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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4-9, 12, 13 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202012100969U1. DE 202012100969U1 teaches a receptacle, shown in figure 1, for a product, in particular a cosmetic product, said receptacle having an axis, referred to as longitudinal axis, and comprising a pot 1 and a cover 9 of said pot, said pot 1 having first radial protrusions at lead line 4 and second radial protrusions at lead line 6, that are at least axially offset relative to said first protrusions of the pot (figure 1), said cover 9 having first radial protrusions at 12 and second radial protrusions at 12 (figure 4) that are at least axially offset relative to said second protrusions of the cover, said first protrusions of the pot and/or of the cover extending over a first portion of a circumference of said receptacle (figures 3 and 4), said second protrusions of the pot and/or of the cover extending over a second portion of a circumference of said receptacle (figures 3 and 4), said first and second protrusions being configured to cooperate with each other so as to obtain first and second contact areas respectively, on the one hand, between the first protrusions of the pot and the first protrusions of the cover and, on the other hand, between the second protrusions of the pot and the second protrusions of the cover in a closed position of said receptacle.
Regarding claim 4, the first protrusions of the cover and the first protrusions of the pot have substantially the same angular span and/or the second protrusions of the cover and the second protrusions of the pot have substantially the same angular span (see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, a height of said first and/or second protrusions is substantially identical to the axial offset between said first and second protrusions (space between the upper and lower protrusions is identical to the height of the protrusions).
Regarding claim 6, an angular span of said first and/or second protrusions is substantially identical to an angular stroke of said cover (figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, said first and second protrusions are configured so as to engage respectively against each other to close the receptacle according to a movement, referred to as a bayonet movement, comprising at least one rotation about said longitudinal axis (when 9 is applied to 1).
Regarding claim 8, said bayonet movement further comprises an axial translation of said cover with respect to said pot to bring the first protrusions of the cover into axial correspondence with the first protrusions of the pot and the second protrusions of the cover into axial correspondence with the second protrusions of the pot, said translation being followed by at least said rotation (9 is moved downwardly onto 1 to engage the protrusions).
Regarding claim 9, said rotation is less than a cumulative angular amplitude of a first and of a second of said protrusions adjacent to the pot and/or than a cumulative angular amplitude of a first and of a second of said protrusions adjacent to the cover (rotation is less than a cumulative angular amplitude of the first and second protrusions, rotation is approximately the angular amplitude of one protrusion).
Regarding claim 12, said first and second portions of the circumference are complementary to each other so as to extend over substantially the whole of said circumference (figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, said receptacle comprises an articulation of the cover on the pot allowing the cover to be held securely to the pot (via engagement of the protrusions).
Regarding claim 18, said pot has a stepped configuration (see shoulder of 1) with to a first stage and a second stage, said first stage extending from an upper edge of said pot to the second stage, the first stage having a radial extension less than that of the second stage (figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, said first extensions of the pot and of the cover are formed with complementary patterns and/or said second extensions of the pot and of the cover are formed with complementary patterns (figures 1 and 2 show complementary patters, to the degree set forth in the claim).
Regarding claim 20, said complementary patterns have faces facing each other in the form of ramps (ramps considered to be surfaces of 4 and 12).
Regarding claim 21, said ramps are configured to engage against each other, thanks to a profile of said ramps (surfaces of 4 and 12 engage each other).
Regarding claim 22, said first and/or second protrusions of the pot and/or of the cover are interrupted by a radial slot (shown at 7 and 8).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012100969U1 in view of Fraser (WO 2019/141973).
Regarding claim 2, DE 202012100969U1 discloses the claimed invention except for the seal. Fraser teaches that it is known to provide a receptacle with a compression seal (see element 60). 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 receptacle of DE 202012100969U1 with a seal, as taught by Fraser, in order to preserve the contents of the receptacle.
Further regarding claim 2, said first and second contact areas extend cumulatively over more than 180° (contact areas of both the receptacle and cover), said receptacle comprising a seal, as modified by Fraser above, said seal being configured to be compressed between said pot and said cover at least in said closed position (figure 15 of Fraser).
Regarding claim 3, said cover accommodates said seal, as modified by Fraser above (see figure 15 of Fraser) leaving said seal free to rotate with respect to the pot.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012100969U1. Regarding claim 10, DE 202012100969U1 discloses the claimed invention except for the fourth protrusion of the cover and pot. 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 receptacle of DE 202012100969U1 with an additional protrusion on the pot and cover, in order to secure the cover with less rotation and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012100969U1 in view of Degrassi (U.S. 5,398,837).
Regarding claim 14, DE 202012100969U1 discloses the claimed invention except for the ring and hinge. Degrassi teaches that it is known to provide a receptacle with a ring and hinge (see elements 26 and 64; figures 7 and 8). 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 receptacle of DE 202012100969U1 with a ring and hinge, as taught by Degrassi, in order to prevent loss of the cover.
Regarding claim 15, a longitudinal clearance between the cover and the ring in the closed position, as modified by Degrassi above (see clearance shown in figure 8 of Degrassi).
Regarding claim 16, said hinge (26 of Degrassi) is connected to said ring and to said cover, in particular is in one piece with said ring and said cover, said hinge being elastically deformable (see figures 7 and 8 of Degrassi).
Regarding claim 17, said hinge (26 of Degrassi) is a film hinge (figure 7 of Degrassi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 October 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the primary reference of DE 202012100969U1 does not teach that the first protrusions of the pot and/or cover extend over a first portion of a circumference of the receptacle, as set forth in claim 1. Applicant also argues that DE 202012100969U1 does not teach second protrusions of the pot and/or cover extending over a second portion of a circumference of said receptacle, as set forth in claim 1. It is the examiner’s position that DE 202012100969U1 meets both of these limitations of claim 1, as explained below.
Figure 1 of DE 202012100969U1 is reproduced below to show the first and second protrusions of the pot. As shown below, the pot has a set of first radial protrusions (on the right of figure 1) and a set of second radial protrusions (on the left of figure 1). The first radial protrusions extend over a first portion of a circumference of the receptacle, and the second radial protrusions extend over a second portion of the circumference of the receptacle.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of DE 202012100969U1 is reproduced below to show the first and second protrusions of the cover. As shown below, the cover has a first set of radial protrusions (on the right of figure 4), and a second set of radial protrusions (on the left of figure 4). The first set of radial protrusions extend over a first portion of a circumference of the cover, and the second set of radial protrusions extend over a second portion of a circumference of the cover.
PNG
media_image2.png
354
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As explained above, the reference of DE 202012100969U1 teaches multiple protrusions which are distributed about the circumference such that one set of protrusions extends along a first portion of the circumference, and another set of protrusions extends along a second portion of the circumference.
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 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
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736