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 .
Double Patenting
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,819. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The current claims require a base/lid, a latch, a mount body, a lever body, a clasp body and a deflector among other things.
These and other limitations are presented in the ‘819 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 2, 4-6, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 7,017,955 to Chiang in view of WO 2020198666 to Lynch et al (Lynch) and US Pat No D303,625 to Ryser et al (Ryser).
PNG
media_image1.png
874
1368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, and 18-20, Chiang discloses a container that comprises a base and a lid (90 and 91). The base and the lid collectively define a volume for receiving any desired object.
The container comprises a latch (fig 1) attached to one of the base and the lid. The latch comprises a mount body (10) that includes a back portion and two side portions, wherein the back portion is coupled to the lid or the base; a lever body (20) including two side portions (21), wherein the two side portions of the lever body are pivotably coupled to the two side portions of the mount body such that the lever body is movable about a pivot axis between a secured position and an unsecured position (figs 3 and 6 respectively, pivoting about pin 11), and wherein the lever body and the mount body cooperate to define an interior and further define an opening of the interior when the lever body is in the secured position (open space); and a deflector (30) positioned at least partially within the interior and movable with the lever body for concurrent movement about the pivot axis.
The lever body (20) defines a link axis (26) extending through the two side portions, and further comprising a clasp body (40, 50) at least partially disposed in the interior, the clasp body having an interface end (52) selectively engageable with the other one of the base and the lid (engaging 92), and a link end (41, 42), wherein the link end is rotatably supported on the link axis.
The clasp body defines an arcuate profile (at 50) between the interface end and the link end.
First, Chiang fails to disclose that the container is a sterilization container for medical instruments. Chiang container is capable of securing any instrument within the base and lid.
PNG
media_image2.png
531
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lynch teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a similar latch (48) used on a container (12) that configured to be sterilize for accommodating medical instruments.
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 latch described by Chiang into a sterilized container, as taught by Lynch, since a recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus, which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim.
Second, Chiang fails to disclose that the deflector comprises a tab coupled to the hub portion and separate from the wing portion, wherein the tab is arranged to engage the mount body when the lever body is in the unsecured position for retaining the lever body in the unsecured position.
PNG
media_image3.png
509
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ryser teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a tab connection to secure a lever body in an unsecured position.
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 latch described by Chiang with a tab connection, as taught by Ryser, in order to secure the lever body in an unsecured position and position the lever body away.
PNG
media_image4.png
268
857
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Chiang discloses that the deflector comprises a hub portion (31) supported on the pivot axis (11); and a wing portion (32) extending from the hub portion to define an outer surface, wherein the outer surface is positioned adjacent to the opening of the interior when the lever body is in the secured position for preventing access to the interior through the opening.
Chiang, as modified by Ryser, will teach the tab is coupled to the hub portion and separate from the wing portion.
As to claim 4, Ryser illustrates that the tab is disengaged from the mount body when the lever body is in a secured position.
As to claim 5, Chiang discloses that the mount body is coupled to the lid and the clasp body is engageable with the base, and wherein the secured position of the lever body is further defined as the lever body being pivoted toward the base and the unsecured position of the lever body is further defined as the lever body being pivoted toward the lid.
As to claim 6, Chiang discloses that the wing portion defines an arc angle (at 34) and that the angle can be greater than 75 degrees (Chiang surface 34, not at scale).
As to claim 15, Chiang discloses that the clasp body comprises a first clasp portion (at 43) and a second clasp portion (at 42) with a pocket defined therebetween, and wherein the hub portion of the deflector is at least partially arranged in the pocket.
As to claim 17, Chiang is configured to have the interior defining an interior width, and the wing portion defining a deflector width, and wherein a ratio of the deflector width to the interior width is at least 0.65.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-14 will also be allowed since the claims depends from claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
October 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights