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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-17 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 1 recites “an upper portion” in line 7. It is unclear if this is the same upper portion previously set forth in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the depressed portions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “a second gap” in line 6, but a first gap is not previously set forth. It is unclear if there are multiple gaps.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the center of the plurality of protrusions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recite “the same horizontal plane”. It is unclear what the horizontal plane is the same for.
Claim 14 recites “a plurality of protrusions” in line 2. It is unclear if these are the same protrusions previously set forth in claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “an upper portion” in line 7. It is unclear if this is the same upper portion previously set forth in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “the total length” in lines 16-17. It is unclear what length this is referring to.
Claim 16 recites “the total length” in line 4. It is unclear what length this is referring to.
The remainder of the office action is based on the examiner’s best understanding of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by French (US-20190276201-A1).
French discloses:
1. A child-resistant storage container (100), the storage container comprising: a base (110), the base having a base panel (111), and a base wall (112) extending transversely and peripherally from the base panel configuring a cavity to store articles, the base wall includes a ledge extending transversally and peripherally from the base wall configuring an upper portion and a lower portion of the base wall (Fig. 2); and a lid (120) attachable to the upper portion of the base wall of the base; wherein, the upper portion of the base wall has a plurality of protrusions (115, segments of the structure can be considered connected protrusions) to receive and hold the lid thereon, wherein the lid is adapted to rest on the ledge of the base and has a cutout portion (125) adapted to pivot the lid around a fulcrum (Fig. 5) upon application of a force (N) on a portion of the lid for detaching the lid from the plurality of protrusions (Fig. 4b), and the lid is completely detachable from the base upon pulling the lid from opposite side of the cutout portion to access the articles stored in the base (Fig. 2).
2. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lid has an inward projection (128) adapted to engage with the plurality of protrusions of the base to hold the lid thereon, configuring a closed position (Fig. 4a) to securely store the articles, wherein in the closed position, the cutout portion configures a first gap between the ledge of the base and the inward projection of the lid (Fig. 4a).
3. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the portion of the lid is a first end portion pivotable around depressed portions upon applying the force (N) (Fig. 4b).
5. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of protrusions is adapted to hold the lid until the force (N) greater than the retention force of the plurality of protrusions is applied on the cutout portion , wherein the plurality of protrusions is positioned according to the force (N) required to detach the lid from the base (pars. 0027, 0028).
6. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 1, wherein upon pulling the lid from the opposite side of the cutout portion , the lid is completely disengaged from the plurality of protrusions providing access to the articles stored in the base (Fig. 2).
7. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of protrusions is arranged on the upper portion of the base wall in such a way that a center of the plurality of protrusions lies in the same horizontal plane as the protrusions , wherein the plurality of protrusions includes a latch protrusion arranged on one of the sides of the base , near the edge of the upper portion of the base wall and positioned transversely away from the horizontal plane (Fig. 2).
8. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 7, wherein the latch protrusion is provided to receive an inward projection of the cutout portion of the lid to securely hold the lid in a closed position (Fig. 4a).
9. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lid includes a panel (121) and a lid wall (122) transversely extending from the panel, wherein the panel is provided with a pair of depressed portions (123, 125) extending towards the base and are adapted to rest on an edge of the upper portion of the base wall when configured in a closed position (Fig. 1).
10. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 9, wherein the lid wall has a cutout portion (127) arranged at one of the sides of the lid and is slanted towards the end of the side, the cutout portion configures a fulcrum for pivoting the lid upon application of the force (N) on the lid from the cutout portion (Fig. 4b).
11. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base wall includes a lower portion extending from the periphery of the base panel , and an upper portion extending from the lower portion , wherein a portion near the base panel is the lower portion and a portion extending from the lower portion away from the base panel is the upper portion (Fig. 2).
13. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the storage container has a cylindrical shape with the base wall having an upper portion and a lower portion , wherein the upper portion and the lower portion are formed by a circular side and a flat side to configure a cavity within the base (Fig. 2).
14. The child-resistant storage container as claimed in claim 13, wherein the base includes the plurality of protrusions extending from the outer surface of the upper portion , specifically, the flat side has one protrusion and the circular side of the base has two protrusions (Fig. 2, segments of the structure can be considered connected protrusions).
18. A child-resistant storage container (100), the storage container comprising: a base (110), the base having a base panel (111), and a base wall extending transversely and peripherally from the base panel configuring a cavity to store articles, the base wall includes a ledge extending transversally and peripherally from the base wall configuring an upper portion and a lower portion of the base wall (Fig. 2); and a lid (120) attachable to an upper portion of the base wall of the base ; wherein, the upper portion of the base wall has a plurality of protrusions (15, segments of the structure can be considered connected protrusions) to receive and hold the lid thereon, wherein the lid is adapted to rest on the ledge of the base and has a cutout portion (125) adapted to pivot the lid around a fulcrum upon application of a force (N) on the lid for detaching the lid from the plurality of protrusions , and the lid is completely detachable from the base upon pulling the lid from opposite side of the cutout portion to access the articles stored in the base (Fig. 2) wherein, the plurality of protrusions extends from the outer surface of the upper portion and has curved edges that blend into the outer surface of the upper portion (Fig. 4a).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US-20190276201-A1).
French discloses wherein the base has a ledge extending from the base wall separating the upper portion from the lower portion (Fig. 2), but fails to teach wherein the distance of the upper portion measured from the center of the base panel is equal to the distance of the lower portion measured from the center of the base panel.
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 with the claimed size, in order to adjust where the container could fit and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited is drawn to child-resistant storge containers.
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