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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ude (US-8820566-B2) in view of Minh (US-5826738-A).
Regarding claim 1, Ude discloses a container assembly (Fig. 1), comprising: a storage container (12) having a ring attachment portion (14), the storage container defining an interior (Fig. 10); and a lid assembly comprising: a ring (20) having internal threads (23), the ring being attachable to the ring attachment portion (Fig. 12); a lid (30) having external threads (38), the lid is configured to be inserted into the ring substantially without interference from the threads and can be rotated for sealing the lid to the ring; and a seal formed onto the ring (Fig. 12, at 21), wherein in a closed position, the lid assembly is coupled to the storage container, access to and from the interior of the storage container is restricted (Fig. 10).
Ude fails to teach an alignment mark aligned with a beginning end of the thread on the ring, and an alignment mark aligned on the lid with a beginning of the thread such that when the lid is inserted into the ring with the two alignment marks aligned with one another, wherein the seal substantially prevents fluid communication between the lid and the ring with the lid installed to the ring, wherein the lid assembly substantially prevents fluid communication between the interior of the storage container and an exterior environment.
Minh teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container assembly with an alignment mark (16) aligned with a securing structure, and an alignment mark (36) aligned on the lid with a connection structure such that when the lid is inserted into the ring with the two alignment marks aligned with one another (col. 3, lines 63-67), and wherein components of a container assembly can be formed to provide a seal on the container (col. 6, lines 35-44) such that the seal substantially prevents fluid communication in a closed position (col. 6, lines 35-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the assembly with alignment marks, in order to make it easier for a user to open and close the assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the assembly to create a substantially fluid tight seal, as taught by Minh, in order to prevent unwanted materials from entering or escaping the container assembly an in order to better protect the contents of the container assembly.
Regarding claim 7, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches, the internal threads and the external threads engage one another during rotation of the lid attaching the lid to the ring (Ude, col. 4, lines 53-62).
Regarding claim 8, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches wherein the alignment mark of the ring is a first alignment mark, and the alignment mark of the lid is a second alignment mark and when the lid is rotated to a position where the first and second alignment marks align the thread are spaced apart and dis-engaged from one another such that the lid can be lifted out of the ring and inserted into the ring (Minh, col. 3, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 9, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches wherein when the lid is rotated within the ring to a position where the first and second alignment marks are not aligned with one another, the internal and external threads are engaged from one another such that the lid cannot be lifted out of the ring (Minh, col. 3, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 10, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches wherein the ring attachment portion of the storage container is an annular flange that extends away from an adjacent surface of the storage container, and the ring has an inner portion and an outer portion that fit over the annular flange (Ude, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 11, the modified container assembly of Ude wherein the ring includes a snap-fitting protrusion that snaps to a corresponding part of the annular flange of the ring attachment portion (based on the modified sizes).
Regarding claim 12, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches wherein the seal (Ude, 21, 20, 28, 29) can molded to the ring (product by process).
Regarding claim 13, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches wherein the seal (Ude, 21, 20, 28, 29) that can be overmolded to the ring (product by process).
Regarding claim 14, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches wherein the seal includes an upper portion (Ude, 21) and a lower portion (Ude, 28, 29) separated from one another by a plurality of posts that are molded into corresponding openings in the ring, the upper portion is configured to facilitate sealing between a portion of the lid and the ring and the lower portion is configured to facilitate sealing between the ring and the ring attachment portion of the storage container (Ude, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 16, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches wherein an upper surface of the lid includes: a plurality of protrusions (Ude, Fig. 8 at 60) ; and a recess defined between each of the protrusions, the recess configured to enable a user to rotate the lid.
Regarding claim 17, the modified container assembly of Ude teaches wherein a lower surface of the lid includes a plurality of radially extending ribs (Ude, Fig. 9, 34, 60)
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ude (US-8820566-B2) in view of Minh (US-5826738-A) and Ouellette (US-20140374418-A1).
The modified container assembly of Ude teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein the assembly has surface texturing to be opaque, translucent or transparent.
Ouellette teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container assembly with texturing to be opaque, translucent or transparent (par. 0147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container assembly to be opaque, translucent or transparent, in order to adjust how much a user could see through the assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, this case one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that there are different reasons for sealing a container based on the contents of the container. The principal of operation would not be changed by adapting the container to store different items or to protect items within the container to a different degree.
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights