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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Application BR102020014115-5 dated 07/09/2020 and applicant has filed a certified copy of this application on 01/04/2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, “the number” should read --number--.
Claim 10, “the process” should read --a process--.
Claim 11, “the creation” should read --creation--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more connectors of variable configurations and angles, which have two or more circular and/or oblong holes on their surfaces for fixation of plastic bottles” which is indefinite. Because it is unclear if combination of connectors have two or more circular and/or oblong holes, or each of the connectors of the one or more connectors have two or more circular and/or oblong holes.
Claims 2-13 are rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said connectors have angles ranging from 0° to 180” which is indefinite. Because it is not clear if each connector has angles ranging from 0° to 180 or the combination of connectors have such angles relative to each other.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said connectors have straight configurations, L-shaped, with 90° angles for a straight curve” which is indefinite. Because it is not clear if “L shaped” configuration has 90° angles, or “90° angles” is a separate configuration than the L shaped. Moreover it is not clear what “straight curve” is referring to. Is it a curve bend between the two surfaces of the L shape?It is also not clear if each connector or the combination of connectors have such configuration.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said connectors are also presented in Y or other configurations” which is ambiguous. Because it is not clear if each connector or the combination of connectors have such configuration.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “duplicators in the flat line and varying angles” which is not clear what part of the system “duplicator” and “flat line” are referring to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the flat line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “flat line” is not earlier introduced.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “connectors have circular and/or oblong holes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “two or more circular and/or oblong holes” was previously introduced in claim 1. It is not clear if these holes are the same or different. For the purpose of this examination they are interpreted to be the same.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the distance between the holes of the connector ranges from 30 mm to 1 ,000 mm”. Claim 1 recites “one or more connectors”. It is not clear if only one connector of the one or more connectors has such a distance between the holes or each of the connectors have that feature.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the number of holes present in the connector ranges from 2 to 50”. Claim 1 recites “one or more connectors”. It is not clear if only one connector of the one or more connectors has the claimed number of holes or each of the connectors have that feature.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “connectors comprise rigid and/or flexible materials”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “one or more connectors” is earlier introduced in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Holmes (US 2299625 A).
Regarding claim 1, Holmes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) an interchangeable connection system, wherein one or more connectors (Fig. 5 shows six connectors 29, 28, 22, 22, 28, 29) of variable configurations (compare configurations in Figs. 1 and 2) and angles (compare angles in Figs. 1 and 2), which have two or more circular (four circular holes 26) and/or oblong holes (14 oblong holes 31 and 24) on their surfaces for fixation of plastic bottles (12) in a "nut-thread" or "cap-bottle" way (bottle cap/closure 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
941
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Holmes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) said connectors have angles ranging from 0° to 180°.
Regarding claim 3, Holmes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) said connectors have straight configurations (shown in Fig. 4) , L-shaped (shown in Figs. 1 and 2), with 90° angles (Fig. 2) for a straight curve.
Regarding claim 4, Holmes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) said connectors are also presented in Y or other configurations (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Holmes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) said connectors have a hybrid configuration (compare configuration of Figs. 1, 2), comprising duplicators (two double 29 and one double 22) in the flat line (fold lines) and varying angles.
Regarding claim 9, Holmes teaches connectors comprise rigid and/or flexible materials (col. 2, line 37: “paper board material”)
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fernandes (AU 2018101104 A4).
Regarding claim 1, Fernandes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) an interchangeable connection system, wherein one or more connectors of variable configurations and angles, which have two or more circular (five circular holes) (five circular holes) on their surfaces for fixation of plastic bottles in a "nut-thread" or "cap-bottle" way (cap 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
830
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fernandes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) said connectors have angles ranging from 0° to 180°.
Regarding claim 5, Fernandes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) said connectors have a hybrid configuration (see configurations shown above), comprising duplicators (Fig. 4 shows two of them) in the flat line and varying angles.
Regarding claim 9, Fernandes teaches connectors comprise rigid and/or flexible materials (“plastic strap”’ “P.E.T. (Polyethylene terephthalate)”).
Regarding claim 10, Fernandes teaches method of using the system comprising using the system for functional and/or creative purposes in the process of reusing plastic bottles (par. 0011-0012 of the machine translated document attached).
Regarding claim 11, Fernandes teaches the reuse of plastic bottles comprises the creation of decorative, functional, playful objects (claim 1 of the machine translated document attached).
Regarding claim 13, Fernandes teaches said rigid and/or flexible materials are thermoset and/or thermoplastic polymers (Polyethylene terephthalate is a thermoplastic polymer).
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.
Claims 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes.
Regarding claims 6, Holmes teaches choosing diameter of the holes 31 based on size of the cap or bead of the container. Holes further teaches the number of holes present in the connector ranges from 2 to 50 (total 18 holes).However Holmes does not teach specific diameter range of the holes and distance range between the holes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose size of the holes and distance between the holes based on size of the bottles held by the connection system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723