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 § 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 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 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. Regarding claim 5 recited “at least one protruding element”; in claim 7 recited “at least two protruding elements”, and claim 10 recited “at least three protruding elements” is indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is referring to the previous “at least one protruding element” from claim 1, or if applicant is introducing additional protruding elements in the claims. Recited “at least two protruding elements” as in claim 7; and “at least three protruding elements” as in claim 10 falls within the rejection because “at least one protruding element” implies could be more than one protruding element, i.e. two or three protruding elements. Claims 8 and 11 inherit the same issue from claims 7 and 10 respectively, as being dependent from those claims.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MCGrath (WO 2013/043219).
PNG
media_image1.png
817
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 10
MCGrath discloses a container (20) comprising a container body (defined by container portions 22 and 26) comprising a peripheral body wall; a cover (28) comprising an outer peripheral cover wall (150) and a cover skirt (lower portion of wall 154 that forms groove 158); a hinge (38) connecting the container body and the cover (see figures 4 and 5 above); and at least three protruding elements provided on an inner side of the outer peripheral cover wall (see figure 4 above), wherein the at least one protruding element provides a local reduction of a surrounding gap between the peripheral body wall of the container and the outer peripheral cover wall when the cover is in a closed state, wherein the at least one protruding element is not part of a catch and latch mechanism/locking element (40). MCGrath discloses the container and the lid closed by a latch and catch comprising latch (160) engaging with protrusion (164) (see [0062]), wherein the protruding element is independent from the latch and catch mechanism.
Claim 16
MCGrath further discloses the cover is made of a different material than the container body. MCGrath discloses the container formed from polyethylene and the lid formed from polypropylene (see [0074]).
Claim 20
MCGrath further discloses the at least one protruding element is not part of a catch and latch mechanism for mechanically holding the cover in a closed state. MCGrath discloses the container and the lid closed by a latch and catch comprising latch (160) engaging with protrusion (164) (see [0062]), wherein the protruding element is independent from the latch and catch mechanism.
Claim 21
MCGrath further discloses the at least one protruding element does not form a recess of a catch and latch mechanism and does not interact with a recess of a catch and latch mechanism. MCGrath discloses the container and the lid closed by a latch and catch comprising latch (160) engaging with protrusion (164) (see [0062]), wherein the protruding element is independent from the latch and catch mechanism.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morichon (WO 2016/135226) in view of MCGrath (WO 2013/043219).
Claims 1, 6, 7
Morichon discloses a container (100) comprising a container body (1) comprising a peripheral body wall (11); a cover (3) comprising an outer peripheral cover wall (32) and a cover skirt (33); and a hinge (2) connecting the container body and the cover (see figure 3b). Morichon does not disclose at least one protruding element provided on an outer side of the peripheral body wall of the container or on an inner side of the outer peripheral cover wall, wherein the at least one protruding element provides a local reduction of a surrounding gap between the peripheral body wall of the container and the outer peripheral cover wall when the cover is in a closed state, wherein the at least one protruding element is not part of a catch and latch mechanism. However, MCGrath discloses a container (20) comprising a container body (defined by container portions 22 and 26) comprising a peripheral body wall; a cover (28) comprising an outer peripheral cover wall (150) and a cover skirt, wherein plurality of ribs/protruding elements extends between outer peripheral cover wall and a cover skirt (see figure above) and provides a local reduction of a surrounding gap between the peripheral body wall of the container and the outer peripheral cover wall when the cover is in a closed state. MCGrath discloses the container and the lid closed by a latch and catch comprising latch (160) engaging with protrusion (164) (see [0062]), wherein the protruding element is independent from the latch and catch mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morichon including ribs/protruding elements as taught by MCGrath for strengthening purposes of the lid.
Claims 3 and 4
Morichon further discloses the peripheral body wall comprises an inner peripheral body groove (defined by groove where sealing portion 34 of the lid seals as shown in figure 11) and the cover skirt comprises an outwardly facing sealing portion (34) with an apex/protrusion (34) that seals against the inner peripheral body groove when the cover is in a closed condition thereby forming a seal of a sealing line type, providing the only seal between the cover and the container body when the container is in the closed condition (see page 6 and figure 11).
Claim 5
PNG
media_image2.png
464
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Morichon further discloses at least one protruding element is located on the outer peripheral cover wall (see figure above) and at least one protruding element (13) is located on the peripheral body wall of the container (see figure 3b).
Claim 18
MCGrath further discloses a desiccant insert (5) in the container body (see pages 8 and 11).
Claim 19
MCGrath further discloses an air gap is provided between an outer surface of the desiccant insert and an inner surface of the container body (see figure above).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morichon (WO 2016/135226) and MCGrath (WO 2013/043219) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bois (US 2014/0319162).
None of MCGrath or Morichon specifically disclose the hinge is a foil hinge. However, Bois discloses a container (100) comprising a container body (10) and a lid (20) attached together by a foil hinge (22) (see [0070]). Bois further discloses the foil hinges are very reliable and may provide an exact rotation axis of the cover with respect to the container body (see [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the hinges of any of MCGrath and/or Morichon being a foil hinge as taught by Bois for reliable purposes of the hinge and/or provide an exact rotation axis of the cover with respect to the container body.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morichon (WO 2016/135226) and MCGrath (WO 2013/043219) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Druitt (US 2008/0067142).
Morichon does not disclose the cover skirt is made of a different material than remaining parts of the cover. However, Druitt discloses a closure (1) comprising a cover skirt (defined by portions 48 and/or 36 of sealing liner 46) made from a different/softer material than the material used for the closure (see [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover of Morichon and MCGrath including a sealing liner in the interior of the cover as taught by Druitt for a better and softer sealing between the container body and the cover.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 12-14 are 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.
Claims 8 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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. Aviles 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736