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 .
This action is written in response to application number 18/388,839 filed 12/19/2024
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) 1-2, 5-10, 12-18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Segal (US 2014/0110470).
Claim 1. Segal discloses a prize storage case for storing a prize of a product, comprising:
an attachment portion 650 configured to be detachably attached to an edge of the product;
a case portion 630 for containing the prize 210; and
a connecting portion (flange portion on 650) for detachably connecting the attachment portion and the case portion;
wherein the case portion comprises a cover portion covering the prize, and a base portion which is provided at a bottom of the cover portion and on which the prize is placed (fig. 6E); and
wherein the case portion is configured to be detached from the attachment portion with the base portion attached to the cover portion when the case portion is detached from the attachment portion via the connection portion (snap-fit connection) [0074].
Claim 2. Segal discloses the prize storage case of claim 1, wherein the case portion is configured such that the cover portion and the base portion are detachable ([0074]; fig. 6E).
Claim 5. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 1, wherein the cover portion of the case portion is formed by a transparent material [0074].
Claim 6. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 1, wherein the prize storage case is for storing the prize of a PET bottled beverage as the product (fig. 6E), and
the attachment portion 650 is configured to be attached (threaded) to a cap portion (threads) of a container for the PET bottled beverage [0074].
Claim 7. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 6, wherein the attachment portion is configured to be locked by climbing over a ring portion which is protruding at a lower part of the cap of the container [0074].
Claims 8, 13. Segal discloses a prize storage case for storing a prize of a product, comprising:
a cover portion 630 covering the prize; and
a base portion 640 which is provided at a bottom of the cover portion, and on which the prize is placed;
wherein the base portion comprises an attachment portion (protruding prong) configured to be detachably attached to an edge of the product (fig. 6G); and
wherein the base portion is configured to be detached from the edge of the product with the base portion attached to the cover portion when the attachment portion is detached from the edge of the product [0075].
Claim 9. Segal discloses the prize storage case of claim 8, wherein the prize storage case is configured such that the cover portion and the base portion are detachable (fig. 6G).
Claim 10. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 9, wherein an outer peripheral wall of the base portion is provided with a protrusion (flange) that can be locked with the cover portion, and
an end part of the cover portion is configured to be locked by climbing over the protrusion [0074].
Claim 12. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 8, wherein the base portion 640 has one or more holes (fig. 6G).
Claim 14. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 8, wherein the cover portion is formed by a transparent material [0074].
Claim 15. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 8, wherein the prize storage case is for storing the prize of a PET bottled beverage as the product (fig. 6E), and
the attachment portion 650 is configured to be attached (threaded) to a cap portion (threads) of a container for the PET bottled beverage [0074].
Claims 16-17. Segal discloses a prize storage case for storing a prize for a product, comprising:
a cover portion 630 covering the prize 210; and
a base portion 640 which is provided at a bottom of the cover portion, and on which the prize is placed (fig. 6G);
wherein the base portion forms a lid which is detachably attached to an edge of the product; and
wherein the base portion is configured to be detached from the edge of the product with the base portion attached to the cover portion when the base portion is detached from the edge of the product [0074].
Claim 18. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 17, wherein an outer peripheral wall of the base portion is provided with a protrusion (locking flange) that can be locked with the cover portion, and an end part of the cover portion is configured to be locked by climbing over the protrusion [0074].
Claim 20. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 16, wherein the base portion has a protruding rod configured to be inserted into a hole of the prize and to support the prize (fig. 6G).
Claim 21. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 16, wherein the case portion is formed by a transparent material [0074].
Claim 22. Segal discloses the prize storage case according to claim 16, wherein the prize storage case is for storing the prize of a PET bottled beverage as the product (fig. 6E), and
the attachment portion 650 is configured to be attached (threaded) to a cap portion (threads) of a container for the PET bottled beverage [0074].
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.
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) 3-4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal (US 2014/0110470).
Claim 3. Segal discloses the prize storage case of claim 1, wherein the case portion is configured such that the cover portion and the base portion are capable of being integrally formed.
Segal discloses the claimed invention except cap element being made integral with the base element portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have THE TOP AND BOTTOM BASE INTEGRAL, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 V(B).
Claim 4. Segal discloses the prize storage case of claim 3, wherein the case portion is provided at the cover portion and further comprises a lid portion (base @210) configured to take out the prize from the case portion (fig. 6E).
Claim 19. Segal discloses the prize storage case of claim 16, wherein the base portion is configured to be attached to an end of the product [0074]. Because Segal provides various methods of attaching the elements, modifying the snap-fit or friction fit to include a screw fit would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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 at 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights