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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference characters 122 and 140 have both been used to designate “seal” (see pg. 7 ln. 10-15)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference character 102C-1A has been used to designate both “internal ridge” and “ridge” (see pg. 7 ln. 26 – pg. 8 ln. 4)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains 208 words, which exceeds the 150-word maximum. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP §608.01(B)
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-6 and 8-20, the phrase in each claim, “…characterized in that,…” should all be change to “…[[characterized in that,]] wherein…” to better conform to U.S. practice.
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of: a hinge mechanism FOR a lid assembly and its corresponding structures (i.e. a main lid member, a passage on said main lid member and so on) FOR a container, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of: a hinge mechanism AND a lid assembly and its corresponding structures. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination, other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 2-3 and 9-11, requiring “…a main lid member of said lid assembly…” AND “…connecting to said main lid member….a passage on said main lid member….the interior of said container…said passage…”). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the lid assembly and its corresponding structures and a container are presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to , the lid assembly and its corresponding structures and a container are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claims is required; emphasis added.
In claim 1, ln. 9-10, the phrase in each instance, “…said main lid member…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) are being encompassed with such language. In other words, it is unclear if the applicant intends to claim the “main lid member of said lid assembly” as a part of the claimed invention (i.e. the hinge mechanism) OR not? Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 11, the phrase, “…the interior of said container…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited “a container” NOR “an interior of a container” per se in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 1, ln. 11, the phrase, “…said passage…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) are being encompassed with such language. In other words, it is unclear if the applicant intends to claim the “a passage on said lid member of said lid assembly” as a part of the claimed invention (i.e. the hinge mechanism) OR not? Further clarification is required.
In claim 10, ln. 2, the phrase, “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because “preferably” is a relative term. ... The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 10, ln. 3, the phrase, “…said main lid member…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because applicant HAS NOT positively recited “a main lid member” per se in claims 1 and 9 (which claim 10 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) are being encompassed with such language. In other words, it is unclear if the applicant intends to claim the “main lid member of said lid assembly” as a part of the claimed invention (i.e. the hinge mechanism) OR not? Further clarification is required.
In claim 10, ln. 6, the phrase, “…its…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 10, ln. 7-8, the phrase, “…said container…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited “a container” per se in claims 1 and 9 (which claim 10 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) are being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 12, ln. 2, the phrase, “…a lid mechanism as claimed in claim 1…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a lid mechanism” per se in claim 1 RATHER applicant established “a hinge mechanism”; emphasis added. Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required. Examiner suggests the following change, “…a [[lid]]hinge mechanism as claimed in claim 1…”
In claim 12, ln. 4-22, the phrases, “…the main lid member…” and “…said main lid member…” [in each instance] lack antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited “a main lid member” per se in claims 1 NOR 12 (respectively). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 12, ln. 5, the phrase, “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because “preferably” is a relative term. ... The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 12, ln. 10-34, the phrase in each instance, “…its…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 13, ln. 2, the phrase, “…being exceed 90 degrees…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 17, ln. 2, the phrase, “…being realized by…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 18, ln. 2-4, the phrase in each instance, “…its…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 18, ln. 3-5, the phrase in each instance, “…being realized by…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 19, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…the interior of said container…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited “a container” NOR “an interior of a container” per se in claim 12 (which claim 19 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 20, ln. 2, the phrase, “…said main lid member…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT positively recited “a main lid member” per se in claim 1 NOR claim 12 (which claim 20 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 2-11 and 13-20, due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 12 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 is/are would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art(s) is/are: Wong (US 9392892 B2; hereinafter Wong), Wong et al. (US 20240400270 A1; hereinafter Wong et al.), Larson (US 20240068286 A1; hereinafter Larson) and others.
The references (noted above; specifically Wong) discloses most of the claimed invention. However, none of the references (noted above; specifically Wong), either alone or in proper combination, discloses or teaches:
a coupler having a first end and an opposing second end, said first end being engaged with said first mounting structure and being provided with a second profile operably coupling to said first profile of said first mounting structure, said coupler being configured to operably move reciprocally towards and away from said first mounting structure; and when said first lid being at said first position and said second position, said first mounting structure and said first end of said coupler coupling with each other due to the coupling between said first profile and said second profile; and during the movement of said first lid, said coupler moving axially away from said first mounting structure due to the decoupling of said first profile and said second profile (as recited in claim 1).
Furthermore, no motivation exists to combine prior art element without significant hindsight, and the claims are allowed based on the combination and totality of the limitations presented in each claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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 E. Avilés 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 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights