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 § 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) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US2020/0361661), in view of Smith (US9,630,747).
1. Smith teaches a display device (Fig. 1) comprising: a container (Fig. 2 at 144) defining a cavity (Fig. 2), the container comprising a bottom wall (Fig. 4 at 139), a front wall (Fig. 2), a back wall (Fig. 2) opposing the front wall, a first side wall (Fig. 2), and a second side wall (Fig. 2) opposing the first side wall; a first divider (150) configured to split the cavity into a front section (upper compartment or front compartment, paragraphs 0051-0052) and a back section (lower compartment or rear compartment, paragraphs 0051-0052); at least one spear (Fig. 4 at 158) attached to a spear support in the first divider (Fig. 2 at 150) such that the at least one spear protrudes into the front section (upper compartment or front compartment, paragraphs 0051-0052) a lid (Fig. 2 at 104); and a vent (Fig. 4 at 108). Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the spear is attached to a support aperture and the vent is configured to selectively provide an airtight seal to the container. Attention, however is directed to Smith which discloses a spear support aperture (Fig. 3 at 66) and a seal for the vent (Fig. 1 at 105). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Smith, in view of Smith, by employing mounting hole and a vent seal, in order to better seal the container when desired and in order to have an alternative durable way of mounting the spear.
3. The display device of claim 1, the lid further comprises: a magnifying lens (paragraph 0050).
4. The display device of claim 1, Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the divider further comprises: one or more divider apertures, the divider apertures configured to support the at least one spear in multiple locations on the divider. However, duplication of parts is within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time the invention was made, to modify Smith, by employing more divider apertures, in order to support more spears, if desired. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
6. The display device of claim 1, Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose at least one of the front wall, first side wall, and second side wall further comprise: a magnifying lens. Attention, However is directed to Smith which disclose a lens on the top lid (paragraph 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the references, by employing a another magnifying lens in such an additional location, in order to better see the contents. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
7. The display device of claim 1, Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the display device further comprises: a second divider in the cavity, the second divider configured to be substantially parallel to the first divider such that a space is defined between the first divider and second divider. However, duplication of parts is within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time the invention was made, to modify Smith, by employing a second divider, in order to have more compartments, if desired. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
8. The display device of claim 7, wherein the at least one spear comprises: at least one spear protruding from both the first divider and second divider (this occurs when the reference has been modified).
9. The display device of claim 1, wherein the vent is selectively opened by
manipulating a moving portion (this occurs when the reference has been modified, the vent closure can be removed).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US2020/0361661), in view of Smith (US9,630,747), and in further view of Prewitt (US2019/0021473).
10. The display device of claim 9, Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the vent has a moving portion that rotates. Attention, however is directed to Prewitt which discloses such a vent seal (Par. 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Smith, in view of Prewitt, by employing such a vent seal, in order to better seal the container when desired.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US2020/0361661), in view of Smith (US9,630,747), in further view of Walter (US3,200,983).
2. The display device of claim 1, Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose wherein the container further comprises: at least one slot on one or both of the first and second side walls and the first divider is configured to be supported by the at least one slot. Attention, however is directed to Walter (Fig. 1 that discloses such). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Smith, in view of Walter, by employing such slots, in order to have an alternative durable means of storing the divider.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, in view of Smith, in further view of Booker (US20210382295).
5. The display device of claim 1, Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the lid further comprises: a lighting element. Attention, however is directed to Booker, which discloses a lighting element (paragraph 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Smith, in view of Booker, by employing a lighting element, in order to better see the contents.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, in view of Smith, in further view of Laurence (US0130923).
11. The display device of claim 1, Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose wherein the at least one spear comprises: at least two prongs (connected the spear to the front and rear walls). Attention, however is directed to Laurence, which discloses spear can have two prongs (See Fig at a). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Smith, in view of Laurence, by employing two prongs in order to hold an object better.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US2020/0361661), in view of Prewitt (US2019/0021473).
19. Smith teaches a display device (Fig. 1) comprising: a container (Fig. 2 at 144) defining a cavity (Fig. 2), the container comprising a bottom wall (Fig. 4 at 139), a front wall (Fig. 2), a back wall (Fig. 2) opposing the front wall, a first side wall (Fig. 2), and a second side wall (Fig. 2) opposing the first side wall; a first divider (150) configured to split the cavity into a front section (upper compartment or front compartment, paragraphs 0051-0052) and a back section (lower compartment or rear compartment, paragraphs 0051-0052); at least one spear (Fig. 4 at 158) protruding from the first divider into the front section (upper compartment or front compartment, paragraphs 0051-0052) a lid (Fig. 2 at 104); and a vent (Fig. 4 at 108). Smith DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the vent is configured to selectively provide an airtight seal to the container, wherein the vent is selectively opened by rotatably manipulating a moving portion of the vent. Attention, however is directed to Prewitt which discloses such a vent seal (Par. 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Smith, in view of Prewitt, by employing such a vent seal, in order to better seal the container when desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8/26/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights