DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2-13 depend, the limitation “each of the buttress features” is indefinite because it only finds antecedent basis in the limitation “at least one buttress feature.” More specifically, in the instance where there is only one (“at least one”) buttress feature, the limitation “each of the buttress features” becomes indefinite when referring to the plural. Examiner notes the limitation can be amended to “each of the at least one buttress feature” in order to harmonize the limitations and overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 3, it is not clear how each side of a plurality of sides of the base can include a buttress feature when parent claim 1 limits the possibility of “at least one buttress feature”.
Regarding claim 6, from which claims 7-12 depend, the limitation “all of the attachment tabs” is indefinite because it because it only finds antecedent basis in the limitation “at least one attachment tab.” More specifically, in the instance where there is only one (“at least one”) attachment tab, the limitation “all of the attachment tabs” becomes indefinite when referring to the plural. Examiner notes the limitation can be amended to “each of the at least one attachment tab” in order to harmonize the limitations and overcome the rejection. Similarly, later in the claim, the limitation “the attachment tabs” lacks proper antecedent basis, and should be amended to “the at least one attachment tab”.
Regarding claim 7, the claim contains references to “the attachment tabs” (plural) as well as “the attachment tab”, each of which limitations is indefinite because the antecedent term is “at least one attachment tab”. Each of the limitations should be amended to “the at least one attachment tab” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the attachment tabs” lacks proper antecedent basis, and should be amended to say “the at least one attachment tab” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the attachment tabs” lacks proper antecedent basis, and should be amended to say “the at least one attachment tab” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the attachment tabs” lacks proper antecedent basis, and should be amended to say “the at least one attachment tab” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the attachment tabs” lacks proper antecedent basis, and should be amended to say “the at least one attachment tab” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1-13 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.
4. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest reference the Examiner was able to locate was US 4,201,311 (Underwood). Underwood at least fails tot each a base rim wall terminating in an outwardly extending, substantially horizontal base flange, instead disclosing a vertical base rim wall (30) that is covered by a lid flange (12) which contains an anti-tampering feature (33), thus teaching away from modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
