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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/19/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "wherein said first void and second void comprise the same diameter" in lines 1-2 is unclear how the first and second void have two different diameters since applicant has already stated in claim 1, which claim 13 depends from, has the same diameter. The two claims seem to be contradicting each other. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein said first void and second void capable of having the same diameter”.
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) 1-3,6-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bouteloup (US11925601B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bouteloup teaches a binding, said binding comprising (see annotated fig.10B below):
a first void for receiving a lip of a top can (see annotated fig.3 below for first void that is capable of receiving a lip of a top can; it is noted that “a lip of a top can” is not positively claimed it is a capable of limitation);
a second void for receiving a lip of a bottom can; wherein said first and second void surround a central void (see annotated fig.3 below for second void that is capable of receiving a lip of a top can and a central void surrounded by the first and second void; it is noted that “a lip of a top can” is not positively claimed it is a capable of limitation);
wherein said first void opens from above and wherein said second void opens from below (see annotated fig.3 below for the first void that opens from above and second void is open from below)
wherein said first void comprises an outer vertical wall, an inner vertical wall, coupled with a void base (see annotated fig.3 below for the outer and inner vertical wall connected to base)
wherein said outer vertical wall comprises a protrusion, and wherein said inner vertical wall has a protrusion (see annotated fig.3 below for the outer wall having a protrusion and inner wall)
wherein said first void and said second void comprise a different diameter (annotated fig.3 below shows the two voids inner diameters being different as the 2nd void at the bottle has a bigger opening than the first void at the top).
Annotated fig.3 of Bouteloup
PNG
media_image1.png
519
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said first void comprises a protrusion (see annotated fig.3 above for first void having a protrusion).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said second void comprises a protrusion (see annotated fig.3 above for the second void having a protrusion towards the bottom).
Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein the protrusion of said inner vertical wall is located below said void base (see annotated fig.3 above).
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said outer vertical wall, said inner wall vertical wall, and said void base create a pocket in said first void (see annotated fig.3 above that shows the two wall and the base create a pocket in the void i.e the cavity in the first void that holds the nipple 24).
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches a shelf which extends inwardly from said inner vertical wall (see annotated fig.3 above).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein a protrusion of said inner vertical wall defines a pocket for said second void (see annotated fig.3 above where the protrusion of the inner wall defines a pocket for the second void as it protrudes inwards).
Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 7 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said lip of said top can is received by said pocket (see annotated fig.3 that shows the pocked created and lip of top can be received by the pocket; it is noted that lip of the can is not positively claimed so they hold no patentable weight and prior art has to be capable of performing such function).
Regarding claim 11, the references as applied to claim 10 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said lip of said bottom can is received by a pocket in said second void (see annotated fig.3 above where a lip of the bottom can is capable of being received by a pocket in the second void; it is noted that lip of the can is not positively claimed so they hold no patentable weight and prior art has to be capable of performing such function).
Regarding claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches comprising plastic (fig.3 above above the binding is made from plastic such as HDPE or PP).
Regarding claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said first void and second void capable of having the same diameter (fig.3 above the first and second voids are capable of having the same diameter).
Regarding claim 15, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said first void couples to the lip of the top can via friction (see annotated fig.3 above where the first void capable of coupling to the lip of the top can which will create friction since two parts are coming in contact with each other; it is noted that lip or the top can are positively claimed and hold no patentable weight).
Regarding claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches a top can and a bottom can, wherein said top can comprises a top lid, and wherein said bottom can comprises a top lid, and wherein the top lid of the top can is stored adjacent to the top lid of the bottom can in said binding (fig.3 above shoes the top can 20 with the lid 24 and bottom can 10 with the lid 15 and top can is stored adjacent to the top lid of the bottom can in the binding).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant simply took claims 4-5 and 14 and put them in claim 1 since none of the prior rejections had that combination of them, however the point of giving multiple 102’s rejection in the prior art was to highlight the broadness of the claims as written. As highlighted by the 102-rejection given above using the same art. Prior art Bouteloup still reads on all the claims as presented. Applicant did not even give specific arguments on why the prior art cannot be read on claims as written simply stated that combination of those claims was not rejected. Also, claim 13 now creates 112 issues since applicant amended claim 1 to include the same diameter which needs further attention. Also, there was no arguments under 103 it was simply just case law. Also, in rejecting claim 16 applicant hot defined the cans i.e. what kind of cans or lids, so the prior arts two container are read as cans and their respective lids.
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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights