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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A (fig.1-17) in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-13,16-18,20-28 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lei (US11643258B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lei teaches a container comprising (see annotated fig.1 and 2 below of Lei for a container):
a base including (see annotated fig.1 and 2 below of Lei),
a bottom wall (see annotated fig.1 and 2 below of Lei), and
a peripheral wall extending from the bottom wall, at least a portion of the peripheral wall configured to be moved from a relaxed position to a flexed position by applying a first force to the peripheral wall in a first direction (see annotated fig.1 and 2 below of Lei for a peripheral wall extending from the bottom wall and a portion of the wall is capable of being moved from a relaxed to flexed position by applying a first force to the wall in a first direction i.e. applying force to element 70 side of it towards inside of the container; it is noted that relaxed or flexed positions are not positively claimed due to “configured to” which is a capable to limitation);
a lid configured to be moved between a closed and locked position and an open position (see annotated fig.1 and 2 below of Lei for a lid capable of being moved between a closed and locked position and open position); and
a protrusion on one of the lid and the peripheral wall, the protrusion configured to be received in a receptacle defined by the other of the lid and the peripheral wall (see annotated fig.1 and 2 below of Lei for the protrusion on the peripheral wall that is capable of being received in a receptacle defined in the lid),
in the closed and locked position, the protrusion is at least partially in the receptacle, the peripheral wall is in the relaxed position, and the protrusion is configured to engage a surface of the receptacle so as to retain the lid in the closed and locked configuration (see annotated fig.1 and 2 below of Lei in the closed and locked position and the protrusion is partially in the receptacle and the wall is in the relaxed position and the protrusion is capable to engage a surface in the receptacle so as to retain the lid in the closed and locked configuration), and
the lid is configured to be moved from the closed and locked position to the open position by applying a second force to the lid in a second direction different from the first direction while the peripheral wall is in the flexed position (see annotated fig.1 and 2 below of Lei for the lid capable of being moved from a closed and locked position to open position by applying a second force to the lid in a second direction different from the first direction while the wall is in flexed position i.e. letting go of the wall portion 70 to bring the protrusion back).
Annotated fig.1 and 2 of Lei
PNG
media_image1.png
838
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei where the first and second direction perpendicular to each other).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the protrusion is on the peripheral wall and the lid defines the receptacle (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei).
Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches the receptacle includes an aperture (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei where the receptacle is an aperture).
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the receptacle includes a recess (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei where the receptacle is a recess).
Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the protrusion is a first protrusion and the receptacle is a first receptacle, the container further includes a second protrusion configured to be received in a second receptacle, in the closed and locked position, the second protrusion is at least partially in the second receptacle, and the peripheral wall is configured to be moved from the relaxed position to the flexed position by applying the first force in the first direction and a third force in a third direction opposite the first direction (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei for the protrusion being first protrusion and the container having similar structure on the opposite wall which includes a second protrusion that engages the second receptable on the lid and it is capable of having a third force applied to a third direction opposite of the first i.e. lifting the lid; it is noted that applicant has to positively claimed any forces or direction due to phrase “configured to” which is a capable to limitation).
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the container defines a longitudinal axis parallel to the second direction, and the first protrusion and the second protrusion are located opposite one another at a common location along the longitudinal axis (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei for the container with a longitudinal axis i.e. X-axis that is parallel to the second direction and the first protrusion and the second protrusion are located opposite of one another a common location to the axis).
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the bottom wall and the peripheral wall cooperate to at least partially define a storage area, and the storage area is configured to receive a plurality of oral products (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei where the storage area is capable of receiving a plurality of oral products).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches \wherein the lid includes, a top wall, and a skirt extending from the top wall (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei).
Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the top wall defines a planar surface (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei).
Regarding claim 11, the references as applied to claim 10 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the skirt is perpendicular to the top wall (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei).
Regarding claim 12, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the skirt extends around a portion of a perimeter of the top wall, the portion being less than 100% of the perimeter (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above of Lei).
Regarding claim 13, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the skirt defines a channel (fig.6 shows the skirt of the lid as labeled in fig.1 and 2 above and the skirt at the bottom forms a channel as the bottom of the skirt is rolled back up)
Regarding claim 16, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the base defines a first height perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and the lid defines a second height perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, the second height less than 25% of the first height (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above for the heights of the base and the lid and the second height i.e. of the lid is less than 25% of the first height).
Regarding claim 17, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the lid has a uniform thickness (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above for the lid having a uniform thickness).
Regarding claim 18, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the base has a rounded shape free of sharp corners (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above).
Regarding claim 20, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the base defines a uniform thickness (see annotated fig.1 and 2 where the base has a uniform thickness).
Regarding claim 21, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the base further includes a connection rim extending from the peripheral wall, the peripheral wall between the bottom wall and the connection rim (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above for the connection rim and the wall between the bottom wall and rim).
Regarding claim 22, the references as applied to claim 21 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the peripheral wall has a first perimeter defining a first length, and the connection rim defines a second perimeter defining a second length greater than the first length such that at least a portion of the connection rim is outside of the peripheral wall (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above for the wall have a first perimeter with first length and the rim with a second perimeter with a second length and the rim having a greater length and the rim is outside of the wall).
Regarding claim 23, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the peripheral wall defines at least one of a projection and a depression configured to receive the first force (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above for the projection 70 and the depression 102 capable of receiving the first force).
Regarding claim 24, the references as applied to claim 23 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the at least one of the projection and the depression has a circular-segment shape (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above where the 70 has a circular segment shape).
Regarding claim 25, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the container defines a length parallel to the second direction, and the lid is configured to translate a distance with respect to the base, the distance less than the length (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above for the container with a length parallel to the second direction and the lid is capable of translate a distance with respect to the base and the distance can be less than the length; it is noted that applicant has not positively claimed the distance so it holds little to no patentable weight).
Regarding claim 26, the references as applied to claim 25 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the distance ranges from 20% of the length to 40% of the length (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above where the distance can be from 20 to 40% of the length depending on where the user stops removing the lid).
Regarding claim 27, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the base comprises a first metal, and the lid comprises a second metal (“The container 1 may be especially suitable for securing an item 845, such as medication, which can potentially be harmful to individuals, such as children, whom might otherwise gain access to the item (such as medicine) from a non-secure container. In an embodiment, the container 1 is largely made of a durable material, such as plastic and/or metal.”-Col.3, lines1-5).
Regarding claim 28, the references as applied to claim 27 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the first metal and the second metal are the same (see annotated fig.1 and 2 above the metals can be the same).
Regarding claim 31, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the container further comprises: indicia printed directly on the lid, the base, or both the lid and the base (see annotated fig.1 and 2 of Lei above for the element 70 on the base having ridges that are indicia printed directly on the base).
Regarding claim 32, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the container has a stadium- shaped profile (see annotated fig.1 and 2 of Lei above for the container with a stadium-shaped profile).
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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US11643258B2) and further in view of Cronin (US20070164032A1).
Regarding claim 14, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei does not teach wherein the top wall defines a protrusion configured to receive the second force.
Cronin does teach wherein the top wall defines a protrusion configured to receive the second force (fig.1 shows the top wall 14 with the knurls 40 that are capable of receiving the second force). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top wall of the lid disclosed by Lei by adding the teaching of the knurls on top wall of the lid as disclosed by Cronin in order to provide a surface that permits a finger or thumb to grip the otherwise generally planar cover portion. “The knurls 40 provide a surface that permits a finger or thumb to grip the otherwise generally planar cover portion 38 of the plastic container lid 14.” (0037, Cronin)
Regarding claim 15, the references as applied to claim 14 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei as modified in claim 14 further teaches wherein the protrusion has a scalloped shape (fig.1 shows the shape of knurls is scalloped shaped i.e. an edge, border, or surface decorated with a series of repeated, curved, or rounded indentations resembling a seashell's edge).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US11643258B2).
Regarding claim 19, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei further teaches wherein the peripheral wall defines a thickness (Annotated fig.1 and 2 of Lei above shows the wall having a thickness). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the wall to be 0.25mm to 0.3mm in order to have the desired thickness required to molding or holding sufficient items in the container. To modify the size of the package and retainer into the claimed cap would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US11643258B2) and further in view of Levitz (US11738918B2).
Regarding claim 29, the references as applied to claim 27 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei does not teach wherein the container is free of polymer (fig.4 shows the invention 10 that is 100% recyclable and uses no plastic i.e. free of polymer as claim 30 suggest). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the container disclosed by Lei by adding the teaching of 100% recyclable container as disclosed by Levitz in order to the container 100% biodegradable /recyclable which is better for the environment and uses no plastic.
Regarding claim 30, the references as applied to claim 29 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lei as modified in claim 29 further teaches wherein the container is 100% recyclable (the container as modified in claim 29 above teaches that its 100% recyclable).
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735