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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estevez (US 8907794 A1), and further in view of Brown (US 20160369784).
Regarding claim 1, 2, Estevez discloses a can for storage, comprising:
a base (110) and a lid (120), together defining a storage cavity (col. 3, lines 19-27, Fig. 1);
a locking mechanism (130) comprising a shape memory component, the shape memory component having a first shape and a second shape (via SMAs 134, 136, col. 3, lines 43-56, Fig. 1);
wherein the shape memory component is configured to maintain the can in a locked state in the second shape (inhibit removing the lid 120 while in the Martensite phase) and to convert the can into an unlocked state in the first shape (When in the Austenite phase, the SMAs 134, 136, are configured to allow the lid 120 to be displaced to uncover the cavity, col. 3, lines 43-56);
an NFC tag (RFID transponder 138, col. 4, lines 5-19, col. 4, lines 42-54);
and a shape memory component actuator electrically connected to the shape memory component and the shape memory component (The RFID transponder 138 provides current to the to SMAs 134, 136, to energize each SMA and, through the heat generated by the current, transform the SMAs 134, 136, from the Martensite phase and to the Austenite phase, col. 4, lines 10-15).
Estevez fails to disclose the shape memory component comprising a coil and wherein the coil is extended in the second shape and the coil is contracted in the first shape.
Brown teaches a shape memory component comprising a coil and wherein the coil is extended in the second shape and the coil is contracted in the first shape and a shape memory component actuator electrically connected to the shape memory component (Abstract, Paragraph 5, 7, 14).
From the teachings of Brown, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Estevez to include the shape memory component comprising a coil and wherein the coil is extended in the second shape and the coil is contracted in the first shape as the shape memory component can be configured in different shapes including a coil to be used in devices as taught by Brown.
Regarding claim 3, Estevez discloses wherein the locking mechanism further comprises a rod having a first end and a second opposing end (rod comprising 134, 136, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Estevez discloses wherein the lid comprises a channel and the locking mechanism is disposed within the channel (cryptographic lock 130 can be associated with the lid 120, col. 3, lines 43-45, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Estevez and Brown teach wherein the coil is disposed between the first end of the rod and the second end of the rod (see Brown, rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 11, 12, Estevez discloses the shape memory component comprises a shape memory alloy, the shape memory alloy comprises at least one of a copper-aluminum-nickel alloy or a nickel-titanium alloy (col. 4, lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 16, Estevez discloses a can system, comprising the can of claim 1, and a plurality of dosage forms disposed within the storage cavity, wherein the plurality of dosage forms consist of oral nicotine dosage forms (via medicine container can be configured to store items including oral nicotine dosage forms, col. 3, lines 19-27).
Regarding claim 17, 18, 19, Estevez discloses a method of unlocking the can of claim 1, comprising:
sending an unlocking signal to the NFC tag using an NFC reader (via RFID transceiver 150, col. 4, lines 5-8);
receiving the unlocking signal using an antenna of the NFC tag (RFID transponder 138, col. 4, lines 5-8);
providing electrical current to the shape memory component actuator upon receipt of the unlocking signal by the NFC tag; providing at least one of heat or electrical current to the shape memory component using the shape memory component actuator; and inducing a state change of the shape memory component from the second shape to the first shape to unlock the can (col. 4, lines 5-23).
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estevez in view of Brown, and further in view of Reisender (US 9963930).
Regarding claim 4, Estevez and Brown fail to disclose wherein the base comprises: a first locking cavity in which the first end of the rod is received when the shape memory component is disposed in the second shape, and a second locking cavity in which the second end of the rod is received when the shape memory component is disposed in the second shape.
Reisender teaches a locking mechanism including a locking cavity to receive a rod in a locked state (col. 7, line 58-col. 8, line 9).
From the teachings of Reisender, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Estevez and Brown to include wherein the base comprises: a first locking cavity in which the first end of the rod is received when the shape memory component is disposed in the second shape, and a second locking cavity in which the second end of the rod is received when the shape memory component is disposed in the second shape in order to keep the locking mechanism secured by including locking cavities for the rod when the locking mechanism is locked, thereby improve security.
Regarding claim 5, Estevez, Brown and Reisender teaches wherein the first end of the rod does not extend into the first locking cavity when the shape memory component is disposed in the first shape, and the second end of the rod does not extend into the second locking cavity when the shape memory component is disposed in the second shape (via locking mechanism unlocked, via see rejection on claim 4).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estevez in view of Brown, and further in view of Lopez (US 20090071969 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Estevez and Brown fail to disclose wherein the can is a cylindrical can and the base comprises a locking slot extending entirely around a circumference of the can.
Lopez teaches a container can be configured as a cylindrical can and the base can be configured to include a locking slot extending entirely around a circumference of the can (via rim 10, Para. 16 and Fig. 1).
From the teachings of Lopez, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Estevez and Brown to include wherein the can is a cylindrical can and the base comprises a locking slot extending entirely around a circumference of the can as taught by Lopez to provide storage in different shapes and securing of the storage with a slot.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Estevez, Brown and Lopez teach wherein the first end of the rod and the second end of the rod are received in the locking slot when the shape memory component is disposed in the second shape (see Estevez, SMAs 134, 136, col. 3, lines 43-56).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Estevez, Brown and Lopez teach wherein the first end of the rod and the second end of the rod do not extend into the locking slot when the shape memory component is disposed in the first shape (see Estevez, SMAs 134, 136, col. 3, lines 43-56).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estevez in view of Brown, and further in view of Lax (US 20040129587 A1).
Regarding claim 13, 14, Estevez and Brown fail to disclose a locking state indicator configured to visually indicate whether the can is in the locked state or the unlocked state, wherein the locking state indicator comprises a window disposed in the lid configured to provide a view of a portion of the locking mechanism.
Lax teaches a container including a locking state indicator configured to visually indicate whether the can is in the locked state or the unlocked state, wherein the locking state indicator comprises a window disposed in the lid configured to provide a view of a portion of the locking mechanism (via locking mechanism portion comprising color indicators, Para. 135 and claim 38).
From the teachings of Lax, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Estevez and Brown to include a locking state indicator configured to visually indicate whether the can is in the locked state or the unlocked state, wherein the locking state indicator comprises a window disposed in the lid configured to provide a view of a portion of the locking mechanism in order to allow easy viewing of the lock status, thereby improve security.
Regarding claim 15, Lax teaches wherein the locking state indicator further comprises a first portion having a first pattern or a first color, and an indicator portion having a second pattern or a second color, wherein the first portion is visible in the window in the locked state and the indicator portion is visible in the window in the unlocked state (Para. 135).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed on 1/16/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference (Brown) not presented before.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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, Davetta Goins Feild can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights