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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 12/16/2025, wherein claims 2, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 20 were amended, claims 22 are new. Claims 2-22 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 6 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 6 describes an independent structure not previously examined, in the amendment of claim 6, the subject matter of claim 3 was omitted, whilst making claim 6 an independent claim. This combination was not previously considered. Claims 7-12 depend upon claim 6 and are therefore restricted.
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 Accordingly, claims 6-12 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 20 states " wherein the forming forms the first structure and with the main sidewall at a same time from a single body of material to form a base of the container." The claims are directed towards a method of forming the container. The original disclosure does not talk about the timing of formation or formation from a single body. The disclosure does not discuss formation being injection molding or any particular process. But for example, in injection molding multiple bodies (pellets) are converted to fluid to form a product. The process of formation for the present invention is unclear, however, it is not disclosed to be made from a single body or simultaneously..
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 2- 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.
The term “the main sidewall extends from the first side” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The first side is part of the first structure. The first structure and the main sidewall are separate components. How can the main sidewall “extend from” the first side? These two features are not integral. For example, there is an open configuration in which the main sidewall is separated from the first side. In this view, the main sidewall does not extend from the first side. Further, the claims are directed towards a method, specifically a method for forming a container. Merriam-Webster defines “extend” as “extend, lengthen, prolong, protract mean to draw out or add to so as to increase in length.” As written the claim language is mis leading as it indicates that the sidewall and first side are integral features. Under the broadest interpretation, with interconnection counting towards the term “extend”, this statement does not add a limitation as three separate three dimensional parts will always extend in a direction from another. Claims 3-5 and 16-22 directly or indirectly depend from claim 2 and are also rejected.
The term “the first side and second side being on opposing sides of the first structure” and “the first side” and “the second side” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The secondary sidewall is considered to be item 330 and part of the second side. The first structure is similar to a puck, there does not appear to be clear “sides” in this feature. How can “opposite” sides exist in a puck? It doesn’t appear that the applicant is using a top or bottom for reference because the inner and outer surface of the puck both protrude in a direction. What is the first side and second side? From drawings, it would appear that the applicant is defining side as two concentric circles. The usage of the term “side” in general doesn’t make sense for the shape of the invention. Even if a top side and bottom side was being reference, the secondary sidewall technically extends from the same side (bottom) as defined by the first side.
The term “the peripheral cavity symmetrically circumscribing the secondary sidewall along a periphery of the first structure” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. A periphery is defined as “the external boundary or surface of a body” (Merriam-Webster). The peripheral cavity does not appear to be located at the periphery of the first structure. The first structures periphery would be adjacent 450 in figure 4. The peripheral cavity does not circumscribe along the periphery of the first structure. Further, the secondary sidewall is identified as item 330, this is also not at a periphery of the first structure.
The term “the when the cover is protrusion is inserted into, and mated with, the secondary side wall” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This is grammatically incorrect and because of the grammatical error, it is unclear what limitation is being placed. The word protrusion seems to be randomly inserted in the phrase. Protrusion seems to be randomly inserted into the phrase.
The term “the main sidewall extends from the first side” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The first side is part of the first structure. The first structure and the main sidewall are separate components. How can the main sidewall “extend from” the first side? These two features are not integral. For example, there is an open configuration in which the main sidewall is separated from the first side. In this view, the main sidewall does not extend from the first side. Further, the claims are directed towards a method. Merriam-Webster defines “extend” as “extend, lengthen, prolong, protract mean to draw out or add to so as to increase in length.” As written the claim language is mis leading as it indicates that the sidewall and first side are integral features. Under the broadest interpretation, with interconnection counting towards the term “extend”, this statement does not add a limitation as three separate three dimensional parts will always extend in a direction from another. Claims 15 directly or indirectly depend from claim 14 and are also rejected.
The term “the first side and second side being on opposing sides of the first structure” and “the first side” and “the second side” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The secondary sidewall is considered to be item 330 and part of the second side. The first structure is a puck, there does not appear to be clear “sides” in this feature. How can “opposite” sides exist in a puck? It doesn’t appear that the applicant is using a top or bottom for reference because the inner and outer surface of the puck both protrude in a direction. What is the first side and second side? From drawings, it would appear that the applicant is defining side as two concentric circles. The usage of the term “side” in general doesn’t make sense for the shape of the invention. Even if a top side and bottom side was being reference, the secondary sidewall technically extends from the same side (bottom) as defined by the first side.
The term “the peripheral cavity symmetrically circumscribing the secondary sidewall along a periphery of the first structure” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. A periphery is defined as “the external boundary or surface of a body” (Merriam-Webster). The peripheral cavity does not appear to be located at the periphery of the first structure. The first structures periphery would be adjacent 450 in figure 4. The peripheral cavity does not circumscribe along the periphery of the first structure. Further, the secondary sidewall is identified as item 330, this is also not at a periphery of the first structure.
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) 2-5, 13, 18-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Patel (US 20220071280 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Patel discloses a method of forming a container, comprising: establishing a first end-wall (108) connected to a first end of a main sidewall (main wall of 110); forming a first structure (structure of 118b), a first side (134) of the first structure being connected to a second end of the main sidewall (136), such that the main sidewall extends from the first side, the first structure including a secondary sidewall (downward extension behind 116) extending from a second side of the first structure, the first side and second side being on opposing sides of the first structure, a first peripheral portion (116 and further outer edges) of the first structure at least partially defining a peripheral cavity (may choose space between 116 and the cover that meets this limitation), the peripheral cavity symmetrically circumscribing the secondary sidewall along a periphery of the first structure; and configuring a protrusion of a cover (figure 1B, cover is structure of 116a) to be insertable into and releasably mateable with the secondary sidewall, a second peripheral portion (outer edge of 116a) of the cover at least partially closing the peripheral cavity when the protrusion is inserted into the secondary sidewall.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Patel discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the forming forms such that the first structure (structure of 118) closes a primary storage area (108), the primary storage area being defined in part by the main sidewall and the first end-wall.
With respect to claim 4, Patel discloses method of claim 2, wherein configuring configures such that the protrusion (figure 1b) and a first central portion (center of structure of 116a) of the cover closes a secondary storage area (area of 150) that is defined by a second central portion of the first structure.
With respect to claim 5, Patel discloses method of claim 4, wherein the forming forms such that the first structure includes an annular ridge (figure 2) between the secondary storage area and the peripheral cavity, the secondary sidewall (downwardly protruding wall after 16 figure 1B) being connected to the annular ridge, an upper surface of the annular ridge directly contacting an interior surface of the cover (see figure 8) when the cover is protrusion is inserted into, and mated with, the secondary side wall.
With respect to claim 13, Patel discloses method of claim 2, wherein the forming forms such that the first structure includes an annular ridge (ledge at the top/overlooking the secondary sidewall) between an epicenter of the first structure and the peripheral cavity, a first end of the secondary sidewall being connected to the annular ridge, and a second end of the secondary sidewall being connected to a central portion of the first structure.
EXAMINER NOTE: The interpretation of annular ridge for claim 13 is different than the interpretation of annular ridge in claim 5.
With respect to claim 18, Patel discloses method of claim 2, wherein the configuring configures such that the protrusion (figure 1B) is a cylindrically shaped wall that is hollow.
With respect to claim 19, Patel discloses method of claim 2, wherein the establishing establishes such that the main sidewall (110) and the first end-wall (108) collectively form a base of the container, the base at least partially defining a primary storage area, and the forming forms the first structure (structure of 118) such that the first structure closes the primary storage area, the first structure being selectively removable from the base.
With respect to claim 20, Patel discloses method of claim 2, wherein the forming forms the first structure (structure of 118) and with the main sidewall (110) at a same time from a single body of material to form a base of the container. Patel does not directly disclose this subject matter. However, Patel does teach of injection molding as a process for formation. It would have been obvious to have both parts on the same mold to make a singular container simultaneously while having the feed material be the same (pellets) as it would streamline the manufacturing process. Official Notice is taken that simultaneously producing parts for a singular invention was notoriously well-known in the art of injection molding at the time the invention was effectively filed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine simultaneous production of parts with this well-known technique in order to create a singular product.
With respect to claim 20, Patel discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the configuring configures the protrusion such that a gap exists between a distal-most end of the protrusion and a second central end-wall of the first structure when the protrusion is inserted into and mated with the second sidewall. (can be considered the configuration of figure 2, further second central end-wall is not defined. If limited to a small area of the center portion only, there is a horizontal gap between the protrusion and end wall)
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 20220071280 A1).
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the forming forms the first structure (structure of 118) and with the main sidewall (110) at a same time from a single body of material to form a base of the container. Patel does not directly disclose this subject matter. However, Patel does teach of injection molding as a process for formation. It would have been obvious to have both parts on the same mold to make a singular container simultaneously while having the feed material be the same (pellets) as it would streamline the manufacturing process. Official Notice is taken that simultaneously producing parts for a singular invention was notoriously well-known in the art of injection molding at the time the invention was effectively filed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine simultaneous production of parts with this well-known technique in order to create a singular product.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 20220071280 A1) in view of Patel (WO 2022049545 A1 – see attached).
With respect to claim 21, the references as applied to claim 20, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the establishing establishes such that the first end-wall is selectively removable from the main sidewall. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely multiple compartment storage containers, Patel (WO 2022049545 A1) taught of a container that is separable from both sides, specifically a first structure and cover (704b side) and a first end-wall (704a). 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 first end-wall of Patel (US 20220071280 A1) to be removable as taught by Patel (WO 2022049545 A1) in order to allow an alternate method of accessibility to the first compartment (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are rejected 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. Claim 6 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 5 (above). Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the configuring configures such that the first peripheral portion spans across the annular ridge and is suspended above the peripheral cavity once the protrusion is inserted into the secondary sidewall.
Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 13 (above). Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the configuring configures such that the first peripheral portion spans across the annular ridge and is suspended above the peripheral cavity once the protrusion is inserted into the secondary sidewall.
Consequentially, claims 15 are rejected due to their dependencies on previously rejected claim 13 however they also depend upon the allowable subject matter from claim 14 due to dependencies on claims 14.
Claim 16 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 13 (above). Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the configuring configures such that a first upper edge of a second side of the cover is able to be pressed in an inward direction into the peripheral cavity, at any location along a periphery of the cover, to cause a first end of the cover to rise to assist in detaching the cover from the first structure.
Consequentially, claims 17 are rejected to due to their dependencies on previously rejected claim 13 however they also depend upon the allowable subject matter from claim 16 due to dependencies on claims 16.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO-2022049545-A1 OR SE-2150763-A1 OR SE-2150650-A1 OR SE-545107-C2 OR SE-1651130-A1 OR US-20220071280-A1 OR US-20240174414-A1 OR US-20160368670-A1 OR US-20160214768-A1 OR US-20110006060-A1 OR US-D756790-S OR US-5029723-A OR US-4606474-A OR US-10815038-B2 OR US-5181626-A OR US-20190239562-A1 OR WO-2022263038-A1 OR WO-2014124939-A1 OR US-20060043095-A1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the prior art, applicant argues that the recess of Patel does noes not symmetrically circumscribe the secondary side wall. Circumscribe has many definitions provided for example, Merriam-Webster defines circumscribe as “draw a line around” or “surround by or as if by a boundary”. In either case, this does not outright state the secondary sidewall as a boundary of the peripheral cavity. The applicant does not define the peripheral cavity by bounds (sidewalls). Cavity as defined by Merriam-Webster is “an unfilled space within a mass”. Thus, sidewalls do not have to device a cavity. Further, the amended language results in an 112b rejection, see above.
Applicants amendments have been considered, however, the amended material results in 112b rejections. Further, the amendments do not seem to introduce any further limitations that would overcome the prior art. As described above, the claimed peripheral cavity is not limited to the boundaries stated by the applicant. The language is broad and therefore has a broad interpretation.
With regards to claim 13, the annular ridge is redefined to meet the claim language. The annular ridge of claim 13 is different than the annular ridge of claim 5 in the prior art reading.
With respect to the Double Patenting Rejection, it is noted that applicant has requested the rejection be held in abeyance.
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
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights