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
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 5/1/2026, wherein claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 15 were amended, claims 2, 8, 11, 14, 16-20 are cancelled, claims 21-28 are new. Claims 1, 3-7,9-10,12-13,15,21-28 are pending.
Newly submitted claims 26-28 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the original invention did not describe a bottom extending between the first and second wall and the original claims never stated that the first side wall as shorter than the second side wall
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 22 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 22 recites the limitation "a sidewall" in line 2. It is not clear whether this is a recitation of a new sidewall or the same sidewall as that in Claim 22, which claim 22 is dependent upon, which introduces a sidewall.
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) 1, 3-7, 21-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Shih (US 20030152670 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Shih discloses a container, comprising: (a) a lid (12) including a cover (central most portion) extending along a horizontal plane perpendicular to a vertical plane, the lid further including a first oblique surface (figure 1, below) extending along a first oblique plane that is oblique relative to the horizontal and vertical planes, wherein the first oblique surface has an escape vent (figure 1, below) extending therethrough wherein the escape vent is configured to vent warm air therethrough; (b) a return vent (A of Shih) at least partially defined by the lid and configured to vent cool air therethrough, wherein the escape vent is closer to the horizontal plane than the return vent such that the return vent is lower than the escape vent for receiving cool air through the return vent and passing warm air through the escape vent (as seen in figure 1, return vent is A); and (c) a base (11) including a channel (outer perimeter, see figure 1) and a bottom (see figure 1) configured to support contents therein, the lid (12) being configured to couple to the base (11) above the bottom in a coupled configuration, wherein the channel extends along a perimeter of the bottom and is configured to collect fluid draining from the contents therein (Shihs channel is capable of doing so and has drain holes), wherein the lid is configured to receive another container thereon while inhibiting occlusion of the escape vent during use (intended function and inherent capability as escape vents are angled), and wherein the base and the lid are in fluid communication in the coupled configuration for venting air from within the base through the escape vent in the lid. (intended function, Shih is capable of performing)
Examiner Note: The oblique surface and vents can partially extend on the oblique plane to meet the claim language. The limitation does not require full extension.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Shih discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the lid (12) and the base (11) collectively define the return vent (A).
With respect to claim 4, Shih discloses the container of claim 3, wherein the return vent (A) includes a vertical separation between the lid and the base.
With respect to claim 5, Shih discloses the container of claim 3, wherein each of the lid and the base respectively include a ridge (ridge 122 for the lid and ridge 115 for the base) around a respective perimeter to thereby increase rigidity of the lid and the base, wherein the respective ridge of the lid and the respective ridge of the base are configured to contact each other when the lid is coupled to the base.
With respect to claim 6, Shih discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the lid further includes a second oblique surface (oblique surface on another side of the container) extending along a second oblique plane that is oblique relative to the horizontal and vertical planes, wherein the second oblique surface has a second vent (openings on the second oblique surface) extending therethrough, wherein the first oblique plane is different than the second oblique plane.
Examiner Note: The oblique surface and vents can partially extend on the oblique plane to meet the claim language. The limitation does not require full extension.
With respect to claim 7, Shih discloses the container of claim 6, wherein the first oblique plane is on a first half portion of the lid, and wherein and the second oblique plane is on a second half portion of the lid opposite from the first half portion.
With respect to claim 21, Shih discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the base includes a sidewall (see figure 1 above), and wherein the return vent (A) is positioned above the sidewall.
With respect to claim 22, Shih discloses the container of claim 21, wherein the base includes a sidewall (see figure 1 above), and wherein the return vent is positioned directly above the sidewall.
With respect to claim 24, Shih discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the cover (horizontal plane in figure 1) of the lid has a horizontal top when the lid is coupled to the base in the coupled configuration for vertically stacking another container thereon.
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 20030152670 A1) in view of Alamy (see webpage attached).
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the lid includes at least one set of indicia configured to indicate contents therein, wherein the at least one set of indicia includes a selectable, predefined indicator configured to indicate contents therein. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely food containers, Alamy taught of a container with indicia that is provided to indicate the exact contents of the food contained within (as seen in figure on page 1). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Shih to include indicia as taught by Alamy in order to allow for indication of product stored within.
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the at least one set of indicia includes a first set of indicia, a second set of indicia, and a third set of indicia, wherein each of the first, second, and third sets of indicia are configured to indicate a separate category of contents therein. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely food containers, Alamy taught of a container with indicia that is provided to indicate the exact contents of the food contained within (as seen in figure on page 1). This includes at least three different indicia indicators. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Segel to include indicia as taught by Alamy in order to allow for indication of product stored within.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 20030152670 A1) in view of Allers (US 10926913 B2).
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the bottom of the base has a lower surface and a series of ribs extending upwards from the lower surface, wherein the series of ribs is configured to support contents therein. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Allers taught of a container that included ribbing on the bottom (181). The ribbing can aid with grasping of the food product by, for example, raising it slightly to allow for fingers or utensils to easily get underneath it, and/or with venting underneath the product (col 8 liens 19-35). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Shih to include a ribbed bottom as taught by Allers in order to allow venting underneath the product.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 12, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The reference further teach wherein the channel is lower than the lower surface and configured to collect fluids draining from the series of ribs and the lower surface. (The channel is taught by both the Allers and Shih reference and would remain in a combination. See claims 1 and 12 rejection.)
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 12, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The reference further teach wherein the lower surface include has a right trough and a left trough, and wherein the series of ribs are positioned between the right trough and the left trough for separating different contents therein. (The configuration of Allers teaches of left/right troughs, refer to figure 6 below and claim 12 for combination rationale.)
With respect to claim 25, the references as applied to claim 12, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The reference further teach wherein the channel (taught by both Shih and Allers) is lower than the lower surface (surface of bottom of figure 1 and ribbed surface of Allers) and configured to collect fluids draining from the series of ribs and the lower surface (intended function). See Allers for combination rationale.
PNG
media_image2.png
554
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 20030152670 A1) in view of Maroofian (US 8215485 B2).
With respect to claim 23, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein the base includes a first sidewall and a second sidewall, wherein the first and second sidewalls at least partially define a base chamber, and wherein the first sidewall is shorter than the second sidewall such that an opening into the base chamber is angled relative to the horizontal plane. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Maroofian taught of a container with an angled opening that utilizes shorter first and second side walls in order to create a desired viewing angle and an unobstructed view through the viewing face (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Shih to include a longer sidewall opposite a shorter sidewall to create an angled opening as taught by Maroofian in order to allow for a better viewing angle for the user.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20240336398-A1 OR US-20150307257-A1 OR US-20070241102-A1 OR US-20030152670-A1 OR US-10926913-B2 OR US-D837602-S OR US-D512633-S OR US-20190352048-A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the amended material, applicant believes the amendments overcome the Shih reference. However, Shih rejection still reads, see 102 rejection above
Applicants amendments with respect to the 112 rejections are proper and the previous 112 rejections have been removed.
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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights