DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 in response to Office Action 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Applicant argues that primary prior art Sautner and secondary prior art Mogil do not teach a second insulation layer, as was originally in claim 1 and now amended into claims 9 and 16 to now all align with instant Fig 10 (page 9). Examiner points out that secondary prior art Gano teaches the second insulation layer.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Applicant argues that Gano second layer insulation is not insulation because it’s a “temperature-maintaining layer” 350 (Fig 12) and Gano’s written specification separately states “insulation 270 and temperature-maintaining material 350” [0069]. Also 350 “can be refreezable” [0063] so it cannot be insulating (page 11 first half). Examiner points out “temperature-maintaining material” means insulating, and just because a material can be something doesn’t mean it is. The particular refreezable material was not cited so that argument is moot. For arguments sake, refreezable does not explicitly imply a particular state: frozen or unfrozen at the time of use, nor would it matter since each state would perform insulating, making it insulation as a POSITA would understand it.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Applicant argues about Gano does not omit 350, and a capability of 350 allowing temperature to be both increased or lowered as a desired advantage of 350 as more proof that it is not insulating material (page 11 second half). Examiner points out the argument is merely intended use. Please see the above explanation of the term “insulating”.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Applicant argues that since primary prior art Sautner’s container inner surface is glassy and secondary prior art Mogil’s lid interference fit relies upon friction to the container inner surface, that the interference fit renders closing the lid of Sautner inoperable. The substance of the argument is that Sautner’s glassy surface makes its lid closable, and that the interference fit of Mogil’s lid makes that fit impossible, as argued “inoperable” (e.g. permanent) (page 12). Examiner points out that since Mogil’s interference fit lid is openable, and Sautner’s lid is openable, the function of Sautner’s lid is not denigrated since both fits are openable. To teach away, a reference must actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed (MPEP 2145 X-D). A modification must denigrate the function of the base reference. The lid to container fit does not only depend upon the container inner surface as Applicant argues toward only, but instead also the lid, so the openability of the lid as disclosed by both prior arts is not disproved.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Applicant argues that an additional intent of Sautner’s glassy inner container surface is to “improve from a hygienic standpoint” (page 13 first half). Examiner points out the argument is mere allegation, as there is no further discussion in the remarks nor art disclosure of how a “hygienic standpoint” influences the intent of the lid to container fit in question.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1, 4-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 6168040 by Sautner et al. (hereinafter “Sautner”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil”; Fig 9 embodiment) in view of US Pub 20030000242 by Gano III (hereinafter “Gano”).
Regarding claim 1, Sautner teaches a container (Fig 1, Abstract, “double-wall insulated container”), comprising:
a base (Fig 1, a base is shown as a bottom receptacle) including an outer base layer (Fig 1, an outer base layer is external wall 1 of the base), an inner base layer (Fig 1, an inner base layer is internal wall 3 of the base), and a base insulation layer disposed between the outer base layer and the inner base layer (Fig 1, a base insulation layer is foam 2 of the base), the inner base layer having a first side abutting the base insulation layer (Fig 1, 3 abuts 2 in a first side of 3) and a second side opposite the first side (Fig 1, 3 abuts an interior volume in a second side of 3 that is opposite the first side) defining an interior volume of the container (Fig 1, the interior volume is defined by the second side of 3 of the base);
a moveable lid coupled to the base at a first end thereof (Fig 1, a moveable lid is shown as a top cover, at the first end of the base), the moveable lid including an outer lid layer (Fig 1, an outer lid layer is external wall 1), a first insulation layer (Fig 1, 2), and an inner lid layer (Fig 1, an inner lid layer is internal wall 3) covering the first insulation layer (Fig 1, 3 covers the top and bottom portions of 2); and
a seat formed by the inner base layer at the first end of the base (Fig 1, a seat is shown defined by 3 of the base at the first end of the base (proximal the lid)), wherein
the first insulation layer and the inner lid layer define a cover that defines a rim that contacts the seat when the moveable lid is in a closed position (Fig 1, a rim of the lid is directly above a top rim/the seat of the base, wherein the rim of the lid defines a cover that includes the first insulation layer top portion of 2 and the inner lid layer 3, and wherein, col 2, line 30, “the container [is] sealed”, meaning the lid rim/cover necessarily contacts the seat when closed), wherein
the inner lid layer define a plug (Fig 1, the inner lid layer 3 defines a plug of the lid, that is shown as a bottom portion protrusion of the lid below the lid rim/cover) that forms a fit with the second side of the inner base layer to the interior volume when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Fig 1, shows the lid is fit into the base), and wherein
the rim of the cover extends around a periphery of the plug such that (Fig 1, the rim extends around a periphery of the plug) the first insulation layer define a stepped profile (Fig 1, the first insulation layer defines a stepped profile).
But Sautner does not explicitly teach a particular sealing fit.
Mogil, however, teaches a plug forms an interference fit with the inner base layer to at least partially seal the interior volume of the container when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Fig 9i-j, [0202], “interference jamming fit” like a cork or stopper (i.e. seal) is formed by contact of inner lid layer 458 to the seat 424 of a portion of the inner base layer 436).
The purpose of an interference fit is to ensure leak-proof containment. 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 lid fit of Sautner to be an interference fit as taught by Mogil in order to advantageously upgrade and ensure leak-proof sealing since the container base and lid are leak-proof by reinforcing the joint between them.
But Sautner/Mogil does not explicitly teach a second lid insulation layer.
Gano, however, teaches a similar cooler comprising:
a lid comprising a second insulation layer that at least partially defines a plug with a stepped profile of the lid (Figs 11-12, a lid has a first insulation layer 370 and a second insulation layer 350 at least partially defining a plug with a stepped profile, wherein the lid engages the sidewalls, [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second insulation layer in the lid of Sautner/Mogil, thereby making the plug stepped profile of Sautner’s lid in combination with the first layer assist the interference fit added by Mogil (just like Applicant’s invention), in order to advantageously improve insulation by allowing more customization via further layers versus just having the first insulation layer.
Regarding claim 4, Sautner/Gano does not explicitly teach that the outer base layer is fabric.
Mogil, however, teaches an outer base layer of a synthetic fabric ([0199] 426 is “woven nylon”).
The purpose of a fabric outer layer is increased safety. 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 outer base layer of Sautner with a synthetic fabric integration as taught by Mogil in order to advantageously increase safety of handling versus a rigid material of the container base.
Regarding claim 5, Sautner further teaches the inner base layer (Fig 1, 3) extends atop the base insulation layer to define the seat (Fig 1, 3 extends atop 2 to define the seat), and wherein the seat defines a planar surface (the seat is shown planar).
Regarding claim 6, Sautner further teaches the plug (Fig 1, the plug portion of the lid (bottom portion of 2 and 3)) extends past the seat to abut the interior volume when the moveable lid is in the closed position (is shown extending below past the seat and abutting the interior volume).
Regarding claim 7, Sautner further teaches the plug (Fig 1, the plug portion of the lid (bottom portion of 2 and 3)) defines a first plug surface that abuts the interior volume when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Fig 1, a first surface at the plug bottom abuts the interior volume), and wherein the plug further defines a second plug surface around the periphery thereof (Fig 1, a second surface of the plug is shown around a periphery of the first surface).
Regarding claim 8, Sautner further teaches the second plug surface (Fig 1, the plug periphery surface) is configured to contact sides of the inner base layer when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Fig 1, col 2, line 30, “the container [is] sealed”, meaning the plug second surface necessarily contacts the inner base layer 3).
Regarding claim 9, Sautner teaches a container (Fig 1, Abstract, “double-wall insulated container”), comprising:
a base (Fig 1, a base is shown as a bottom receptacle) including an outer base layer (Fig 1, an outer base layer is external wall 1 of the base), an inner base layer (Fig 1, an inner base layer is internal wall 3 of the base), and a base insulation layer disposed between the outer base layer and the inner base layer (Fig 1, a base insulation layer is foam 2 of the base), the inner base layer having a first side abutting the base insulation layer (Fig 1, 3 abuts 2 in a first side of 3) and a second side opposite the first side (Fig 1, 3 abuts an interior volume in a second side of 3 that is opposite the first side) defining an interior volume of the container (Fig 1, the interior volume is defined by the second side of 3 of the base);
a moveable lid coupled to the base at a first end thereof (Fig 1, a moveable lid is shown as a top cover, at the first end of the base), the moveable lid including:
a first insulation layer defining a cover (Fig 1, a first insulation layer is 2, wherein a top portion of the lid is a cover (i.e. it is not the plug)); and
a plug (Fig 1, a plug of the lid is shown as a bottom portion protrusion of the lid below the lid rim) that forms a fit with the second side of the inner base layer to the interior volume when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Fig 1, shows the lid is fit into the base); and an inner lid layer (Fig 1, an inner lid layer is internal wall 3) covering the cover and the plug (Fig 1, 3 covers the top and bottom portions of 2); and
a y-axis extending in a direction that is parallel to the outer base layer (a y-axis perpendicular to horizontal (like Applicant Fig 7 y-axis 132 [0069])), wherein
the plug protrudes from the cover (the plug is the protrusion of the lid from the cover), and wherein
the cover defines a height (a first height is comprised of the cover portion in the y-axis) measured along the y-axis and a height of the plug (a second height is comprised of the plug portion) measured along the y-axis.
But Sautner does not explicitly teach a particular sealing fit.
Mogil, however, teaches a plug forms an interference fit with the inner base layer to at least partially seal the interior volume of the container when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Fig 9i-j, [0202], “interference jamming fit” like a cork or stopper (i.e. seal) is formed by contact of inner lid layer 458 to the seat 424 of a portion of the inner base layer 436).
The purpose of an interference fit is to ensure leak-proof containment. 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 lid fit of Sautner to be an interference fit as taught by Mogil in order to advantageously upgrade and ensure leak-proof sealing since the container base and lid are leak-proof by reinforcing the joint between them.
But Sautner does not explicitly teach that the first cover height is greater than the second plug height.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Sautner and Mogil before them at the time the application was filed, to create a proportion, including making the first cover height greater than the second plug height, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. given the claimed relative dimensions, the prior art cover and plug would seal in the same fashion, as cited above), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Sautner/Mogil does not explicitly teach a second lid insulation layer.
Gano, however, teaches a similar cooler comprising:
a lid comprising a second insulation layer that at least partially defines a plug with a stepped profile of the lid (Figs 11-12, a lid has a first insulation layer 370 and a second insulation layer 350 at least partially defining a plug with a stepped profile, wherein the lid engages the sidewalls, [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second insulation layer in the lid of Sautner/Mogil, thereby making the plug stepped profile of Sautner’s lid in combination with the first layer assist the interference fit added by Mogil (just like Applicant’s invention), in order to advantageously improve insulation by allowing more customization via further layers versus just having the first insulation layer.
Regarding claim 10, Sautner/Mogil does not explicitly teach that specifically the height of the plug is between 25% and 75% of the first height of the cover (see proportional reasoning above in parent claim, the plug height is smaller than the cover height).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a plug height of between about 25% and about 75% of the cover’s height, recognizing that an increase in plug height is directly correlated to a more secure seal since the interference fit making the seal depends on height (i.e. more surface area means the fit is more difficult to incidentally unseal), which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Sautner/Mogil does not explicitly teach that the cover defines a depth measured perpendicular to the y-axis (along a straight line z-axis into the page from viewer perspective (like Applicant Fig 7 z-axis 134 [0069])) is greater than a depth of the plug measured perpendicular to the y-axis (Mogil, Figs 9b, 9h, 9j show an example of a cover 454 having a greater depth/being longer than a plug central portion 450 in at least one axis).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Sautner and Mogil before them at the time the application was filed, to create a proportion, including making the first cover depth greater than the second plug depth, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. given the claimed relative dimensions, the prior art cover and plug would seal in the same fashion), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Sautner/Mogil does not explicitly teach that the depth of the plug is between 50% and 100% of the depth of the cover (Mogil, Figs 9b, 9h, 9j show an example of a plug 450 depth/length smaller than a cover 454 depth/length).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a plug height of between about 50% and about 100% of the cover’s depth, recognizing that an increase in plug depth is directly correlated to a more secure seal since the interference fit making the seal depends on depth (i.e. more surface area means the fit is more difficult to incidentally unseal), which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Sautner does not explicitly teach straps.
Mogil, however, further teaches one or more straps (Fig 9b, a strap is shown) coupled to one or more patches (Fig 9b, a patch at a terminal end of the strap is shown coupled to the strap) that are coupled to the outer base layer (Fig 9b, both the strap and the patch are shown coupled to the outer base layer 426).
The purpose of straps is easier carrying. 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 outer base layer of Sautner/Mogil with straps as taught by Mogil in order to advantageously increase ease of carrying the container.
(wherein Mogil further teaches related elements from dependent claim 14:
Fig 9e more clearly shows that each flap, wherein a flap is indicated by an overlapping seam, covers each patch from Figs 9a, 9b, 9d;
flaps are shown formed in the outer base layer 426)
Regarding claim 14, Sautner/Mogil further teaches the one or more patches are covered by one or more flaps (Mogil, Fig 9e more clearly shows that each flap, wherein a flap is indicated by an overlapping seam, covers each patch from Figs 9a, 9b, 9d) formed in the outer base layer (Mogil, flaps are shown formed in the outer base layer 426). See details in the parent claim 13 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 16, Sautner teaches a container (Fig 1, Abstract, “double-wall insulated container”), comprising:
a base (Fig 1, a base is shown as a bottom receptacle) including an outer base layer (Fig 1, an outer base layer is external wall 1 of the base), an inner base layer (Fig 1, an inner base layer is internal wall 3 of the base), and a base insulation layer disposed between the outer base layer and the inner base layer (Fig 1, a base insulation layer is foam 2 of the base), the inner base layer having a first side abutting the base insulation layer (Fig 1, 3 abuts 2 in a first side of 3) and a second side opposite the first side (Fig 1, 3 abuts an interior volume in a second side of 3 that is opposite the first side), wherein
the base extends from a first end to a second end in a direction along a y-axis (the base is shown extending from one end to another along a y-axis perpendicular to horizontal (like Applicant Fig 7 y-axis 132 [0069])), and wherein
an interior volume of the container is at least partially defined by the second side of the inner base layer (Fig 1 shows the inner base layer defines the interior volume of the container); and
a moveable lid coupled to the base at the first end thereof (Fig 1, a moveable lid is shown as a top cover, at the first end of the base), the moveable lid including:
a first insulation layer defining a cover (Fig 1, a first insulation layer is 2, wherein a top portion of the lid is a cover (i.e. it is not the plug)) that defines a rim (Fig 1, a rim of the lid is directly above a top rim of the base); and
a plug that protrudes from the cover (Fig 1, a plug of the lid is shown as a bottom portion protrusion of the lid below the lid rim), the rim extending around a periphery of the plug (Fig 1, the rim extends around a periphery of the plug), wherein
a seat is defined by the inner base layer at the first end of the base (Fig 1, a seat is shown defined by 3 of the base at the first end of the base (proximal the lid)), the rim being configured to contact the seat when the moveable lid is in a closed position (Fig 1, col 2, line 30, “the container [is] sealed”, meaning the lid necessarily contacts the seat when closed), wherein the plug forms a fit with the inner base layer to the interior volume of the container when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Fig 1, shows the lid is fit into the base), and wherein
a bottom surface of the plug is disposed below the seat in the direction along the y-axis when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Figs 1, a bottom surface of the plug is shown below the seat of the base).
But Sautner does not explicitly teach a particular sealing fit.
Mogil, however, teaches a plug forms an interference fit with the inner base layer to at least partially seal the interior volume of the container when the moveable lid is in the closed position (Fig 9i-j, [0202], “interference jamming fit” like a cork or stopper (i.e. seal) is formed by contact of inner lid layer 458 to the seat 424 of a portion of the inner base layer 436).
The purpose of an interference fit is to ensure leak-proof containment. 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 lid fit of Sautner to be an interference fit as taught by Mogil in order to advantageously upgrade and ensure leak-proof sealing since the container base and lid are leak-proof by reinforcing the joint between them.
But Sautner/Mogil does not explicitly teach a second lid insulation layer.
Gano, however, teaches a similar cooler comprising:
a lid comprising a second insulation layer that at least partially defines a plug with a stepped profile of the lid (Figs 11-12, a lid has a first insulation layer 370 and a second insulation layer 350 at least partially defining a plug with a stepped profile, wherein the lid engages the sidewalls, [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second insulation layer in the lid of Sautner/Mogil, thereby making the plug stepped profile of Sautner’s lid in combination with the first layer assist the interference fit added by Mogil (just like Applicant’s invention), in order to advantageously improve insulation by allowing more customization via further layers versus just having the first insulation layer.
Regarding claim 17, Sautner/Mogil further teaches the plug has a side plug surface that is configured to contact sides of the inner base layer to provide the interference fit when the movable lid is in the closed position (Mogil’s interference fit modification of Sautner’s plug shape means a side plug surface of Sautner contacts the sides of the inner base layer of Sautner). See details in the parent claim 16 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 19, Sautner further teaches the moveable lid (Fig 1, lid) has a top wall (Fig 1, a top wall of the lid is external wall 1) that defines a surface area that is greater than a surface area defined by the bottom surface of the plug (a surface area of 1 is shown larger than a bottom plug surface area).
Regarding claim 20, Sautner further teaches at least the first insulation layer (2) or the second insulation layer is a floating insulation layer (2 is granulate, thereby “floating” in light of Applicant specification meaning “not coupled” via fastening, adherence, or welding [0064], to the outer and inner layers).
Claims 2-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 6168040 by Sautner et al. (hereinafter “Sautner”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil”; Fig 9 embodiment) in view of US Pub 20030000242 by Gano III (hereinafter “Gano”) in view of Mogil Fig 11 embodiment in further view of US Pat 10143282 issued to Seiders et al (hereinafter “Seiders”).
Regarding claim 2, Sautner/Mogil Fig 9/Gano does not explicitly teach a waterproof closure extending around a periphery of the first end of the base.
However, Mogil Fig 11 embodiment teaches a closure extending around a periphery of the first end of the base (Fig 11a, zipper 614).
And Seiders teaches a waterproof zipper (Fig 6, 604) on a similar lid (Fig 41A).
The purpose of an additional fastening/closure is to cover the rim seal. 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 outer lid layer of Fig 9 embodiment to be coupled with a waterproof closure as taught by Fig 11 embodiment and Seiders in order to advantageously increase security and cleanliness of the lid/base interference fit seal by shielding it from outside incidental forces and from accumulation of particulate matter proximate said seal that could otherwise leak in upon opening the lid. In other words, it is obvious to add a zipper from another embodiment of the same prior art to the highly similar primary embodiment for the above reasons because they solve the same problem of improving the seal and they’re in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 3, Sautner/Mogil Fig 9/Gano/Mogil Fig 11/Seiders combined as above, further teaches that the outer base layer (Mogil, Fig 9i, 426) and the inner base layer (Mogil, Fig 9i, [0200], 436 integrally seamed with 440) are coupled to a first half of the waterproof closure, and wherein
the outer lid layer (Mogil, Fig 9j, 454) and the inner lid layer (Mogil, Fig 9j, 458) are coupled to a second half of the waterproof closure. See details in the parent claim 2 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 18, Sautner/Mogil further teaches the interference fit to form the seal (Mogil, [0202], “interference jamming fit”; wherein an interference fit necessarily seals), and wherein the seal is configured to provide a watertight seal (Mogil, an interference fit necessarily is capable of being watertight/waterproof) up to 15 psi of atmospheric pressure between the ambient environment and the interior volume (Mogil, the seal of the prior art is necessarily used in ambient everyday environments, meaning a user utilizes the container seal at a single pressure value at any given time. Since a typical user is breathing above ground and therefore above sea level, the prior art is necessarily capable of use at a single value of 14.696 psi (sea level) or below (above sea level). That value is below/up to about 15 psi.).
But Sautner/Mogil Fig 9 embodiment does not explicitly teach a first closure also part of the seal.
However, Mogil Fig 11 embodiment teaches a first closure (Fig 11a, zipper 614).
And Seiders teaches a waterproof zipper (Fig 6, 604) on a similar lid (Fig 41A).
The purpose of an additional fastening/closure is to cover the rim seal. 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 outer lid layer of Fig 9 embodiment to be coupled with a waterproof closure as taught by Fig 11 embodiment and Seiders in order to advantageously increase security and cleanliness of the lid/base interference fit seal by shielding it from outside incidental forces and from accumulation of particulate matter proximate said seal that could otherwise leak in upon opening the lid. In other words, it is obvious to add a zipper from another embodiment of the same prior art to the highly similar primary embodiment for the above reasons because they solve the same problem of improving the seal and they’re in the same field of endeavor.
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 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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 14 September 2026
Prosecution Insights