DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of filed on 4/21/2026 is acknowledged. The arguments are found to be persuasive because. The requirement is withdrawn and claims 12-31 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18-31 are 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.
Claim 18 recites “a lower container housing portion” in lines 7-8. It is unclear if this is the same lower container housing portion previously recited or a differ portion.
Claim 24 recites “a lower container housing portion” in lines 7-8. It is unclear if this is the same lower container housing portion previously recited or a differ portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe (US-20090084801-A1) in view of Dahl (US-20130134121-A1).
Regarding claim 12:
Coe discloses a method of operating a container device, the method comprising: providing a container device (61), the container device comprising: a container housing comprising a first housing portion (62) having a wing clip (76) and a first threaded portion (78), a second housing portion (64) having a second threaded portion (80), and a hinge (67) moveably connecting the first housing portion to the second housing portion, the container housing configured to move between an open configuration (Fig. 15) and a closed configuration (Fig. 14); and a cap (72) comprising a locking device, the cap configured to rotatably engage the first threaded portion and the second threaded portion to move between a screwed position and an unscrewed position while the container housing is in the closed configuration (par. 0031), ,engaging the wing clip with the second housing portion to maintain the container housing in the closed position while the wing clip is engaged with the second housing portion, and rotatably engaging the cap to the screwed position to maintain the container housing in the closed position while the cap is in the screwed position (par. 0031).
Coe fails to teach wherein the locking device comprises a combination lock configurable to an unlock combination, the locking device configured to prevent the cap from rotating from the screwed position to the unscrewed position unless the combination lock is configured into the unlock combination, moving the container housing to the closed configuration.
Dahl teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a cap locking device wherein the locking device comprises a combination lock configurable to an unlock combination, the locking device configured to prevent the cap from rotating from the screwed position to the unscrewed position unless the combination lock is configured into the unlock combination, moving the container housing to the closed configuration (pars. 0032 – 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container of Coe with a locking device, as taught by Dahl, in order to prevent access to the container.
Regarding claims 13-17, the modified container of Coe teaches:
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising configuring the locking device to a combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the combination is not the unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
15. The method of claim 13, wherein the combination is the unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
16. The method of claim 12, further comprising configuring the locking device to change the unlock combination to a second unlock combination (Dahl, par. 0034).
17. The method of claim 12, wherein the combination lock is configured to be opened by an open code comprising a plurality of digits (Dahl, par. 0033).
Claim(s) 18-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe (US-20090084801-A1) in view of Dahl (US-20130134121-A1) and Lande (US-D761008-S).
Regarding claim 18:
Coe discloses a method of operating a container device, the method comprising :providing a container device (61), the container device comprising: a container housing comprising an upper container housing portion (62) and a lower container housing portion (64), the container housing having a front surface, a rear surface, a first sidewall, and a second sidewall (Fig. 17), the upper container housing portion movably coupled to a lower container housing portion via a hinge (67) at the rear surface; a first wing (76) on the first sidewall and a second wing (76) on the second sidewall, the first and second wings configured to secure the upper container housing portion to the lower container housing portion; a neck portion (78, 80) configured to protrude from the front surface, the neck portion having an external surface defining a set of threads (75); moving the container housing to the closed configuration, engaging the first wing and the second wing to secure the upper container housing portion to the lower container housing portion, and threading the onto the set of threads (Fig. 14).
Coe fails to teach the container housing defining a substantially rectangular shape, and a locking device comprising a combination lock integrated into the locking device with two or more wheels, wherein the locking device is configured to fit over the neck portion of the container housing when closed by threading the locking device onto the set of threads, wherein the locking device is configured to lock the neck portion using a combination other than an unlock combination of the two or more wheels of the combination lock.
Dahl teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a cap locking device comprising a combination lock integrated into the locking device with two or more wheels (192), wherein the locking device is configured to fit over the neck portion of the container housing when closed by threading the locking device onto the set of threads, wherein the locking device is configured to lock the neck portion using a combination other than an unlock combination of the two or more wheels of the combination lock (pars. 0032 – 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container of Coe with a locking device, as taught by Dahl, in order to prevent access to the container.
Lande teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a container with a substantially rectangular shape (Figs. 1, 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container with the claimed shape, so the container could fit in different locations.
Regarding claims 19-23, the modified container of Coe teaches:
19. The method of claim 18, further comprising configuring the locking device to a combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the combination is other than the unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
21. The method of claim 19, wherein the combination is the unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
22. The method of claim 18, further comprising configuring the locking device to change the unlock combination to a second unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
23. The method of claim 20, further comprising configuring the locking device to the unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
Regarding claim 24:
Coe discloses a method of operating a container device, the method comprising: providing a container device (61), the container device comprising: a container housing comprising an upper container housing portion (62) and a lower container housing portion (64), the container housing having a front surface, a rear surface, a first sidewall, and a second sidewall, the upper container housing portion movably coupled to a lower container housing portion via a hinge (67) at the rear surface; a first wing (76) on the first sidewall and a second wing (76 on the second sidewall, the first and second wings configured to secure the upper container housing portion to the lower container housing portion; a neck portion configured to protrude from the front surface, the neck portion formed from a top neck portion (78) of the upper container housing portion and a bottom neck portion (80) of the lower container housing portion; and, moving the container housing to the closed configuration, engaging the first wing and the second wing to secure the upper container housing portion to the lower container housing portion, and placing a cap onto the neck portion to secure the container housing in the closed configuration (Fig. 14).
Coe fails to teach the container housing defining a substantially rectangular shape, and a locking device comprising a combination lock integrated into the locking device with two or more wheels, wherein the locking device is configured to fit onto the neck portion to secure the container housing in a closed configuration, wherein the locking device is configured to lock the neck portion using a combination other than an unlock combination of the two or more wheels of the combination lock.
Dahl teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a cap locking device comprising a locking device comprising a combination lock integrated into the locking device with two or more wheels (192), wherein the locking device is configured to fit onto the neck portion to secure the container housing in a closed configuration, wherein the locking device is configured to lock the neck portion using a combination other than an unlock combination of the two or more wheels of the combination lock (pars. 0032 – 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container of Coe with a locking device, as taught by Dahl, in order to prevent access to the container.
Lande teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a container with a substantially rectangular shape (Figs. 1, 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container with the claimed shape, so the container could fit in different locations.
Regarding claims 25-31, the modified container of Coe teaches:
25. The method of claim 24, further comprising configuring the locking device to a combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
26. The method of claim 25, wherein the combination is other than the unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
27. The method of claim 25, wherein the combination is the unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
28. The method of claim 24, further comprising configuring the locking device to change the unlock combination to a second unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
29. The method of claim 26, further comprising configuring the locking device to the unlock combination (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
30. The method of claim 24, wherein placing the locking device onto the neck portion comprises twisting the locking device (Dahl, pars. 0033 – 0035).
31. The method of claim 26, wherein the neck portion has a substantially circular shape and the locking device has a substantially circular shape (Coe, Fig. 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights