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.
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 5, 9-10, 12, and 16 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 5 recites “a tip of each arm” in line 3 and “two arm tips” in lines 7 and 8. This leads to ambiguity and applicant is advised to keep the terminology same throughout the body of the claim when referring to a limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites limitations “the fastener lever” in lines 12, 13, and 18, “the fastener button” in lines 12, 14, and 17, “the fastener spring” in lines 13 and 18. Claim 9 recites, in lines 11-12, that “the fastener formed of the continuous material in common and having a button, a lever, and a spring”. When referring back to these limitations, the applicant should “the button”, “the spring”, and “the lever”. For all of these reasons, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites limitations “the fastener lever” in lines 9, 10, and 23, “the fastener button” in lines 11 and 22, and “the fastener spring” in lines 10 and 23. Claim 12 recites, in lines 8-9, that “the fastener formed of the continuous material in common and having a button, a lever, and a spring”. When referring back to these limitations, the applicant should “the button”, “the spring”, and “the lever”. For all of these reasons, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “a tip of each arm” in line 3 and “two arm tips” in lines 7 and 8. This leads to ambiguity and applicant is advised to keep the terminology same throughout the body of the claim when referring to a limitation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claim 10 is also rejected under the same grounds for being dependent on claim 9.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samartgis (US PN 2014/0217128).
Regarding claim 1, Samartgis discloses a dispensing lid (item 1, figure 1) for use with a container, the dispensing lid comprising:
a body (items 2, 20, figure 1); and
a selectively extendable and retractable carrying mechanism (the handle 10 can be retracted back and extended forward, figures 5-9) including:
a handle (items 11, 12, figure 3) having:
two parallel arms (parallel arms of handle 11, figure 3);
a bridge (top U section connecting arms of handle 11, figure 3) connecting the two arms near a first end of each arm; and two posts (item 16, figure 3), each projecting from a respective one of the two arms near a second end of its respective arm;
two arm tracks (item 23, figure 3) formed into the body and through which the two arms respectively slide when extending and retracting the handle; and
two post channels (items 25, 27, figure 5) inside the two arm tracks and through which the two posts respectively slide when extending and retracting the handle (paragraphs [0024], [0026], [0028], [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable, if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-18 are allowed over the prior arts allowed, if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 5, 9-10, 12, and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 5, 9-10, 12, and 16 were rejected for being definite as they contained multiple instances of lack of proper antecedent basis. Applicant argued that the limitations in question amendments to such limitations would make them les clear and that limitations such “two arm tips”, “the fastener button, “the fastener lever”, and “the fastener spring” do not lead to ambiguity because a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain that the limitations are the same.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claim 5, it is clear that the “two arm tips” and “a tip of each arm can be construed differently, especially because the two arms in claim 5 are not defined as “two parallel arms” of claim 1. There is clearly a disconnect between the claims which the applicant has failed to amend by simply amending the claim language that would ensure uniformity of limitations. Contrary to applicant’s arguments, not amending the claim limitation with proper antecedent basis indeed leads to ambiguity. First, the two arms of claim 5 could be different two arms that two parallel arms of claim 1 given the complexity of the invention and the multiple embodiments disclosed by the applicant. Second, a tip of each arm and a two arm tips can materially include different structure and thus lead to indefiniteness. For all of these reasons, the examiner suggests amending the claims as previously suggested. Claim 16 follows the same reasoning and remains rejected as discussed in detail above.
Regarding the rejection of claims 9 and 12, the claim goes on to define that the fastener comprises “a button”, “a lever”, and “a spring” and them continues to recite “the fastener lever”, “the fastener lever” and “the fastener spring” throughout the body of the claim. As previously mentioned, there is a lot of complex structure and multitude of embodiments being disclosed including more than one type of spring for the dispensing lid. Without using the same language to refer to the same limitations, it is indeed possible that these structures can be construed as materially different. The fact that the applicant amended the limitation “the lid” to “the dispensing lid” in other claims but did not amend similarly erred limitations of claims 9 and 12 seems arbitrary. For all of these reasons, the examiner suggests amending the claims as previously suggested.
Therefore, claims 5, 9-10, 12, and 16 remain rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed in detail above.
Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection of claim 1 under Samartgis have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Samartgis cannot anticipate claim 1 because it does not teach two arm tracks with two post channels and that the two parallel arms slide through two arm tracts to retract and extend. Applicant further argued that opposing lugs 24 are equated to two posts of the claims and they slide through tracks 23 but fail to slide in post channels.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to point out that the prior art indeed teaches the limitations in question. First, as clearly seen from prior art figures, two parallel arms 11 are disclosed as part of the handle connected by a U-shaped bridge section. Furthermore, two posts 16 are projecting from an end of each parallel arm as clearly seen in the figure 1. Also, the opposing tracks 23 are equivalent to the two arm tracks of the claimed invention because they are formed in the body and the parallel arms slide through the tracks, through posts 16, to extend and retract as seen in figures 5-7.
It is worth noting that applicant equated protrusions 24 as the two posts which slide in the arm tracks. However, this is clearly false as protrusions 24 of prior art are adapted to be located in apertures 7 of the main body member 1 to have a releasable connection between the flap member 20 and the main body member 1 as clearly disclosed in paragraph [0024]. Applicant has failed to notice that the previous office action has cited lug members 16 as the ones that slide through two opposing tracks 23 to extend and retract the parallel arms 11. Thus, it appears that the applicant is misconstruing the prior art structures in an attempt to distinguish the independent claim.
Lastly, contrary to applicant’s assertion that tracks 23 do not disclose two post channels through which two posts slide, the interior structure defined by ramps 25 and does 27 does indeed define two post channels for posts 16 to slide through for extending and retracting the handle 10. The figures of Samartgis clearly show this. It is not clear how the applicant arrived at the conclusion that such is not the case. Applicant admitted that ramps 25 and 27 are indeed part of tracks 23 on page 14 of the response but arrived at a different conclusion. Nevertheless, as discussed above and evident by disclosure of Samartgis, claim 1 is rejected as being anticipated because the prior art teaches each and every limitation. Therefore, claim 1 remains rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 pm).
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights