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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlich (SU 20210024257) in view of Berlepsch (US 2015/0353222) further in view of Yuminaga (JP WO2005092721), Matsuoka (US2008/0314862) and Williams (US 5,329,747).
Regarding claims 1-2, Orlich (figs. 1A-C) discloses a container 1 comprising :
a closed end having a closed end periphery,
a peripheral wall 2 extending from the closed end periphery about a longitudinal axis of the container to an open end,
a lip that curves from an outwardly projecting position inwardly towards the longitudinal axis (see marked-up fig. 1C);
wherein the peripheral wall 2 has a peripheral wall exterior surface oriented away from the longitudinal axis, wherein the peripheral wall exterior surface has a peripheral wall exterior surface area, wherein the peripheral wall exterior surface comprises a first smooth panel and a textured region, wherein the first smooth panel does not encircle the longitudinal axis, wherein the textured region comprises a plurality of irregularities.
Orlich fails to disclose:
each irregularity being arranged next to one or more adjacent irregularities, wherein the plurality of irregularities comprises a plurality of facets, wherein each of the facets has a facet exterior surface oriented away from the longitudinal axis, and wherein orthogonal directions away from the facet exterior surfaces are divergent; and
a label in the form of a shrink sleeve disposed about the peripheral wall, the sleeve comprising one or more apertures axially aligned with a through hole of a handle; wherein the sleeve comprises a lower edge that is positioned near the closed end of the container such that the lower edge of the sleeve is positioned below the lip of the container, such that the lip keeps the sleeve in place to prevent smiling.
However, Berlepsch teaches a container having irregularities 90 as claimed (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have arranged and formed the irregularities of Orlich, as shown in fig. 6 of Berlepsch, to provide a container that provide visual stimuli to consumers when viewed at a distance as taught by Berlepsch in paragraph 0005.
Further, Yuminaga teaches a detergent bottle having shrink label 2 that has a lower edge that is positioned near the closed end of the container (figs. 1-3 and abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the modified device Orlich, a shrink label, as taught by Yuminaga to provide information about the content of the container.
Regarding the sleeve being positioned below the lip of the container, such that the lip keeps the sleeve in place to prevent smiling, Matsuoka teaches retaining a sleeve edge 101 (positioned above a convex portion that corresponds to a lip) to prevent movement or slipping (fig. 6-7 and paragraph 0059). Such retention would prevent upward/ downward movement of the edge and thereby prevent the edge from curling upward, i.e. smiling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have positioned the sleeve of the modified Orlich, below the lip of the container, to prevent slipping of the edge, as taught by Matsuoka in paragraph 0059. Doing so would provide the known benefit of maintaining the sleeve edge in position and preventing movement thereof. Such retention would prevent upward/ downward movement of the edge and thereby prevent the edge from curling upward, i.e. smiling.
Williams teaches a heat shrink wrapping 13 having a carrying means access hole 14 (fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the shrink sleeve of modified device of Orlich, a carrying means access hole, for accessing the handle as taught by Williams.
It is noted that the carrying means access hole of the modified Orlich would be two apertures axially aligned with the through hole of the handle.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Orlich further discloses the first smooth panel being disposed on a front wall of the peripheral wall (figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 4, Orlich further discloses the container comprises a second smooth panel disposed on a rear wall of the peripheral wall, wherein the rear wall is opposite a front wall (fig. 1B). Also alternatively, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 5, Orlich further discloses the first smooth panel being curved about a single axis at least at the top and bottom portion of the first smooth panel (fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6, Orlich further discloses the peripheral wall comprises side walls that connect a front wall to a back wall, wherein at least a portion of the irregularities are disposed at least one side walls (figs. 1A-1C).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Orlich discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the first smooth panel has a first smooth panel surface area that is from about 5% to about 50% of the peripheral wall exterior surface area.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Orlich further discloses the textured region having a textured region surface area that is from about 5% to about 50% of the peripheral wall exterior surface area (figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Orlich further discloses each of the facets has a facet exterior surface area that is between about 0.0001% and about 4% of the peripheral wall exterior surface area (paragraph 0006 of Berlepsch).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references align with the sleeve being positioned below the lip of the container, such that the lip keeps the sleeve in place to prevent smiling. However, Matsuoka teaches retaining a sleeve edge 101 (positioned above a convex portion that corresponds to a lip) to prevent movement or slipping (fig. 6-7 and paragraph 0059). Such retention would prevent upward/ downward movement of the edge and thereby prevent the edge from curling upward, i.e. smiling.
Applicant further argues that Matsuoka’s teaching is directly contrary to the claimed limitations where the lip is defined as a “lip that curves form an outwardly projecting position inwardly towards the longitudinal axis”. However, Matsuoka is relied upon for teaching retention of a sleeve edge using circumferential container wall geometry, not for disclosing the claimed lip geometry. The convex portion below concave rib 41 corresponds to the claimed outwardly projection lip. Thus Matsuoka’s disclosure of preventing slipping of the sleeve edge is not contrary to the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights