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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 3, 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/19/26
Applicant's election with traverse of HDPE, bolt, rotomolding in the reply filed on 8/19/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that they are not mutually exclusive and are enabled variants. This is not found persuasive because rotomolding and blow molding are classified in different areas B29C49/00+ vs B29C45/00+ and thus examination of the blow molding species would significantly expand the scope of search classes as well as queries. Likewise the resin and fastening features would require alternative search queries. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries; and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
The term “similarly” in claims 1, 9, 11, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similarly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, see MPEP 2173.05(b) II C.
The dependent claims inherent the indefiniteness of their parent
Claim 7, as the polymer is a molten form during portions of the process it’s unclear how its thickness would even be determined. The examiner has assumed that applicant intended to the “polymer water tank” as discussed in [0038] of the specification.
As to claim 13, the claim states that the tank is a multilayer tank multilayer tank, but then states that the tank may comprise only a single layer. Hence, the claim is self-contradictory.
For purposes of examination, the claim was interpreted as requiring only a single layer at minimum
As to claims 14 and 19, unclear which sidewall the term “the sidewall” refers to as both the lid and the body have a sidewall.
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, 9-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 5373961) in view of Martin (US 2005/0029267).
As to claim 1 and 20, Harris teaches a method for manufacturing a nestable water tank [Fig 17], the method comprising: discloses a method for manufacturing a container comprising forming a vessel (20) by a reaction injection molding (RIM), wherein: the vessel (20) comprises a cylindrical side wall with an interior and exterior surface (21A-21C) and a bottom (24) which would be capable of storing water; a lid (10) comprises a top and bottom surface connected to interior circumferential side wall section (17 A) and an exterior circumferential wall section (17B); the side wall forming a hollow cylinder running along the vertical axis and comprising an inside surface and an outside surface and the vessels (20) and the lids (10) can be stacked and nested (see column 4, lines 17-23; column 6, lines 19-41; column 6, line 57 - column 7, line 19; column 8, lines 7-24; claim 1; and figures 1-3, 10-12B, 17).
Harris teaches the cylindrical body and lid with side wall but does not explicitly state cutting the tank horizontally to divide it into a lid and body.
Martin teaches a method of making a container wherein once the container body has been made a container wall is cut to form a lid and notes that any portion of the container may be cut to form this lid in order to create a compatible lid of the desired size [0027-0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Harris and had utilized horizontal cutting, as suggested by Martin, in order to create a compatible lid of the desired size.
As to claim 9, Harris teaches the tank body is nestable with from about 1 to about 20 similarly shaped tank bodies [Fig 17].
As to claim 10, Harris teaches the lid is nestable with from about 1 to about 20 similarly shaped lids [Fig 10].
As to claim 11, Harris teaches both of the tank body and the lid are nestable together with from about 1 to about 20 similarly shaped tank body and lid combinations as the configuration allows nearly infinite nesting [Fig 10, 17].
As to claim 12, Harris teaches the nestable water tank has a volume ranging from about 250 liters to about 5,000 liters [col 4 line 1-10].
As to claim 13, Harris teaches the molding the water tank comprises molding a multilayer tank, wherein, upon cutting the water tank, forms the nestable water tank comprising the tank body and the lid that each include from 1 layer to 5 layers [Fig 14B].
As to claim 14, Harris teaches forming at least one lifting hole on a rim protruding in a horizontal plane away from the exterior surface of the side wall; and forming at least one lifting hole protruding from the side wall of the lid. The lugs (81) could function as lifting holes [Fig 11A, 11B].
As to claim 15, Harris teaches further comprising fastening the lid to the tank body using at a threaded connection(18, 28), a wire (82) [Fig 11A-C, 12A-B].
As to claim 16, Harris teaches comprising forming a cap port(12) on the top lid portion [col 6 line 42-56, Fig 13], wherein the cap port has a diameter of about 30.5 cm (12 inch) [col 6 line 25-32].
As to claim 17, Harris teaches forming a fill valve orifice (85) through the side wall of the lid [Fig 1, col 6 line 42-56]. Harris does not explicitly state the fill valve orifice comprises a diameter ranging from about 10 mm to about 35 mm but this feature amounts to a mere change in size or shape, which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
As to claim 18, Harris teaches comprising forming a drain outlet on the sidewall of the tank body, wherein the drain outlet (27), wherein the drain outlet comprises a drain recess (26) having a length and width [col 7 line 64- col 8 line 25, Fig 5]. The claimed dimensions amounts to a mere change in size or shape, which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 5373961) in view of Martin (US 2005/0029267), as applied to claims 1, 9-18, 20 above, and in further view of Rielly (US 3542912).
As to claim 4, Harris teaches wherein molding the water tank comprises: (i) filling a hollow mold with a polymer as explained above; but does not explicitly state (ii) rotating the hollow mold along at least one axis at a rotational speed ranging from about 1 rpm to about 100 rpm to form a rotating mold containing the polymer.
Rielly teaches making tanks and vessel [col 4 line 40-45] rotationally molding [col 2 line 20-65] similar materials [col 4 line 5-40] wherein rotation is between 20-100 rpm [col 2 line 30-64, claim 7] and rotation is continued during cooling (by cooled air or water [col 3 line 70-col 4 line 3]) until the part reaches solidification so it can be removed [col 2 line 53-63, claim 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Harris and rotomolded the tank at 20-100 rpm, as suggested by Rielly, as this had proven successful at creating tanks and other vessels of similar materials.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 5373961) in view of Martin (US 2005/0029267) and Rielly (US 3542912), as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Rotodynamics (What is Rotational Molding? A complete Guide).
As to claim 5, Harris does not explicitly state molding the water tank further comprises: (iii) heating the rotating mold and the polymer contained therein to a temperature ranging from about 240 0C to about 280 0C of the hollow mold to form a melted polymer; (iv) cooling the melted polymer to a temperature ranging from about 35 0C to about 70 0C while the melted polymer continues to rotate to form a cooled polymer; and (v) stopping rotation of the cooled polymer to form the water tank.
Rielly teaches making tanks and vessel [col 4 line 40-45] rotationally molding [col 2 line 20-65] similar materials [col 4 line 5-40] wherein the rotation is started during heating [col 2 line 30-64, claim 7] and rotation is continued during cooling (by cooled air or water [col 3 line 70-col 4 line 3]) until the part reaches solidification so it can be removed (the mold would have to be stopped to remove the part) [col 2 line 53-63, claim 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Harris and rotomolded the tank and continued rotating during cooling, as suggested by Rielly, as this had proven successful at creating tanks and other vessels of similar materials.
Reilly notes that the polymer must be cooled to a temperature at which it is entirely solidified to remove it from the mold [col 3 line 70-col 4 line 3, col 2 line 53-63, claim 7]. In other words, the temperature which the polymer is cooled to is a results effective variable on part removal. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case the temperature at which the polymer is removed, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of the polymer during the cooling step to the exact value of 35-70 C, as suggested by Reilly, in order to allow for removal of the formed part.
RotoDynamics teaches a method of rotomolding storage tanks [What are some rotational molding applications] and notes that 260-370 C is typical range for rotomolding [The Production Process of Rotational Molding]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Harris and Rielly and performed the heating step at 260-280, as suggested by RotoDynamics, as this had proven successful at producing tanks. Moreover, it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 5373961) in view of Martin (US 2005/0029267), as applied to claims 1, 9-18, 20 above, and in further view of Long (US 2007/0056975).
As to claim 19, Harris teaches a perforated protrusion extending from the side of the lid [Fig 11A] but does not explicitly state comprising forming at least one perforated protrusion in the lid that extends from the side wall of the lid and is configured to receive a bolt for fastening the lid to the tank body; and forming at least one bolt hole on a rim protruding in a horizontal plane away from the exterior surface of the side wall, the at least one bolt hole configured to receive a bolt for fastening the lid to the tank body.
Long teaches a tank [Abstract] wherein different portions of the tank have a protrusion/rim each with a bolt hole (18) [Fig 2] and serves to lock the portion and another portion so the top can secured but also easily removed[Fig 12, 13, 9, 11, 0031, 0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Harris and forming at least one perforated protrusion in the lid that extends from the side wall of the lid and is configured to receive a bolt for fastening the lid to the tank body; and forming at least one bolt hole on a rim protruding in a horizontal plane away from the exterior surface of the side wall, the at least one bolt hole configured to receive a bolt for fastening the lid to the tank body, as suggested by 321, in order to secure the top to the container but allow for easy removal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights