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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 14-25 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 14 recites the limitation "A device for coupling a lid to a bucket”, and then “a lid” and “a bucket” later in the same claim. It is unclear whether the second introduction of the lid and bucket is meant to reference the first introduction of the lid and bucket of the preamble, or to reference a new and additional lid/bucket. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referencing the preamble lid and bucket.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a bucket” in the first paragraph, and another introduction of “a bucket” later in the claim. It is unclear whether the second introduction of the bucket is meant to reference the first mentioned bucket, or to reference a new and additional bucket. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referencing earlier bucket.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said lip coupler” and “said lip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 § 102
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) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,091,845 (Di Lollo hereinafter).
In re claim 14, with reference to Figs. 1, 3A, and 6 below, Di Lollo discloses: A device for coupling a lid to a bucket, said device comprising: a body having a first surface (shown as an upper surface in Fig. 3A) and a second surface (shown as a lower surface in Fig. 3A); a protruding portion (see fig. 3A below) that is configured to engage a lid (and a groove of the lid if the lid happened to have a groove along the periphery thereof), wherein said protruding portion extends from said first surface of said body; and a hook portion that is configured to couple said lid to a first side of a bucket (columns 5-6, lines 50-9).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “for coupling a lid to a bucket”, “configured to engage a groove that is formed along a periphery of a lid”, “configured to couple said lid to a first side of a bucket”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Vertical Centerline)]
[AltContent: textbox (Shelf)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (Indented Section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hook Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd Surface)][AltContent: textbox (1st Surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Protruding Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Horizontal Centerline)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
317
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
214
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Di Lollo discloses the claimed invention including wherein said device further includes a shelf extending from said second surface of said body; and at least one catch (38) formed on said protruding portion (see Fig. 3A above), and wherein said at least one catch engages an outer edge of said lid to secure said device to said lid (column 3, lines 39-58).
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitations “wherein said at least one catch engages an outer edge of said lid to secure said device to said lid“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Di Lollo discloses the claimed invention including wherein said bucket includes an upper portion having a first rim and a second rim, wherein said second rim is located below said first rim; a lower portion having a base; and a handle member that is connected to said second rim at a first connection point and a second connection point, and wherein said upper portion has either a substantially square cross-sectional shape or a substantially circular cross-sectional shape, and wherein said base has a substantially circular cross-sectional shape.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. with a bucket having “an upper portion having a first rim and a second rim, wherein said second rim is located below said first rim; a lower portion having a base; and a handle member that is connected to said second rim at a first connection point and a second connection point, and wherein said upper portion has either a substantially square cross-sectional shape or a substantially circular cross-sectional shape, and wherein said base has a substantially circular cross-sectional shape”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus (i.e. the device for coupling the lid to the bucket) from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II. Note that the device of Di Lollo is considered usable with such a claimed container/lid having rims, a base, etc.
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Di Lollo discloses the claimed invention including wherein said hook portion latches to said handle member at either said first connection point or said second connection point such that an exterior side of said lid faces away from said bucket, and wherein said exterior side of said lid receives indicia regarding branding, pricing, instructions of use, bucket size information, and/or marketing information (note that the hook member of Di Lollo is capable of hooking/latching/attaching to a handle member of a bucket, and a lid of a bucket is capable of receiving indicia.
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitations “wherein said hook portion latches to said handle member at either said first connection point or said second connection point such that an exterior side of said lid faces away from said bucket, and wherein said exterior side of said lid receives indicia regarding branding, pricing, instructions of use, bucket size information, and/or marketing information“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In an interpretation wherein “latches” and “receives” are considered as method steps, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e the device for coupling a lid to a bucket, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. a device which “latches to said handle member” and said lid “receives indicia”. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Di Lollo discloses the claimed invention including wherein said hook portion is deflected at a predetermined angle from a vertical centerline of said device, and wherein said shelf is deflected at a predetermined angle from a horizontal centerline of said device.
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Di Lollo discloses the claimed invention including wherein when said hook portion is latched to said handle member, said shelf engages said second rim (this limitation depends upon the rim configuration of a bucket, the device of Di Lollo being capable of attaching to such a configured bucket should such a configured bucket be provided) and said hook portion is substantially perpendicular to said shelf (see Fig. 6 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Di Lollo discloses the claimed invention including an indented section formed in said second surface of said body, wherein said indented section is substantially coplanar to said protruding portion (see Fig. 3A above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 2008/0190930 (Vogel et al. hereinafter) in view of US PG Pub No. 2007/0005434 (Roth et al. hereinafter) and Di Lollo.
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2 below, Vogel et al. discloses: An assembly comprising: a bucket (12); said bucket includes an upper portion having a first rim and a second rim (44 and 46 respectively), and a lower portion that has a base (32), and wherein said second rim is located below said first rim (see Fig. 2); said upper portion has a non-circular cross-sectional shape (See Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
625
350
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
597
407
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Vogel et al. fails to disclose wherein said base has a substantially circular cross-sectional shape.
However, Roth et al. teaches a container for mixing having a generally circular base portion and generally square opening (see claim 31 and Fig. 6 of Roth et al).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the base of Vogel et al. to have had a circular shape to facilitate mixing of contents as taught by Rother et al., and since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0077, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Vogel et al. in view of Rother et al. fails to disclose and a means for coupling a lid to said bucket without fully enclosing said bucket.
However, as in re claim 14 above, Di Lollo discloses a means for coupling a lid to said bucket without fully enclosing said bucket.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the teachings of Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo for the purposes of predictably facilitating support of a removed lid retaining the lid close to the bucket to prevent misplacement, loss, damage etc. of the lid.
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein said bucket further comprises a handle member (16) that is connected to said second rim (46) at a first connection point and a second connection point (50) (see Vogel et al. paragraph 0032).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein said means for coupling said lid to said bucket further comprises a clip (Di Lollo element 10) having a protruding portion that is configured to engage a groove that is formed along a periphery of an inner side of said lid ; and a hook portion that is configured to latch said clip and said lid to said handle member at either said first connection point or said second connection point (as in re claims 14 and 17 above).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “configured” to engage a groove, to latch said clip and said lid to said handle member, etc.) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein said clip further includes a shelf extending in an opposite direction from said protruding portion (see extensions to left or right of vertical centerline in Fig. 3A above); and at least one catch formed on said protruding portion, wherein said at least one catch engages an outer edge of said lid to secure said clip to said lid (as in re claim 15 above).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein said hook portion is deflected at a predetermined angle from a vertical centerline of said clip, and wherein said shelf is deflected at a predetermined angle from a horizontal centerline of said clip (as in re claim 18 above).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein said hook portion is substantially perpendicular to said shelf when said clip is coupled to said bucket (as in re claim 19 above).
In re claim 21, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose: An assembly comprising: a bucket; said bucket includes an upper portion having a first rim and a second rim, a lower portion that has a base, and a handle member; said second rim is located below said first rim; said upper portion has a non-circular cross-sectional shape, said base has a substantially circular cross- sectional shape (as in re claim 1 above); said bucket includes an interior cavity (see Vogel Fig. 2); said handle member is connected to said second rim at a first connection point and a second connection point (as in re claim 7 above); a lid; said lid is configured to releasably connect to said first rim of said bucket so as to cover a top of said interior cavity (See Fig. 1 of Vogel); said lid includes a groove formed along a periphery of said lid (at 60); and a lid coupler (element 10 of Di Lollo); said lid coupler comprising: a body having a first surface and a second surface; a protruding portion that is configured to releasably engage said groove in said lid, wherein said protruding portion extends from said first surface of said body; a hook portion that is configured to couple said lid to a first side of a bucket (as in re claim 14 above); a shelf that extends from said second surface of said body; and a catch formed on said protruding portion; said catch is configured to engage an outer edge of said lid to facilitate in releasably securing said lip coupler to said lid (As in re claim 15 above); and wherein said lid coupler is configured to releasably couple said lid to said bucket without having to releasably connect said lip to said first rim of said bucket (as in re claim 14 above, see Di Lollo columns 5-6, lines 50-9).
In re claim 22, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein said hook portion latches to said handle member at either said first connection point or said second connection point such that an exterior side of said lid faces away from said bucket, and wherein said exterior side of said lid receives indicia regarding branding, pricing, instructions of use, bucket size information, and/or marketing information (as in re claim 17 above).
In re claim 23, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein said hook portion is deflected at a predetermined angle from a vertical centerline of said device, and wherein said shelf is deflected at a predetermined angle from a horizontal centerline of said device (as in re claim 18 above).
In re claim 24, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein when said hook portion is latched to said handle member, said shelf engages said second rim and said hook portion is substantially perpendicular to said shelf (as in re claim 19 above). Note that this limitation depends upon the pivoted angle of the handle of Vogel et al., there being a handle pivot angle at which the hook could be attached to a handle location while the shelf contacts the second rim, there being no specific claim limitation requiring where along the handle the hook is to be attached to the handle.
In re claim 25, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vogel et al. in view of Roth et al. and Di Lollo disclose the claimed invention including wherein an indented section formed in said second surface of said body, wherein said indented section is substantially coplanar to said protruding portion (as in re claim 20 above).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 1,024,609 (Waggoner hereinafter).
In re claim 12, with reference to Figs. 1-4 below, Waggoner discloses: An assembly comprising: a bucket; said bucket includes an upper portion having a first rim (15) and a second rim (15a), and a lower portion that has a base (11), and wherein said second rim is located below said first rim; and wherein said base has a substantially circular cross-sectional shape (see Fig. 3 below); and a means for coupling a lid to said bucket without fully enclosing said bucket (i.e. tabs 28, in an instance where one tab is activated, the lid is not considered “fully enclosed”), including a handle (22) integrated into said base of said bucket, and wherein said handle is transitionable between a non-use position and an in-use position, wherein said handle is at least partially concealed in said base in said non-use position, and wherein said handle at least partially extends from said base in said in-use position (column 2, lines 61-72).
PNG
media_image6.png
503
402
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Waggoner fails to disclose wherein the upper portion has a non-circular cross-sectional shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the shape of the upper portion of Waggoner to have had another shape in cross section, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0088, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations “As can be appreciated, bucket 110 can be a conventionally shaped bucket that includes both circular cross-sectional shaped middle and upper portions and circular cross-sectional shaped top and intermediate rims”.
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Waggoner discloses the claimed invention including wherein said handle includes a grip portion (i.e. at leader line of 22), and a body having an opening formed thereon (see Fig. 3), and wherein said opening receives a protuberance (i.e. portion of plate 23 which extends through the loop of handle 22, see fig. 3) that is formed on said base (11) to couple said handle to said bucket (10) (see Fig. 1 detail below).
PNG
media_image7.png
239
485
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights