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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected as Applicant includes 11.25” in the claims. However, Applicant’s original specification merely provides for 11.5”.
Claim 5 is objected as Applicant includes 11.25” in the claims. However, Applicant’s original specification merely provides for 11.5”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant provides “sq” in the claims 3-5 Applicant fails to make as to what the meaning of the above is in Applicant’s original specification. Claims 3, 4 is/are also rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s) 2. Claim 4 is/are also rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s) 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durand (US 1890534 A) in view of Little (US 0559859 A) and Barsaloux (0116398) amd Lantheaume (US 20110036836 A1)
Durand discloses:
1. A cask (figs 1-3) comprising a body (surfaces such as shown in fig 1) having: a top ring (4); a bottom disk (lower portion shown adjacent 8); a center ring positioned equidistance between the top ring and the bottom disk (adjacent 3); a plurality of staves positioned around an outer edge of the bottom disk (staves as on page 1: left column: 40-45, around edge as in fig 2), and an outer edge of the top ring (as in fig 1), the plurality of staves positioned apart from each and connecting the top ring, the bottom disk and the center ring (as in fig 1);
with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Little: staves on an outer edge of a center ring (as shown by H as in fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Durand in view of Little (by either moving or adding an additional center ring internal the staves) in order to assist in maintaining the shape of the device;
with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Barsaloux: a reversible lid (cover such as in figs 1-5 with elements such as A, B, C, A’, D) with a first cask lid plate (adjacent A) and a second cask lid plate positioned on an opposite surface thereof and providing a means for supporting a stacking of a plurality of casks (A’ of which confirms to the shape of a bottom for stacking; the Office notes that the claim is to a single container and the shape of the above is capable of stacking with a different shaped container bottom that corresponds to the shape). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Barsaloux (by providing the above lid with the necessary dimensions to cover the device) in order to provide a covering element in order to protect the contents inside from damage.
with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Lantheaume: a handle (28 or 12) positioned on a top surface thereof (though not required, the Office notes that the prior art discloses the concept of providing both stacking and handling elements on opposite sides of the lid as shown in fig 1 with 28 and 12; The Office further notes the concept of the shape of element 28 corresponding to the stacking element of figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Lantheaume (by providing the above handle element) in order to assist in the removal of the lid.
The OFfice notes the above 112 rejection, Nevertheless with respect to claim 2-6:
2. The cask assembly of claim 1, wherein a length of the cask is 18".
3. The cask assembly of claim 2, wherein the top ring of the cask includes a measurement of 11.25" sq x 5/8" thick.
4. The cask assembly of claim 3, wherein the center ring of the cask includes a measurement of 13.25" sq x 5/8" thick.
5. The cask assembly of claim 4, wherein the bottom of the cask includes a measurement of 11.25" sq. x 5/8" thick.
6. The cask assembly of claim 5, wherein the first cask lid plate includes a measurement of 12.5" x .5" thick.
Re claims 2-6, the Office notes that Durand appears to be silent as to the dimensions and measurements of the device. The Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the above such as when specific contents are provided a desired length and thicknesses are provided in order to provide the necessary strength and durability to protect the desired contents. The Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). And further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The Combined Reference discloses:
7. The cask assembly of claim 1, wherein the first cask lid plate includes a first face and a second face, the second cask lid plate includes a first face and a second face, the first face of the second cask lid plate is in contact with the second face of the first cask lid plate (Barsaloux disclose elements adjacent A and A’ also with the above faces that are in contact as in figs 3, 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights