DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks 1/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1-6 under 35 USC 103 in Office Action 10/8/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive, since flexibility of the thin metal material of Armato was not evidenced for the bottom unit’s sides, nor as non-flexible for the lid. Therefore, that rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of US Pat 4733794 issued to Kent. This is the reason for a second Non-Final action herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line “the bottom surface of the bottom surface of the” appears to be a clerical duplication error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 7124909 issued to Armato (hereinafter “Armato”) in view of US Pub 20150203267 by Fellin et al. (hereinafter “Fellin”) in view of US Pat 4733794 issued to Kent (hereinafter “Kent”) in view of US Pat 11180294 issued to Lei (hereinafter “Lei”).
Regarding claim 1, Armato teaches a container (Fig 1) comprising:
a lid (Fig 1, 12) having a front (54), a back (Fig 2, 58), a first side (56), a second side (Fig 6, 60 which is directly opposite the first side 56), a top (Figs 4 & 6, “flat top 50”) and a bottom (Fig 1, “flat bottom 53”);
a bottom unit (Fig 1, a bottom unit is 14 and 16) having a front (18), a back (22), a first side (Figs 1-2, 20), a second side (Fig 1, a directly opposite wall to 20), an open top (Fig 1, 34) and a sealed bottom (Fig 1, bottom 42 is necessarily sealed because, col 2, lines 15-17 “A bottom cover 42… is clenched in place to permanently close the bottom of the receptacle”);
a locking mechanism located on the front of the bottom unit (Fig 3, a locking mechanism involves a curl 36, which is shown in the front of the bottom unit near top edge 46, Fig 1, see the citation below for how it locks);
an extended bump (Fig 1, “outwardly projecting dimple 78” forms the locking mechanism with a curl 36 of the bottom unit because of contact resistance, col 2, lines 62-65, “As the lid is rotated home, dimple 78 will encounter resistance at curl 36 requiring that it be forced with light pressure into a closed position with the dimple below the curl”) on the front of the lid (Fig 1, 78 is on 54) wherein the extended bump has a top surface and a bottom surface (Fig 2, 78 has a top surface and a bottom surface); wherein
the bottom surface of the bump is curved (Fig 2, the bottom surface of 78 is curved because a dimple is curved all around, and the bottom surface is curved); wherein
the locking mechanism locks the lid to the bottom unit (78 locks with the bottom unit via 36 because force is required to open meaning it is locked when closed; col 3, lines 2-7, “The consumer will remove the wrapping and, grasping the receptacle of the container with the fingers of one hand, will recognize the visual and tactile cue of overhang 72 and, using the thumb of the same hand that is grasping the container, push up under the overhang to move dimple 78 past curl 36 and open the container”. Also, examiner notes that since the same hand does the action of grasping the container and the action of pushing the lid while grasping, grasping and pushing are happening simultaneously).
But Armato does not explicitly teach a particular container rim indented area as the first part of the locking mechanism (i.e. an area that is a portion of Armato’s locking curl 36 fully circumferential area) – and the lid’s corresponding bump top surface shape (which completes the second part of the locking mechanism).
Fellin, however, teaches a similar container body/bottom unit (Fig 2, a container body is back portion 102) releasing a lid (Fig 2, a lid is front portion 104, is released “When the tabs 108 are pressed… lip 210 [on opposing sides of 104 is] pushed to the interior cavity of the back portion 104”, [0032]) comprising:
a locking mechanism comprises an indented area (Fig 2, an indented area is indent 212 that defines an area where it exists within bottom 102 facing an interior, as part of a locking mechanism disclosed when “latch 208 engages a corresponding portion in the front portion 102 to create a friction lock”, wherein “latch 208” comprises lip 210 of the lid 104, [0031]);
a top surface of a bump (Fig 3C, a bump is the lip 210 of 104) is flat (Figs 2 & 3C, a top surface of bump 210 is shown flat and contacts an inside surface of 212 while closed, Fig 1, and 210 is disclosed as flat wherein “the lip 210 and the indent 212 are shown as lines”, [0031], since lines are flat and 210 shows its top surface as a horizontal line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top surface of the bump and a corresponding container rim area of Armato to be a flat top surface of the bump and an indented area of the corresponding container rim as taught by Fellin in order to advantageously increase security of the closed lid to improve preventing opening by jostling by increasing the friction and hooking contact area (i.e. indent to bump top surface) countering pushing the lid up and back of the locking mechanism versus what is otherwise lesser area via point contact of Armato’s rounded curl to rounded dimple surface.
But Armato/Fellin does not explicitly teach that at least the first and second side of the bottom unit are flexible (Armato, Figs 1-2, side 20 and side opposite 20; col 2, lines 5-13, “walls 18-24 [are] formed of a single piece of thin metal” like “tin coated steel or aluminum in thicknesses in the range of about 0.0007 inch (0.196 mm)”).
Kent, however, teaches a similar container wherein the first side and the second side of the bottom unit are flexible (the first and second side walls necessarily flex under force to cause bulging of the front wall (because they do not deform in a permanent manner), meaning the walls are flexible; Abstract, “compressive forces are exerted… on the side walls of the body member… thereby causing the front wall of the body member to flex slightly”, “outward”, col 3, line 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thin metal walls of Armato be sufficiently flexible material to flex as taught by Kent in order to advantageously improve lid security by making it child-proof (i.e. at least two coordinated actions required to open).
But Armato/Fellin/Kent does not explicitly teach that the lid (Armato, Fig 1, 12) is not flexible.
Lei, however, teaches a similar locking mechanism for bottom unit with a similarly structured lid that is not flexible (Fig 1, top unit 10 is a lid, that is “rigid”, as disclosed in claim 6, meaning not flexible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lid of Armato be sufficiently not flexible material to not flex as taught by Lei in order to advantageously improve the security of locking the lid against jostling versus a flexible lid that would more easily bend causing lock release.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4048050 issued to Hillman (hereinafter “Hillman”) in view of US Pub 20070062964 by Kampf et al. (hereinafter “Kampf”) in view of US Pat 11180294 issued to Lei (hereinafter “Lei”).
Regarding claim 4, Hillman teaches a method of opening (Figs 3-4, an opening method is shown) a locked container (col 4, lines 11-14, “lock the cover” is shown locking/latching container 10 closed in Figs 2-3) comprising:
providing a lid (Fig 1, 12 is provided) having a front (23), a back (Fig 2, 24), a first side (25), a second side (25), a top (Fig 1, “flat top 22”) and a bottom (Fig 1, bottom edge 29);
providing a bottom unit (Fig 1, a bottom unit is enclosure 11 is provided) having a front (18), a back (19), a first side (first “flexible sidewall 17”), a second side (second “flexible sidewall 17”), an open top (shown) and a sealed bottom (Fig 3, “flat bottom 16”);
squeezing the first side and the second side of the bottom unit (Figs 3-4, col 3, lines 66-68, “the enclosure sidewalls 17 indicate the area in which the enclosure 11 must be squeezed to release the detents 35”) while simultaneously pushing the front of the lid toward the back of the bottom unit to release (Fig 4 the lid 12 and its front 23 are shown pushed/translated/moved backward toward 19 relative to the bottom unit 11. The squeeze and push are necessarily simultaneous because the lid/front cannot be pushed toward anything without squeezing first and second at the same time);
further comprising a step of providing a flexible material as the first and second side of the bottom unit (first and second disclosed as “flexible sidewalls 17” indicates the material of 17 is flexible);
But Hillman does not explicitly teach a front container rim indented area as the first part of the locking mechanism, and a front lid corresponding bump top surface shape as the second part of the locking mechanism, that can be released.
Kampf, however, teaches a similar safety type container comprising:
providing a locking mechanism located on the front of the bottom unit (Figs 7-8 & 11, a locking mechanism includes 26 and 28);
providing an extended bump (Fig 7, “protrusion 26”) on the front of the lid (Fig 7, 26 is on a front of a lid) wherein the extended bump has a top surface and a bottom surface (Fig 8, 26 has a top surface and a bottom surface); wherein
the top surface of the bump is flat (Figs 2 & 8, the top surface of 26 is shown flat) and wherein the bottom surface of the bump is curved (Figs 2 & 8, the bottom surface of 26 is curved); wherein
the bump of the lid is locked into the locking mechanism (Fig 2, [0046], “secure the protrusion 26 within the seat 28” necessarily means the bump 26 is locked into the indented area 28 because they’re part of “locking mechanism 18”, Fig 1); and then
Lei teaches a similar safety container with multiple locking structures (from col 2, lines 7-8, “child resistant storage container” as taught by Lei in Fig 10 has a front lock 550 in addition to simultaneously squeezing both sides (that are like Fig 2, sides 105) in order to open. In other words Lei teaches one lock mechanism is opened by squeezing two sides while simultaneously pushing an element (i.e. 550 which is behaves like 70 (disclosed as follows) just in a different location); col 3, lines 45-49, “a generally triangular extension 105 which may allow a user to more easily push the first tab 100 and the second tab 101 (and also extended bumps 70 together with one finger each) to unlock the top unit 10 from the bottom unit 50”. Meaning at least three fingers push each of the three respectively (i.e. side, side, front)), and the step of providing a non-flexible material as the lid (Fig 1, top unit 10 is a lid, that is “rigid”, as disclosed in claim 6, meaning not flexible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid front and container rim area of Hillman to have a flat topped surface bump and a corresponding indent in an area of the container rim as taught by Kampf in order to advantageously increase security of the closed lid against opening by jostling or jolts, and beneficially increase child safety by increasing the level of difficulty through increased amount of simultaneous locks as taught by Lei. For example against upward motion of the easily accessible front flange of Hillman (Fig 1, 26), or against pulling upward on the lid of Hillman.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lid of Hillman be sufficiently not flexible material to not flex as taught by Lei in order to advantageously improve the security of locking the lid against jostling versus a flexible lid that would more easily bend causing lock release.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention, including the limitation “release the bump from the locking mechanism”, via having the front extended bump of Kampf be on the front of the lid of Hillman (such as below the flange 26, as Kampf’s bump is below its lid flange as well), and the bottom unit rim indented area of Kampf be in the bottom unit rim of Hillman, thereby adding a locking mechanism as claimed that is obvious to add for increased child safety by increased difficulty of opening as taught by Lei. This Hillman/Kampf combination structure would necessarily “release the bump from the locking mechanism” while “pushing the front of the lid toward the back of the bottom unit”, as cited, because “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 I). Therefore examiner submits a POSITA would add Kampf’s front lock to Hillman’s side squeeze lock because Lei teaches it is obvious to have both a side squeeze lock and a front lock as part of one locking mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733