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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the features of the lids and tank bodies being nestable are not disclosed in the prior art, but this feature is clearly demonstrated in Fig 10, 17, 18 of Harris. Applicant argues that Martin does not teach the cutting along a horizontal plane through the cylindrical side wall. However, Martin explicitly states “Alternative container bodies may remove the panel 12 from any portion of the container body, such as the side wall 20, to list a non-limiting example, or may remove the entire end wall such that no peripheral portion 26 remains joined to the side wall 20.” In other words, cutting through the sidewall such that portion (26) the top corner of the cap would be included. Furthermore, Martin also notes 0 degree cutting which is definitionally in the horizontal plane [0028]. Furthermore, the claims 1 and 20 as written do not necessarily even require cutting through the side wall. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 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 “both at least one of” renders the claim indefinite as these terms are mutually exclusive and render the claim self-contradictory.
The examiner has interpreted this term to mean “at least one of.”
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, 9-12, 14-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 5373961) in view of Green (US 5485637) and 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). The plurality of the tank body and plurality of the tank lid are nestable together [Fig 10, 17, 18].
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 and that the lid and tank body are formed from a single mold.
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.
Green teaches a method of making a storage container [Abstract, Fig 2] wherein once the container body has been made a container wall is linearly cut along a horizontal plane at later point to form a lid/cap of the desired size from similar materials to Harris and the cap and body all formed from the same mold via rotomolding [col 3 line 4-16, Fig 2]. 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, as this method had proven successful at creating containers with a compatible lid of the desired size without the need for additional molds.
As to claim 9, Harris teaches the tank body is nestable with from about 1 to about 20 same shaped tank bodies [Fig 17].
As to claim 10, Harris teaches the lid is nestable with from about 1 to about 20 same 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 same 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 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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 5373961) in view of Green (US 5485637) and Martin (US 2005/0029267), as applied to claims 1, 9-12, 14-18, 20 above, and in further view of Rielly (US 3542912).
As to claim 4, Harris and Green teach rotomolding the tank as explained above but does not explicitly state 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.
As to claim 13, Harris in combination with Green teaches upon cutting the water tank, forms the nestable water tank comprising the tank body and the lid, but does not explicitly state the molding the water tank comprises molding a multilayer tank, wherein that each include from 2 layer to 5 layers.
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]. The container being multilayered [col 1 line 32-63, col 4 line 1-45]. 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 to be multiple layers, 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 Green (US 5485637), Martin (US 2005/0029267), 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 Green (US 5485637) and Martin (US 2005/0029267), as applied to claims 1, 9-12, 14-18, 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
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 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