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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 25, after “juice hole” is a period(.) which appears to make the claim as a two sentences claim. Each claim must be composed of a single sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4 and 9-15 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. Regarding claims 2 and 14, the limitation “wherein the body is not asymmetrical along an axis in a plane parallel to a diameter of said body”, is a negative limitation which raises a new matter added to the specification (see MPEP 2173.05(i). Nowhere in the specification is disclosed such limitation recited in the claims. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear from the specification how the body is not asymmetrical along an axis in a plane parallel to the diameter of the body. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear to what or which structural feature applicant is referring. Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the container is asymmetrical” raises new matter issues added to the specification because nowhere in the written description is disclosed the container being asymmetrical. It is unclear from the specification if applicant meant asymmetrical because of the lengths of each of the components of the container, or because the diameter changed along the length of each of the component.
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 13 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 13 and 15, the claims are indefinite because it is unclear how the container could be available in three sizes. Nowhere in the Written Description is disclosed how are composed the different sizes for the container. Page 8, first paragraph, only discloses three sizes of the container, but does not disclose how or what structural elements are included for each size.
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 1-4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levesque (4,393,974).
Claim 1
Levesque discloses a container (10) comprising a body composed of discrete interlocking segments (12 and 13); wherein said body is generally cylindrical; wherein said interlocking segments are cylindrical; a top section (defined by structure 11 that includes lug 14), said top segment terminating at a rounded point; wherein said top section is configured to interlock with any of said interlocking segments (see figures 1 and 2); a bottom section (defined by structure 11 opposed to the top section) terminating at a rounded point; wherein said top and bottom sections differs in size from said interlocking segments; and wherein said top section and said bottom section comprise a top and a bottom of the container respectively (see figures 1 and 2). Levesque further discloses the interlocking sections are preferably, but not mandatory, of different lengths (see column 1 lines 50-56). Levesque does not disclose the interlocking segments are shorter than said top and bottom sections and bottom; wherein said interlocking segments are equal in size; and wherein said top section differs in size from said bottom section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sizes of the top and bottom sections, and the sizes of the interlocking segments of Levesque because it is a matter of design choice the sizes of each structural element of the container. Please note that applicant’s Written Description does not disclose any criticality for the sizes of each of the top and bottom sections, and the sizes for the interlocking members.
Claims 2 and 3
As best understood, after Levesque is modified, the body of the container is not symmetrical along an axis in a plane parallel to a diameter of said body. Levesque further discloses the container comprising junctions/screw threads (see column 1 lines 60-65 and column 2 lines 1-3), said junctions present in the top and bottom sections, also between said interlocking segments at first and second sides of the interlocking segments (see figures 1 and 2).
Claim 4
Levesque further discloses the container being oblong (se figure 1). As best understood, after Levesque is modified changing the sizes of the top and bottom sections with respect to the interlocking segments, the container will be is asymmetrical.
Claim 7
Levesque further discloses the container is available in three different sizes: a first size, a second size which is bigger than said first size, and a third size which is bigger than said first size and said second size (see column 2 lines 16-24).
Claim 8
Levesque further discloses the cylindrical segments are wider in diameter than said rounded point of said top section and said rounded point of said bottom section (see figure 2).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies (US 2010/0200438) in view of Terrasi (5,728,414).
Claim 1
Davies discloses a container comprising a body composed of discrete interlocking segments (16 and 18); wherein said body and the interlocking segments are is generally cylindrical; a top section (defined by 14 and 12 from the top in figure 2) configured to interlock with any of said interlocking segments; wherein said interlocking segments are shorter than said top section; a bottom section (defined by 14 and 12 from the bottom of figure 2) longer than the interlocking segments; wherein said interlocking segments are equal in size; wherein said top section differs in size from said bottom section; wherein said top section differs in size from said interlocking segments; wherein said bottom section differs in size from said interlocking segments; and wherein said top section and said bottom section comprise a top and a bottom of the container respectively (see figures 1 and 2). Davies discloses the container could be used as a food storage (see abstract). Davies does not disclose the top and bottom sections terminating at a rounded point. However, Terrasi discloses a container (1) for enclosing a food product comprising top (2) and bottom sections (3) each terminating at a rounded point (see figure 2). Terrasi discloses each section can have different shapes and/or sizes (see column 2 lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify end portion of the top and bottom sections terminating at a round point as taught by Terrasi since it is a matter of design choice the shape of the end of each of the top and bottom sections because it would perform the function of holding and carrying the food product equally well. Please note that applicant’s Written Description does not disclose any criticality for the limitation of the top and bottom sections terminating at a rounded point.
Claims 2 and 3
As best understood, the body disclosed by Davies is not asymmetrical along a plane parallel to a diameter of the body. Davies further discloses the container comprising junctions/screw threads (see [0023]-[0025]), said junctions present in the top and bottom sections, also between said interlocking segments at first and second sides of the interlocking segments (see figures 2 and 3).
Claims 5, 6, 9 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies (US 2010/0200438) and Terrasi (5,728,414) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Labianca (5,385,292).
Claims 5, 6, 9 and 10
Davies further discloses the container could be used as a food storage (see abstract). Davies does not disclose a hole present at a rounded point of the bottom section and a plug removably disposed within the hole. However, Davies, embodiment of figure 4, discloses the top portion including perforations to allow air to pass damp items (see [0028]). Labianca discloses a container (10) for carrying food comprising a top portion (14) and bottom portion (defined by structure holding a pizza pie 12), each of the top and bottom portions including holes/vents (40) and plugs/tongues (defined by material closing the vents) removably disposed within the hole (see column 2 lines 46-63). Labianca discloses the open vents assist in removing excess steam from the interior of the container (see column 2 lines 46-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies and Terrasi having an holes/vents at least at both of the top and bottom sections of the container to help venting and/or removal of excessive moisture from the interior of the container. After Davies and Terrasi are modified by Labianca, the holes/vents will be located at a point end of the top and bottom sections.
Claim 11
Davies further discloses the top section and said bottom section are equipped with interlocking threads (see [0023]-[0025]).
Claim 12
After Davies is modified by Terrasi, the cylindrical segments will be wider in diameter than said rounded point of the top and bottom sections.
Claim 13
As best understood, Davies further discloses the container available in three sizes: small sized defined by the container only including the top section with a single interlocking segment; a medium size by the container including the top section with the first interlocking segment and a middle section with the second interlocking segment; and a large size comprising the top section with the middle interlocking segment, a middle section, and the bottom section (see figure 2 and [0026]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies (US 2010/0200438), Terrasi (5,728,414) and Labianca (5,385,292).
Claim 14
Davies discloses a container comprising a body composed of discrete interlocking segments (16 and 18); wherein said body and the interlocking segments are is generally cylindrical; a top section (defined by 14 and 12 from the top in figure 2) configured to interlock with any of said interlocking segments; wherein said interlocking segments are shorter than said top section; a bottom section (defined by 14 and 12 from the bottom of figure 2) longer than the interlocking segments; wherein said interlocking segments are equal in size; wherein said top section differs in size from said bottom section; wherein said top section differs in size from said interlocking segments; wherein said bottom section differs in size from said interlocking segments; and wherein said top section and said bottom section comprise a top and a bottom of the container respectively (see figures 1 and 2). Davies discloses the container could be used as a food storage (see abstract). As best understood, the body disclosed by Davies is not asymmetrical along a plane parallel to a diameter of the body. Davies further discloses the container comprising junctions/screw threads (see [0023]-[0025]), said junctions present in the top and bottom sections, also between said interlocking segments at first and second sides of the interlocking segments (see figures 2 and 3). Davies further discloses the top section and said bottom section are equipped with interlocking threads (see [0023]-[0025]), the interlocking threads configured to interface with the interlocking segments (see figures 2 and 3). Davies does not disclose the top and bottom sections terminating at a rounded point. Davies does not disclose a hole present at a rounded point of the bottom section and a plug removably disposed within the hole. However, Terrasi discloses a container (1) for enclosing a food product comprising top (2) and bottom sections (3) each terminating at a rounded point (see figure 2). Terrasi discloses each section can have different shapes and/or sizes (see column 2 lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify end portion of the top and bottom sections terminating at a round point as taught by Terrasi since it is a matter of design choice the shape of the end of each of the top and bottom sections because it would perform the function of holding and carrying the food product equally well. Please note that applicant’s Written Description does not disclose any criticality for the limitation of the top and bottom sections terminating at a rounded point. Regarding the limitation of the hole and the plugs in the top and bottom sections, Davies, embodiment of figure 4, discloses the top portion including perforations to allow air to pass damp items (see [0028]). Labianca discloses a container (10) for carrying food comprising a top portion (14) and bottom portion (defined by structure holding a pizza pie 12), each of the top and bottom portions including holes/vents (40) and plugs/tongues (defined by material closing the vents) removably disposed within the hole (see column 2 lines 46-63). Labianca discloses the open vents assist in removing excess steam from the interior of the container (see column 2 lines 46-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies and Terrasi having an holes/vents at least at both of the top and bottom sections of the container to help venting and/or removal of excessive moisture from the interior of the container. After Davies and Terrasi are modified by Labianca, the holes/vents will be located at a point end of the top and bottom sections.
Claim 15
As best understood, Davies further discloses the container available in three sizes: small sized defined by the container only including the top section with a single interlocking segment; a medium size by the container including the top section with the first interlocking segment and a middle section with the second interlocking segment; and a large size comprising the top section with the middle interlocking segment, a middle section, and the bottom section (see figure 2 and [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection have been applied to the claims.
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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736