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 .
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.
Claims 36, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 36, line 1, “the upper portion” and line 2, “the lower portion” each lack antecedent basis from indicated parent claim 21.
In claim 37, line 1, “the lower portion” lacks antecedent basis from indicated parent claim 21.
In claim 40, line 2, “close the scent ports” lacks antecedent basis from indicated parent claim 21, and “scent ports” are not defined as such in any claim.
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.
Claims 21-22, 26, 32-35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Stash Jar by Smokus Focus. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jyumi (1,788,058). Each discloses a display container comprising an enclosure (complete Stash jar; entire lamp; respectively) having a generally enclosed interior for storing a botanical specimen (inside the jar; 3), and a transparent viewing section (magnifying section of the lid; 13) extending overtop of the interior when the enclosure is upright for viewing of the botanical specimen from above, and a lighting system including one or more light sources (disclosed LED light; 4) integrated with the enclosure for illuminating the botanical specimen from above when received in the interior, the one or more light sources positioned clear of the transparent viewing section to provide a generally unobstructed view of the botanical specimen therethrough when illuminated. No botanical specimen actually comprises an element of the claimed invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As to claim 22, each discloses the transparent viewing section comprises a lens.
As to claim 26, the at least one light source of the Stash Jar includes a recharging control system.
As to claim 32, the at least one light source of the Stash Jar is within the interior of the disclosure.
As to claim 33, the at least one light source of the Stash Jar is mounted adjacent an upper end of the interior.
As to claim 34, the Stash Jar discloses the enclosure has a top wall bounding the interior from above and a sidewall bounding the interior horizontally, the top wall comprising the transparent viewing section and at least a portion of the sidewall being generally transparent for viewing the botanical specimen from a side of the enclosure, and wherein the one or more light sources are below an upper periphery of the top wall and inboard of the sidewall.
As to claim 35, the Stash Jar discloses the enclosure comprises a lower portion and an upper portion detachably mounted to the lower portion and comprising the transparent viewing portion.
As to claim 37, the Stash Jar discloses the lower portion comprises a container body and the upper portion comprises a lid.
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 21-22, 32-35, 37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean et al. (9,334,086) in view of Fenner Jr. (10,179,694). Bean et al. disclose a display container comprising an enclosure (100 or 300) having a generally enclosed interior for storing a botanical specimen (inside the enclosure), and a transparent viewing section (lens of the lid 116 or 316) extending overtop of the interior when the enclosure is upright for viewing of the botanical specimen from above.
Bean et al. does not disclose an integrated lighting system. However, Fenner Jr. discloses a similar display container (10) for botanical specimens including an integrated lighting system including at least one LED (62) in the interior and upper portion of a housing (30) for illumination of the botanical specimen from above, and a control system (60-70) coupled to the at least one LED for controlling operation of the at least one LED. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display container of Bean et al. with an integrated lighting system including at least one LED in the manner of Fenner Jr. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide the display container of Bean et al. with a lighting source to improve viewing of the contained botanical specimen.
As to claim 22, Bean et al. disclose the transparent viewing section comprises a lens.
As to claim 32, the at least one light source of Bean et al. is within the interior of the disclosure.
As to claim 33, the at least one light source of Bean et al. is mounted adjacent an upper end of the interior.
As to claim 34, Bean et al. disclose the enclosure has a top wall bounding the interior from above and a sidewall bounding the interior horizontally, the top wall comprising the transparent viewing section and at least a portion of the sidewall being generally transparent for viewing the botanical specimen from a side of the enclosure, and wherein the one or more light sources are below an upper periphery of the top wall and inboard of the sidewall.
As to claim 35, Bean et al. disclose the enclosure comprises a lower portion and an upper portion detachably mounted to the lower portion and comprising the transparent viewing portion.
As to claim 37, Bean et al. disclose the lower portion comprises a container body and the upper portion comprises a lid.
As to claims 39 and 40, Bean et al. disclose a similar display container provided with scent ports (122) for sampling an aroma of the content.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Stash Jar or the combination of Bean et al. and Fenner Jr. as employed in claim 21 above and further in view of Tian et al. (2018/0242529). The previous art does not disclose an electronics module integrated with the enclosure and coupled to the at least one light source. However, Tian et al. disclose a similar display container with an LED array (2) connected with an electronics module (4) as a control system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display container of the Stash Jar the combination of Bean et al. and Fenner Jr. with its LED array connected with an electronics module in the manner of Tian et al.as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a manually controllable light source.
Claims 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Stash Jar in view of either one of Harrell et al. (7,040,776) and Zelensky et al. (5,178,450). The Stash Jar does not disclose its lighted display container including a power switch and a battery. However, Harrell et al. and Zelensky et al. (see column 2, line 52 through column 3, line 12; see column 2, lines 59-64; respectively) each disclose similar display containers with lighting sources that employ a power switch and a battery to activate and power a light source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display container of the Stash Jar with systems in the manner of either one of Harrell et al. and Zelensky et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a well known manner of providing a light source control system.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as employed against claim 27 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. (2016/0100924). The Stash Jar combination above does not disclose the lighting system including a wireless charging module for wireless charging of the battery including the wireless charging module as a power connector. However, Wilson et al. disclose it was known to employ a wireless charging module for wireless charging of a battery of a system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Stash Jar with a wireless charging module for wireless charging of the battery in the manner of Wilson et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide convenient charging of the battery.
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Stash Jar in view of Bean et al. (9,334,086). The Stash Jar does not disclose scent ports for sampling an aroma of the content. However, Bean et al. disclose a similar display container provided with scent ports (122) for sampling an aroma of the content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display container of the Stash Jar with scent ports in the manner of Bean et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a user to employ sight and smell to judge the content of the display container.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33 and 35-38 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12,227,334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 1 of the previous patent.
Claims 22, 26, 34, 39 and 40 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 5, 4, 2, and 3, respectively, of U.S. Patent No.12,227,334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claims 27 and 28 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 10 taken together of U.S. Patent No.12,227,334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claims 29 and 30 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 11 taken together of U.S. Patent No.12,227,334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 9 and 10 taken together of U.S. Patent No.12,227,334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claims 21-22 and 32-33 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over one of claims 6 and 14 of U.S. Patent No.11,820,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 6 or claim 14 of the previous patent.
Claims 23-25 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over one of claims 7 and 14 of U.S. Patent No.11,820,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 7 or claim 14 of the previous patent.
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No.11,820,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claims 27-29 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.11,820,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 17 of the previous patent.
Claims 29 and 30 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 7 taken together of U.S. Patent No.11,820,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims
may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claims 32-38 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.11,820,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 6 of the previous patent.
Claims 21, 26 and 32-40 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.11,691,787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 3 of the previous patent.
Claims 22, 23, 27 and 31 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim combinations of claims 3 and 11, claims 3 and 4, claims 3 and 8, and claims 3, 7 and 8, respectively, of U.S. Patent No.11,691,787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claims 24 and 25 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 6 taken together of U.S. Patent No. 11,691,787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claims 28 and 30 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 9 taken together of U.S. Patent No. 11,691,787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of the indicated claims of the previous patent.
Claims 21-27, 30, 32-35, 37 and 39-40 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,405. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 1 of the previous patent.
Claims 28 and 29 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,405. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 6 of the previous patent.
Claims 36 and 38 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,405. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 7 of the previous patent.
Claims 21-27, 32-35, 37 and 39-40 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,836,537 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 1 of the previous patent.
Claims 28-30 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,836,537 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 2 of the previous patent.
Claims 36 and 38 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,836,537 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter of the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter of claim 16 of the previous patent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 Aviles, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG