top of the container body between a closed configuration in which the lid covers the open top to close the container body (figure 1), and an open configuration in which at least a part of the lid moves away from the open top to provide access into the interior volume through the open top (figure 8), at least one latch 20 shiftable between a latched position locking the lid in the closed configuration (figure 7), and an unlatched position permitting to release the lid to the open configuration (figure 8), characterized in that the latch 20 comprises an actuator portion (at lead line 72) by which the latch is pivotal between the latched and unlatched positions (figures 7 and 8), and a latch portion having a fulcrum at 70 operably carried on the top rim of the container body (via attachment to 14) during the pivotal movement of the latch, and the latch portion pivots upward and downward about the fulcrum to lift and lower the lid so that the lid is movable between the closed and open configurations (figures 7 and 8).
Further regarding claim 1, Pinelli et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the bulge of the pivotal pin. Sunko teaches that it is known to provide a pivotal pin with a bulge at each end (see elements 22 and 23 of pin 21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Pinelli et al. with the pivotal pin with bulges, as taught by Sunko, in order to function as bearings and retain the pin within the slot, as disclosed in col. 2 lines 39-41 of Sunko.
Regarding claim 2, the latch 20 is pivotally mounted on a pivotal side of the lid, and the latch portion is configured to comprise an upper latch tongue at 74, a lower latch tongue at 76, and a side latch tongue at 72 connecting the upper and lower latch tongues to define a channel that is sized and configured to releasably receive and retain a flange 40 extending in a generally lateral direction relative to the sidewall of the container body 12.
Regarding claim 3, the actuator portion (lower portion of 72) is configured as a manipulation tab which protrudes downward from the lower latch tongue at an end thereof away from the side latch tongue (figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, the lid 14 comprises a cutout portion at 54 configured to receive the upper latch tongue when the latch is in the latched position (figure 9).
Regarding claim 5, one or more engagement blocks 78 are provided on the lower latch tongue to detachably engage to a catch (adjacent 42) protruding generally downward from an underside of the flange to secure the latch in the latched position.
Regarding claim 6, the upper latch tongue (comprised of 74 and 70) has a leading portion serving as the fulcrum about which the latch portion pivots upward and downward.
Regarding claim 7, the upper latch tongue (comprised of 74 and 70) is actuated by the actuator portion (lower portion of 72) to pivot about the leading portion to be substantially parallel with and rests on the top rim of the container body when the latch is in the latched position (figure 7), and to tilt with the leading portion resting on the top rim of the container body (via attachment to 14) when the latch is in the unlatched position.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinelli et al. (U.S. 2020/0339310) in view of Sunko (U.S. 2,766,901), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chapman et al. (U.S. 2021/0061525). Regarding claim 15, the modified container of Pinelli et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the vent. Chapman et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a vent (see seal 45; figure 15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Pinelli et al. with the venting structure, as taught by Chapman et al., in order to allow venting of the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, is allowable because it includes the allowable subject matter of claim 10. This is incorrect. Claim 10 was dependent directly or indirectly on claims 1-9. The limitations of claim 10 alone are not allowable. The combination of all of the limitations of claims 1-9 and claim 10 were deemed allowable.
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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. Avilés 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights