DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the initial filing dated April 7, 2025.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 recites a caviar container in the preamble of the claim. However, the body of the claim does not incorporate caviar. Instead, the body of the claim refers to a food receiving recess. Therefore, the claim is not limited in scope to a caviar container, but instead to any food container.
This interpretation applies to independent claim 11 and its dependent claims, 12-17.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540).
As to claim 1, Marshall teaches a food container (Paragraph [0028] teaches a food storage assembly) comprising:
a housing defining a food receiving recess therein and having a closed first end and an open second end opposite the closed first end (Paragraph [0035] teaches a solid food tub containing solid food; Figures 2-4 show a bottom surface and open top);
a lid to be received by the open second end of the housing and having opposing first and second major surfaces, the first major surface to face the food receiving recess, the second major surface defining a recess (Paragraphs [0036]-[0037] teach a lid removably attachable with the tub with an upper surface and lower surface defining a substantially hollow lid; Figure 2, Item 75 shows the top surface; Figure 3, Item 76 shows the bottom surface; Figure 5 shows both top and bottom surfaces defining a hollow lid); and
an electronic device to be received by the recess (Paragraph [0039] teaches a solid food heating unit integrated into the solid food lid) and comprising
a device housing (Paragraph [0040] teaches the heating unit is integrated into the control housing),
a battery carried within the device housing (Paragraph [0041] teaches a power supply in the control housing and comprising a battery),
a visual indicator carried by the device housing and coupled to the battery, and
a processor carried by the device housing and coupled to the battery and the visual indicator, the processor configured to cause the visual indicator to generate a visual indication (Paragraph [0040] teaches a processor that activates a visual indicator such as a light emitting diode).
As to claim 2, depending from the food container of claim 1, Marshall teaches wherein the electronic device comprises a sensor carried by the device housing and coupled to the processor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator based upon the sensor (Paragraph [0040] teaches turning on the indicator based on the sensed condition of a solid food heating coil being actuated for a pre-determined duration of time).
As to claim 6, depending from the food container of claim 1, Marshall teaches wherein the visual indicator comprises at least one light emitting diode (LED) carried by an external surface of the device housing (Paragraph [0040] teaches the indicator may comprise a light emitting diode; Figure 2, Item 86 shows the indicator on the top surface of the lid).
As to claim 18, Marshall teaches a method for making a food container (Paragraph [0008] teaches providing a container tub and integrating a heating unit into a lid), the method comprising:
forming a housing defining a food receiving recess therein and having a closed first end and an open second end opposite the closed first end (Paragraph [0035] teaches a solid food tub containing solid food; Figures 2-4 show a bottom surface and open top);
forming a lid to be received by the open second end of the housing and having opposing first and second major surfaces, the first major surface to face the food receiving recess, the second major surface defining a recess (Paragraphs [0036]-[0037] teach a lid removably attachable with the tub with an upper surface and lower surface defining a substantially hollow lid; Figure 2, Item 75 shows the top surface; Figure 3, Item 76 shows the bottom surface; Figure 5 shows both top and bottom surfaces defining a hollow lid); and
positioning an electronic device to be received by the recess (Paragraph [0039] teaches a solid food heating unit integrated into the solid food lid) and comprising
a device housing (Paragraph [0040] teaches the heating unit is integrated into the control housing),
a battery carried within the device housing (Paragraph [0041] teaches a power supply in the control housing and comprising a battery),
a visual indicator carried by the device housing and coupled to the battery, and
a processor carried by the device housing and coupled to the battery and the visual indicator, the processor configured to cause the visual indicator to generate a visual indication (Paragraph [0040] teaches a processor that activates a visual indicator such as a light emitting diode).
As to claim 19, depending from the method of claim 18, Marshall teaches wherein the electronic device comprises a sensor carried by the device housing and coupled to the processor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator based upon the sensor (Paragraph [0040] teaches turning on the indicator based on the sensed condition of a solid food heating coil being actuated for a pre-determined duration of time).
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.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) as applied to claims 2 and 19 above, and further in view of Scarrott et al. (Scarrott; US PG Pub #2021/0170120).
As to claim 3, depending from the food container of claim 2, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises an ambient light sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient light value below a threshold value.
In the field of container lids, Scarrott teaches wherein the sensor comprises an ambient light sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient light value below a threshold value (Paragraph [0108] teaches an ambient light sensor such that when it is low light or no light, an LED is pulsed). It would have been obvious to modify the container of Marshall with the ambient sensor of Scarrott because this helps a user locate the device when it is dark (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]).
As to claim 20, depending from the method of claim 19, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises an ambient light sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient light value below a threshold value.
In the field of container lids, Scarrott teaches wherein the sensor comprises an ambient light sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient light value below a threshold value (Paragraph [0108] teaches an ambient light sensor such that when it is low light or no light, an LED is pulsed). It would have been obvious to modify the container of Marshall with the ambient sensor of Scarrott because this helps a user locate the device when it is dark (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gao (US PG Pub #2019/0387375).
As to claim 4, depending from the food container of claim 2, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a proximity sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the proximity sensor detects a moving object within a threshold distance.
In the field of food monitoring, Gao teaches wherein the sensor comprises a proximity sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the proximity sensor detects a moving object within a threshold distance (Paragraph [0037] teaches detecting proximity of a consumer to determine whether an indicator should be turned on to notify the consumer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Marshall with the proximity sensing of Gao because turning on the display when a person is nearby allows the person to be alerted to the status of the food (Paragraph [0061]) while improving power consumption (Paragraph [0088]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sokol (US PG Pub #2015/0307250).
As to claim 5, depending from the food container of claim 1, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the recess defines a canted annular lid wall; and wherein the device housing defines a canted annular device wall to abut the canted annular lid wall.
In the field of containers, Sokol teaches wherein the recess defines a canted annular lid wall; and wherein the device housing defines a canted annular device wall to abut the canted annular lid wall (Paragraph [0056] teaches a cylindrical housing of a container with inclined sections to form a lock joint). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recess wall and device housing of Marshall with the canted annular walls of Sokol such that the recess defines a canted annular lid wall; and wherein the device housing defines a canted annular device wall to abut the canted annular lid wall because this creates more difficulties for tampering (Paragraph [0028]) with improved reliability (Paragraph [0078]) and lifetime (Paragraph [0079]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ganter, I et al. (Ganter; US PG Pub #2021/0068567).
As to claim 7, depending from the food container of claim 1, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic device comprises an overlayer on the visual indicator, the overlayer comprising visual indicia.
In the field of container displays, Ganter teaches wherein the electronic device comprises an overlayer on the visual indicator, the overlayer comprising visual indicia (Paragraph [0073] teaches a window with indicia printed on the window or a decal or sticker placed on the window such that light illuminates the indicia). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Marshall with the display of Ganter because this promotes the display of a desired branding, logo, or graphic (Paragraph [0005]).
As to claim 8, depending from the food container of claim 1, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein uppermost portions of the lid are flush and aligned with uppermost portions of the device housing.
In the field of container displays, Ganter teaches wherein outermost portions of a vessel are flush and aligned with outermost portions of the device housing (Paragraph [0074] teaches the lens is placed flush into an aperture; Figure 31 shows lens 108 sitting flush with outer sleeve 106; Paragraph [0076] and Figure 32 teach an aperture formed in the outer sidewall 408 to receive a lens 412 such that the lens 412 is flush with the outer sidewall 408). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of Marshall with the flush fit of Ganter such that uppermost portions of the lid are flush and aligned with uppermost portions of the device housing because this yields the predictable result of protecting components of the device inserted into container or lid.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Driscoll et al. (Driscoll; US PG Pub #2021/0122529).
As to claim 9, depending from the food container of claim 1, Marshall teaches disk-shaped components (Paragraph [0030]), but does not explicitly teach wherein the recess comprises a circle-shaped recess; and wherein the device housing is disc-shaped and received by the circle-shaped recess.
In the field of storage containers with attachable devices, Driscoll teaches wherein the recess comprises a circle-shaped recess; and wherein the device housing is disc-shaped and received by the circle-shaped recess (Paragraphs [0069]-[0071] teach a circular recess in the top surface of a lid into which a timer disc is fully inserted). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Marshall with the circular shapes of Driscoll because modifying the shape yields the predictable result of allowing for a match between the shape of the device and the container for improved aesthetics and security by not drawing attention to the device of Marshall with lines of different shapes than the container.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Driscoll et al. (Driscoll; US PG Pub #2021/0122529) and Kuettner (US PG Pub #2020/0160263).
As to claim 10, depending from the food container of claim 1, Marshall teaches wherein the housing comprises inner surfaces defining the food receiving recess (Paragraph [0030] teaches storing food in a container with an inside surface 48 of outer wall 18; Figure 9 shows the inside surface 48; Paragraph [0035] teaches a solid food tub containing solid food; Figure 2 shows the inside of the solid food tub and Figure 4 shows food 65 inside the tub 64), but does not explicitly teach wherein the lid and the housing each comprises a metallic material; wherein the device housing comprises a plastic material; and a coating layer on the inner surfaces.
In the field of storage containers with attachable devices, Driscoll teaches wherein the lid and the housing each comprises a metallic material (Paragraph [0049] teaches a base and lid formed of metal); wherein the device housing comprises a plastic material (Paragraphs [0051]-[0052] teach a timer disc formed of a plastic material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Marshall with the materials of Driscoll because the use of metal yields the predictable result of providing stability and structural integrity while plastic yields the predictable result of providing a non-conductive housing for a device with the added benefits of a lightweight and cost effective material. Marshall in view of Driscoll does not render obvious a coating layer on the inner surfaces.
In the field of food packaging, Kuettner teaches a coating layer on the inner surfaces (Paragraph [0079] teaches impermeable coatings; Paragraph [0082] teaches a food container made with a liquid impermeable inner layer; Paragraph [0086] teaches a food container with a liquid repellant coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Marshall with the coating of Kuettner because adding coating layers yields the predictable result of enhancing the performance of the barrier, protecting against corrosion and degradation over time, and non-stick capabilities.
Claims 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) further in view of Kuettner (US PG Pub #2020/0160263) and Driscoll et al. (Driscoll; US PG Pub #2021/0122529).
As to claim 11, Marshall teaches a caviar container (Paragraph [0028] teaches a food storage assembly) comprising:
a housing comprising inner surfaces defining a food receiving recess therein (Paragraph [0030] teaches storing food in a container with an inside surface 48 of outer wall 18; Figure 9 shows the inside surface 48; Paragraph [0035] teaches a solid food tub containing solid food; Figure 2 shows the inside of the solid food tub and Figure 4 shows food 65 inside the tub 64), a closed first end, and an open second end opposite the closed first end (Paragraph [0035] teaches a solid food tub containing solid food; Figures 2-4 show a bottom surface and open top);
a lid to be received by the open second end of the housing and having opposing first and second major surfaces, the first major surface to face the food receiving recess (Paragraphs [0036]-[0037] teach a lid removably attachable with the tub with an upper surface and lower surface defining a substantially hollow lid; Figure 2, Item 75 shows the top surface; Figure 3, Item 76 shows the bottom surface; Figure 5 shows both top and bottom surfaces defining a hollow lid); and
an electronic device to be received by the recess (Paragraph [0039] teaches a solid food heating unit integrated into the solid food lid) and comprising
a device housing (Paragraph [0040] teaches the heating unit is integrated into the control housing),
a battery carried within the device housing (Paragraph [0041] teaches a power supply in the control housing and comprising a battery),
a visual indicator carried by the device housing and coupled to the battery, and
a processor carried by the device housing and coupled to the battery and the visual indicator, the processor configured to cause the visual indicator to generate a visual indication (Paragraph [0040] teaches a processor that activates a visual indicator such as a light emitting diode).
However, Marshall does not explicitly teach a coating layer on the inner surfaces, the housing comprising a metallic material, the second major surface defining a circle-shaped recess, the lid comprising a metallic material, an electronic device to be received by the circle- shaped recess, and a disc-shaped device housing.
In the field of food packaging, Kuettner teaches a coating layer on the inner surfaces (Paragraph [0079] teaches impermeable coatings; Paragraph [0082] teaches a food container made with a liquid impermeable inner layer; Paragraph [0086] teaches a food container with a liquid repellant coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Marshall with the coating of Kuettner because adding coating layers yields the predictable result of enhancing the performance of the barrier, protecting against corrosion and degradation over time, and non-stick capabilities.
Marshall in view of Kuettner does not render obvious the housing comprising a metallic material, the second major surface defining a circle-shaped recess, the lid comprising a metallic material, an electronic device to be received by the circle- shaped recess, and a disc-shaped device housing.
In the field of storage containers with attachable devices, Driscoll teaches the housing comprising a metallic material (Paragraph [0049] teaches a base and lid formed of metal), the second major surface defining a circle-shaped recess (Paragraphs [0069]-[0071] teach a circular recess in the top surface of a lid into which a timer disc is fully inserted), the lid comprising a metallic material (Paragraph [0049] teaches a base and lid formed of metal), an electronic device to be received by the circle- shaped recess, and a disc-shaped device housing (Paragraphs [0069]-[0071] teach a circular recess in the top surface of a lid into which a timer disc is fully inserted). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Marshall with the materials of Driscoll because the use of metal yields the predictable result of providing stability and structural integrity and modifying the shape yields the predictable result of allowing for a match between the shape of the device and the container for improved aesthetics and security by not drawing attention to the device of Marshall with lines of different shapes than the container.
As to claim 12, depending from the caviar container of claim 11, Marshall teaches wherein the electronic device comprises a sensor carried by the device housing and coupled to the processor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator based upon the sensor (Paragraph [0040] teaches turning on the indicator based on the sensed condition of a solid food heating coil being actuated for a pre-determined duration of time), but does not explicitly teach the disc-shaped device housing.
In the field of storage containers with attachable devices, Driscoll teaches the disc-shaped device housing (Paragraphs [0069]-[0071] teach a timer disc). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Marshall with the circular shapes of Driscoll because modifying the shape yields the predictable result of allowing for a match between the shape of the device and the container for improved aesthetics and security by not drawing attention to the device of Marshall with lines of different shapes than the container.
As to claim 16, depending from the caviar container of claim 11, Marshall teaches wherein the visual indicator comprises at least one light emitting diode (LED) carried by an external surface of the device housing (Paragraph [0040] teaches the indicator may comprise a light emitting diode; Figure 2, Item 86 shows the indicator on the top surface of the lid).
In the field of storage containers with attachable devices, Driscoll teaches the disc-shaped device housing (Paragraphs [0069]-[0071] teach a timer disc). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Marshall with the circular shapes of Driscoll because modifying the shape yields the predictable result of allowing for a match between the shape of the device and the container for improved aesthetics and security by not drawing attention to the device of Marshall with lines of different shapes than the container.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) further in view of Kuettner (US PG Pub #2020/0160263) and Driscoll et al. (Driscoll; US PG Pub #2021/0122529) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Scarrott et al. (Scarrott; US PG Pub #2021/0170120).
As to claim 13, depending from the caviar container of claim 12, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises an ambient light sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient light value below a threshold value.
In the field of container lids, Scarrott teaches wherein the sensor comprises an ambient light sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the ambient light sensor detects an ambient light value below a threshold value (Paragraph [0108] teaches an ambient light sensor such that when it is low light or no light, an LED is pulsed). It would have been obvious to modify the container of Marshall with the ambient sensor of Scarrott because this helps a user locate the device when it is dark (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) further in view of Kuettner (US PG Pub #2020/0160263) and Driscoll et al. (Driscoll; US PG Pub #2021/0122529) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gao (US PG Pub #2019/0387375).
As to claim 14, depending from the caviar container of claim 12, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a proximity sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the proximity sensor detects a moving object within a threshold distance.
In the field of food monitoring, Gao teaches wherein the sensor comprises a proximity sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to activate the visual indicator when the proximity sensor detects a moving object within a threshold distance (Paragraph [0037] teaches detecting proximity of a consumer to determine whether an indicator should be turned on to notify the consumer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Marshall with the proximity sensing of Gao because turning on the display when a person is nearby allows the person to be alerted to the status of the food (Paragraph [0061]) while improving power consumption (Paragraph [0088]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) further in view of Kuettner (US PG Pub #2020/0160263) and Driscoll et al. (Driscoll; US PG Pub #2021/0122529) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sokol (US PG Pub #2015/0307250).
As to claim 15, depending from the caviar container of claim 11, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the circle-shaped recess defines a canted annular lid wall; and wherein the disc-shaped device housing defines a canted annular device wall to abut the canted annular lid wall.
In the field of containers, Sokol teaches wherein the circle-shaped recess defines a canted annular lid wall; and wherein the disc-shaped device housing defines a canted annular device wall to abut the canted annular lid wall (Paragraph [0056] teaches a cylindrical housing of a container with inclined sections to form a lock joint). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recess wall and device housing of Marshall with the canted annular walls of Sokol such that the circle-shaped recess defines a canted annular lid wall and wherein the disc-shaped device housing defines a canted annular device wall to abut the canted annular lid wall because this creates more difficulties for tampering (Paragraph [0028]) with improved reliability (Paragraph [0078]) and lifetime (Paragraph [0079]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US PG Pub #2025/0120540) further in view of Kuettner (US PG Pub #2020/0160263) and Driscoll et al. (Driscoll; US PG Pub #2021/0122529) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ganter, I et al. (Ganter; US PG Pub #2021/0068567).
As to claim 17, depending from the caviar container of claim 11, Marshall does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic device comprises an overlayer on the visual indicator, the overlayer comprising visual indicia; and wherein uppermost portions of the lid are flush and aligned with uppermost portions of the disc-shaped device housing.
In the field of storage containers with attachable devices, Driscoll teaches the disc-shaped device housing (Paragraphs [0069]-[0071] teach a timer disc). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Marshall with the circular shapes of Driscoll because modifying the shape yields the predictable result of allowing for a match between the shape of the device and the container for improved aesthetics and security by not drawing attention to the device of Marshall with lines of different shapes than the container. Marshall in view of Driscoll does not render obvious wherein the electronic device comprises an overlayer on the visual indicator, the overlayer comprising visual indicia; and wherein uppermost portions of the lid are flush and aligned with uppermost portions of the disc-shaped device housing
In the field of container displays, Ganter teaches wherein the electronic device comprises an overlayer on the visual indicator, the overlayer comprising visual indicia (Paragraph [0073] teaches a window with indicia printed on the window or a decal or sticker placed on the window such that light illuminates the indicia); and wherein outermost portions of a vessel are flush and aligned with outermost portions of the device housing (Paragraph [0074] teaches the lens is placed flush into an aperture; Figure 31 shows lens 108 sitting flush with outer sleeve 106; Paragraph [0076] and Figure 32 teach an aperture formed in the outer sidewall 408 to receive a lens 412 such that the lens 412 is flush with the outer sidewall 408). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Marshall and Driscoll with the display and flush fit of Ganter such that uppermost portions of the lid are flush and aligned with uppermost portions of the disc-shaped device housing because this promotes the display of a desired branding, logo, or graphic (Paragraph [0005]) and because a flush fit yields the predictable result of protecting components of the device inserted into container or lid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilcox et al. (US PG Pub #2024/0317471) teach a smart cap device for container systems (Figure 1A).
Regan (US PG Pub #2014/0284330) teaches an illuminated lid (Figures 1 and 6) with a flush top portion (Figures 2 and 5).
Yako (US PG Pub #2015/0284158) teaches a lid with recessed device (Paragraph [0030]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:00 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights