www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`18/194,075
`
`03/3 1/2023
`
`David O. MEYERS
`
`4370.2030001
`
`4492
`
`STE
`
`SLI
`
`TEIN&
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1101 K Street, NW
`10th Floor
`WASHINGTON,DC 20005
`
`SMALLEY, JAMES N
`
`3733
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/23/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`eoffice @sternekessler.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-30 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CL] Claim(s)__is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-12,14-22 and 24-30 is/are rejected.
`Claim(s) 13 and 23 is/are objected to.
`C) Claim(s
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s) filed on 03/31/2023 is/are: a)¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)2) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 08/15/2023.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20241016
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`18/194,075
`MEYERSet al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`JAMES N SMALLEY
`3733
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 03/31/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthefirst
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 17 and 18 are objected to becauseof the following informalities:
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Regarding claim 17, the phrase “in which movementof latching member’ should be “in which
`
`movementof the latching member’.
`
`Regarding claim 18, the phrase “in which movementof handle” should be “in which movement
`
`of the handle”.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`the rejections underthis section mace in this Office action:
`
`A person shallbe entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, describedin a printed publication, orin public use, on sale, or
`otherwise available to the public before the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15, 16, 19-22, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
`
`anticipated by US 8,689,989 (Lane).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Lane teachesa lid (14) for a beverage container(12), the lid comprising:
`
`a lid base (20) defining a drinking opening (58) therethrough;
`
`a closure (24) coupled to the lid base, the closure movable betweena closedposition in which
`
`the closure covers the drinking opening (Figure 5) and an openpositionin which the closure does not
`
`coverthe drinking opening (Figure 7);
`
`a latching member(42, 86) coupled to the lid base (by way of connection between 84 and88,
`
`whichitself is connected to the base being an integral componentoflid slide 86), the latching
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page3
`
`memberconfigured to selectively retain the closure in the closed position (by engagementof 42 withlid
`
`notch 44; see col. 4, lines 4-7); and
`
`a handle (22; Examinernotesthat while this element is not the handle taught by the
`
`reference, it is capable of being contacted by a user’s hand, howeverslightly, and thus read as a
`
`handle; no additional structure or function is read into the term “handle” beyond that whichis
`
`explicitly claimed) coupled to the lid base, the handle movable betweena first handle position (see 22
`
`in Figure 5) and a second handle position (see 22 in Figure 7, noting the lower end has been pressed
`
`inwardly to retract the lid slide),
`
`wherein, in response to the handle moving from thefirst handle position to the second handle
`
`position, the latching member movesfroma latching position to an unlatched position (see col. 5, lines
`
`56-64),
`
`wherein, in the latching position, the latching memberretains the closure in the closed position
`
`whenthe closureis in the closed position (see col. 4, lines 4-7),
`
`wherein, in the unlatched position, the latching memberdoesnot retain the closure (see col. 4,
`
`lines 8-10), and
`
`wherein the closure is biased toward the open position such that the closure automatically moves
`
`from the closed position to the open position when the latching member movesto the unlatched position
`
`(col. 4, lines 49-56).
`
`Regarding claim 3, the handle rotates about a handle rotation axis to move betweenthefirst
`
`handle position and the second handle position (rotation is seen about 76 in between the positions of
`
`Figures 5 and 7).
`
`Regarding claim 4, the closure rotates about a closure rotation axis (pin 68 extending through
`
`lid hinge elements 64) to move between the closed position and the open position, and wherein the
`
`closure and the handle are independently rotatable (Examiner notes the handle 22 rotates about 76,
`
`andis first rotated to pull lid slide 86 outwardly, which disengages 42 from 44, which then allows
`
`the lid to rotate).
`
`Regarding claim 5, the closure rotates about a closure rotation axis to move betweenthe closed
`
`position and the open position, and wherein the handle rotation axis is spaced apart from the closure
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page 4
`
`rotation axis (closure axis is through 64 and 68, handle axis is through 76; these are seen axially
`
`spaced apart in Figure 5, noting 64 and 68 are not labeled but clearly shown).
`
`Regarding claim 6, when the handle is in the second handle position, the handle extends from
`
`the lid body at a downward angle (22 extends downwardly in Figure 7).
`
`Regarding claim 8, the handle is movable among the first handle position, the second handle
`
`position, and a third handle position, and wherein the third handle position is a carrying position (the third
`
`position could be a position halfway betweenthe first and second position, and a user can grasp
`
`the handle, howeverslight, in order to carry the container).
`
`Regarding claim 9, when the handle is in the second handle position, the handle extends from
`
`the lid body at a downward angle (see position of 22 in Figure 7, and further noting that the term
`
`“angle” is not claimed relative to any fixed point of reference, thus the position is “an angle”
`
`regardlessof orientation), and wherein when the handle isin the third handle position, the handle
`
`extends vertically from the lid body(the third position, e.g. halfway between the first and second
`
`positions,will still extend downwardly,e.g. vertically downwardly; this term is not read as being
`
`normalto the horizontal axis, but instead generally downwardly oriented as seen in Figures 5 and
`
`7, interpolating a position of 22 being halfway between the two locations).
`
`Regarding claim 10, betweenthefirst handle position and the second handle position, the
`
`handle is biased to first hancle position (col. 6, lines 3-6, noting that the handle 22 is interconnected
`
`with lid slide 86, and thus also movesbackto its original position).
`
`Regarding claim 11, the latching member slides linearly to move betweenthe latching position
`
`and the unlatchedposition (42 slides linearly asit is part of lid slide 86, noting its movement
`
`between Figures 5 and 7).
`
`Regarding claim 12, the handle rotates about an axis (76) to move between the first handle
`
`position and the second handle position, and wherein the latching member slideslinearly to move
`
`betweenthe latching position and the unlatching position (86 slides horizontally).
`
`Regarding claim 13, the latching member comprisesa first latching portion (88) positioned on a
`
`right side of the lid (see location in Figure 3) and a secondlatching portion (42) positioned ona left side
`
`of the lid (see location in Figure 3).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claim 15, the latching member is biased toward the latching position (col. 6, lines 3-
`
`Regarding claim 16, in responseto the latching member moving from the unlatchedposition to
`
`the latching position, the handle movesfrom the second hancleposition to the first handle position (the
`
`interconnection of the lid slide and handle 22 at 76 will inherently return the handleto thefirst
`
`position).
`
`Regarding claim 19, the handle is the only actuation mechanism for unlatching the closure (no
`
`other actuation mechanism is taught for opening the lid).
`
`Regarding claim 20, Lane teaches a beverage container comprising:
`
`the lid of claim 1; and
`
`a vessel (12), wherein the lid is configured to attach to and close an opening of the vessel, to
`
`contain a beveragetherein.
`
`Regarding claim 21, Lane teachesa lid (14) for a beverage container (12), the lid comprising:
`
`a lid base (20) defining a drinking opening (58) therethrough;
`
`a closure (24) coupled to the lid base, the closure movable betweena closedposition in which
`
`the closure covers the drinking opening (Figure 5) and an open positionin which the closure does not
`
`coverthe drinking opening (Figure 7); and
`
`a handle (22; Examinernotesthat while this element is not the handle taught by the
`
`reference, itis capable of being contacted by a user’s hand, howeverslightly, and thus read as a
`
`handle; no additional structure or function is read into the term “handle” beyond that whichis
`
`explicitly claimed) coupledto the lid base, the handle rotatable about a handle rotation axis (76),
`
`wherein when the closureis in the closed position, the closure remainsin the closed position
`
`whenthe handle is rotated within a first handle range (read as the rotational angle of 22 about76,
`
`resulting in linear sliding of lid slide 86, and ultimately, sliding of 42 relative to 44, but which does
`
`not disengage the connection, noting in Figure 5 that 42 and 44 comprise overlapping horizontal
`
`surfaces which will not disengage until 42 hasslid linearly the entire length of 44, which equates
`
`to an angle of rotation of 22), and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page6
`
`wherein in response to the handle being rotated beyondthefirst hancle range whenthe closure is
`
`in the closed position, the closure automatically moves from the closed position to the open position (col.
`
`4, lines 49-56).
`
`Regarding claim 22, the handle can extend vertically from the lid base within thefirst handle
`
`range (Examiner notesthefirst handle range of 22 is that between Figures 5 and 7; in each of
`
`these positions, 22 has a vertical disposition).
`
`Regarding claim 24,the first handle range ends at a handle position that extends horizontally
`
`from the lid base such that rotating the handle to a declined position when the closureis in the closed
`
`position causesthe closure to automatically move from the closed position to the open position
`
`(Examiner notesthe claimed limitation is metif the container of Lane is rotated 90 degrees such
`
`that the vertical axis is horizontal, because the term “horizontally” is not claimed with respect to
`
`anyfixed point of reference; this dependent claim would be allowable in independentform if this
`
`issue is corrected by Applicant).
`
`Regarding claim 25, the handle can be rotated beyondthefirst handle range byrotating the
`
`handle in a first rotational direction but not by rotating the handle in a secondrotational direction (thefirst
`
`range is the lateral distance of the mating faces of 42 and 44; movement beyondthis point is
`
`required to disengage the latching mechanism,and thus the handle hasto rotate beyond the first
`
`range).
`
`Regarding claim 26, the closurerotatesin thefirst rotational direction when moving from the
`
`closed position to the openposition (the closure 24 also rotates clockwise as seen in the movement
`
`between Figures 5 and 7).
`
`Regarding claim 27, Lane teaches a methodfor unsealing a drinking opening of a beverage
`
`container, the method comprising:
`
`rotating a handle (22) of a beverage containerlid in a first rotational direction about a handle axis
`
`(e.g. clockwise in Figure 5), wherein rotating the handle in thefirst rotational direction causes a closure
`
`of the lid to open and thereby unseal the drinking opening (col. 4, lines 49-56); and
`
`releasing the handle, wherein releasing the handle causesthe handle to rotate about the handle
`
`axis in a secondrotational direction opposite thefirst rotational direction while the closure remains in an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page 7
`
`openposition (col. 6, lines 3-6, noting that the handle 22 is interconnected with lid slide 86, and
`
`thus also movesbacktoits original position).
`
`Regarding claim 28, the closure of the lid opensbyrotating in thefirst rotational direction about
`
`a closure axis (each of the lid and handle move clockwise comparing their respective positions in
`
`Figures 5 and 7).
`
`Regarding claim 29, rotating the handle in the first rotational direction comprises rotating the
`
`handle fromahorizontal position to a declined position (Examiner notes the claimed limitation is met if
`
`the container of Lane is rotated 90 degrees suchthat the vertical axis is horizontal, because the
`
`term “horizontally” is not claimed with respect to any fixed point of reference; this dependent
`
`claim would beallowable in independent form if this issue is corrected by Applicant).
`
`Regarding claim 30, rotating the handle in the first rotational direction causes a latching member
`
`retaining the closure in a closed position to unlatch (col. 4, lines 49-54).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basisfor all obviousness rejections
`
`set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent fora claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not
`identically disclosed asset forth in section 102, if the differences betweenthe claimed invention and the prior art
`are suchthatthe claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious betorethe efiectivefiling date of the
`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skillin the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,689,989 (Lane) as
`
`applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, in view of US 9,913,552 (Elsaden).
`
`Regarding claim 7, Lane as applied abovefails to teach when the handleis in thefirst handle
`
`position, registration features of the handle and ofthe lid base cooperateto resist rotation of the handle
`
`relative to the lid base.
`
`Elsaden teaches a locking mechanism (44) disposed onthe lid base which resists motion of a
`
`trigger (42, analogousto the handle 22 of Lane) until desired use.
`
`It would have been obvious to onehaving ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of
`
`the claimed invention to modify Lane, providing a locking mechanism as taught by Elsaden, motivated by
`
`the benefit of preventing actuation before desired use, having a predictable outcome absenta teaching of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page 8
`
`an unexpected result. See KSA International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at
`
`13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a workis available in one field of endeavor, design incentives...can
`
`promptvariationsofit, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, seeid. at 13, lines 27-31
`
`which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a personof ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious’.
`
`Furthermore, regarding the physical combination, the question is not whetherthe prior art devices can be
`
`physically combined, but whether a personof ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`combinedifferent features or elements of known devicesin a predictable way. See Orthopedic Equip. Co.
`
`v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983): "There is a distinction between trying to physically
`
`combinethe two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the
`
`other handtrying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims
`
`in suit. ...Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, evenif the features of one
`
`ref erence cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference." See MPEP 2145/Ill).
`
`7.
`
`Claims 2, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,689,989
`
`(Lane) as applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, in view of US 11,834,233 (Luhrs).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Lane as applied abovefails to teach the handle being a carry loop.
`
`Examinernotesno structure or function is read into the term “carry” beyond that which is explicitly
`
`claimed.
`
`Luhrs teaches a button (50) analogousto the handle (22) of Lane, and which, byvirtue of the
`
`unlabeled central opening seen in Figure 18, which receives switch (100) as part of a locking mechanism,
`
`is formed as a loop.
`
`In other words, the central opening renders trigger (50) as having a ring, or loop,
`
`shape.
`
`It would have been obvious to onehaving ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to modify Lane, providing the trigger/handle as a carry loop as taught by Luhrs,
`
`motivated by the benefit of providing a locking switch in order to prevent actuation before desired use,
`
`having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page 9
`
`in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variationsofit, either in the samefield or a
`
`different one. Furthermore, seeid. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to
`
`improve one device, and a personof ordinary skill in the art would recognizethat it would improve similar
`
`devices inthe sameway, using the technique is obvious”.
`
`Furthermore, regarding the physical combination, the question is not whetherthe prior art devices can be
`
`physically combined, but whether a personof ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`combinedifferent features or elements of known devicesin a predictable way. See Orthopedic Equip. Co.
`
`v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983): "There is a distinction between trying to physically
`
`combinethe two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the
`
`other handtrying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims
`
`in suit. ...Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, evenif the features of one
`
`ref erence cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference." See MPEP 2145/Ill).
`
`Regarding claim 17, Lanefails to teach the lid further comprising a lock movable between a
`
`locked position, in which movementof the latching memberis inhibited by the lock, and an unlocked
`
`position, in which movementof latching memberis not inhibited by the lock.
`
`Luhrs teaches a lock (100) for a trigger/nancle which prevents horizontal movementof a seal bar
`
`(46). Although thereis no latching mechanism, Luhrs is analogous to Lanein that the actuation of the
`
`trigger/handle (50) by pivoting movementabout an axis (130) convertsto liner movementof the seal bar
`
`(46) much like the movementofthe lid slide (86) of Lane. Because thetrigger/handle and slide barsin
`
`each of Lane and Luhrs are mechanically interconnected, the lock prevents movementof the
`
`trigger/handle and theslide bar.
`
`It would have been obvious to onehaving ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to modify Lane, providing a lock as taught by Luhrs, motivated by the benefit of
`
`preventing actuation before desired use, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an
`
`unexpected result. See KSA International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13,
`
`lines 22-25 which states, “When a workis available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can
`
`promptvariationsofit, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, seeid. at 13, lines 27-31
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page 10
`
`which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a personof ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious’.
`
`Regarding claim 18, Lanefails to teach thelid further comprising a lock movable between a
`
`locked position, in which movementof the handleis inhibited by the lock, and an unlockedposition, in
`
`which movementof handle is not inhibited by the lock.
`
`Luhrs teaches a lock (100) for a trigger/handle which prevents horizontal movementof a seal bar
`
`(46). Although thereis no latching mechanism, Luhrs is analogous to Lanein that the actuation of the
`
`trigger/handle (50) by pivoting movementabout an axis (130) convertsto liner movementof the seal bar
`
`(46) much like the movementofthe lid slide (86) of Lane. Because thetrigger/handle and slide barsin
`
`each of Lane and Luhrs are mechanically interconnected, the lock prevents movementof the
`
`trigger/handle and theslide bar.
`
`It would have been obvious to onehaving ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention to modify Lane, providing a lock as taught by Luhrs, motivated by the benefit of
`
`preventing actuation before desired use, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an
`
`unexpected result. See KSA International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13,
`
`lines 22-25 which states, “When a workis available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can
`
`promptvariationsofit, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, seeid. at 13, lines 27-31
`
`which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a personof ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious’.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`8.
`
`Claims 13 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upona rejected baseclaim, but would be
`
`allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
`
`intervening claims.
`
`9.
`
`The following is a statement of reasonsfor the indication of allowable subject matter:
`
`Regarding claim 13, Lanefails to teach when the handle moves from the first handle position to
`
`the second handle position, a portion of the handle pushesthe latching memberto the unlatched
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/194,075
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Page 11
`
`position. Instead, Lane teaches the handle (22) pulls the slide bar (86) which moveslatching member
`
`(42) to the unlatchedposition.
`
`Regarding claim 23, Lanefails to teachthefirst handle range being at least 90 degrees. When
`
`comparing movementof handle (22) between Figures 5 and7,it is clear the movementis significantly
`
`less than 90 degrees.
`
`No motivation could be found to modify the reference in orderto arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to JAMES N SMALLEYwhosetelephone numberis (671)272-4547. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
`
`Examinerinterviews 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 on (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 Centeris available to registered users. To
`
`file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: httos://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 aboutfiling in DOCX format. For additional questions,
`
`contactthe Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free). If you would like assistance
`
`from a USPTO CustomerService Representative, call 800-786-9199 (INUSA OR CANADA)or 571-272-
`
`1000.
`
`/JAMES N SMALLEY/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3733
`
`