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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1, 23, and 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hayes (US 2009/0241584 A1), Hayes teaching the claim amendments of an inner wall (7a) is disposed inside of an insulation layer (12) of a container, and the insulation layer is disposed inside of an outer wall (7b) (Depicted in Fig. 9, Para. 19, inner, outer with insulation therebetween) as further evidenced in the rejection below.
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) 1-3, 23-25, 29-34, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mottaz et al. (US Patent No. 10,294,094), and further in view of Hayes et al. (US 2009/0241584 A1).
Re: Claim 1, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including a container, comprising:
a base (340) including an outer wall (112), an insulation layer, and an inner wall (114) including a front side (Col. 3, lines 36-40, insulation layer, Col. 9, lines 40-44, container may be cylindrical or rectangular in shape) except for the particulars of the insulation layer in relation to the walls. However, Hayes discloses an inner wall (7a) is disposed inside of an insulation layer (12) of a container, and the insulation layer is disposed inside of an outer wall (7b) (Depicted in Fig. 9, Para. 19, inner, outer with insulation therebetween).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include an inner wall disposed inside insulation and the insulation insider the outer wall as taught by Hayes, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
a rear side, and a bottom surface extending between the front side and the rear side (Col. 3, lines 57-65, container may be cylindrical or rectangular in shape, rectangular),
a lid (120) movably coupled to the base at a first end thereof (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 8-9, lid);
a spigot (350, 850) coupled to a front wall of the base at a second end thereof, the second end being opposite the first end, the front wall being opposite a rear wall, and the front wall being connected to the rear wall by a pair of side walls (Col. 3, lines 57-65, container may be cylindrical or rectangular in shape, rectangular shaped depicted in Fig. 8); and
a plurality of flow channels (370) defined by the bottom surface of formed in the inner wall of the base, wherein the plurality of flow channels extend from the rear side of the inner wall to the front side of the inner wall, and wherein the spigot are fluidly coupled to the plurality of flow channels (Depicted in Fig. 3, 7, Col. 4, lines 45-50, multiple channels leading to spigot) except for a plurality of spigots. However, Hayes teaches a plurality of spigots connected to a plurality of channel apertures (Figs. 5-6, 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality of spigots and channel apertures as taught by Hayes, since such a modification would increase the through put of the device allowing two users at once to obtain fluid from the device, and further 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.
Re: Claim 2, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention except for the particulars of the spigot. However, Hayes teaches a spigot including a housing (18) that is coupled to the inner wall of the base (Depicted in Figs. 9), the housing defining a cavity therein; a spigot body (10) secured within the cavity and including a spout, a spout bearing (16), and a press tab (tab pressing against outer wall (7b)); and a gasket (22) coupled to the housing and the spigot body within the cavity (Depicted in Annotated Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include claimed spigot housing as taught by Hayes, since Hayes states in paragraph 23 that such a modification provides a housing of the noted character, whereby a jointure for a spigot provides a mechanically fastened watertight seal at the joining point, such that the user may quickly swap out a spigot in case of a malfunction or clog occurring.
Re: Claim 3, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including each spigot defines a flow channel aperture therethrough, and wherein the flow channel aperture is coupled to a channel in the plurality of flow channels (Depicted in Fig. 3 and 7, Col. 5, lines 45-48, faucet includes internal flow channel and coupled to the plurality of flow channels).
Re: Claim 23, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including a container, comprising:
a base (340) including an outer wall (112), an insulation layer, and an inner wall (114) (Col. 3, lines 36-40, insulation layer, Col. 9, lines 40-44, container may be cylindrical or rectangular in shape), except for the particulars of the insulation layer in relation to the walls. However, Hayes discloses an inner wall (7a) is disposed inside of an insulation layer (12) of a container, and the insulation layer is disposed inside of an outer wall (7b) (Depicted in Fig. 9, Para. 19, inner, outer with insulation therebetween).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include an inner wall disposed inside insulation and the insulation insider the outer wall as taught by Hayes, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
a lid (120) movably coupled to the base at a first end thereof (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 8-9, lid);
a spigot (350, 850) coupled to a front wall of the base at a second end thereof, the second end being opposite the first end, the front wall being opposite a rear wall, and the front wall being connected to the rear wall by a pair of side walls (Col. 3, lines 57-65, container may be cylindrical or rectangular in shape, rectangular shaped depicted in Fig. 8); and
a plurality of flow channels (780) defined by the bottom surface of formed in the inner wall of the base, wherein the plurality of flow channels slope downwardly toward a channel apertures (750) disposed in a front side of the inner wall (Col. 6, lines 56-57, slope downward), and wherein the plurality of flow channels are fluidly coupled to the plurality of channel apertures. (Depicted in Fig. 3, 7, Col. 4, lines 45-50, multiple channels leading to spigot) except for a plurality of spigots and a plurality of channel apertures. However, Hayes teaches a plurality of spigots connected to a plurality of channel apertures (Figs. 5-6, 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality of spigots and channel apertures as taught by Hayes, since such a modification would increase the through put of the device allowing two users at once to obtain fluid from the device, and further 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.
Re: Claim 24, Mottaz as modified by Hayes above discloses the claimed invention including the outer wall defines a plurality of spigot apertures (Hayes: Fig. 9, a plurality), and wherein each spigot aperture (750) of the plurality of spigot apertures is aligned with a corresponding channel aperture of the plurality of channel apertures of the inner wall (Hayes: Depicted in Fig. 9).
Re: Claim 25, Mottaz as modified by Hayes above discloses the claimed invention including each spigot of the plurality of spigots defines a flow channel aperture therein that is aligned with a corresponding channel aperture of the plurality of channel apertures of the inner wall (Hayes: Depicted in Fig. 9, channels aligned with channel apertures).
Re: Claim 29, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including a container, comprising:
a base (340) including an outer wall (112), an insulation layer, and an inner wall (114) defining a front side and an opposite rear side (Col. 3, lines 36-40, insulation layer, Col. 9, lines 40-44, container may be cylindrical or rectangular in shape, rectangles inherently have front and opposite rear walls), except for the particulars of the insulation layer in relation to the walls. However, Hayes discloses an inner wall (7a) is disposed inside of an insulation layer (12) of a container, and the insulation layer is disposed inside of an outer wall (7b) (Depicted in Fig. 9, Para. 19, inner, outer with insulation therebetween).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include an inner wall disposed inside insulation and the insulation insider the outer wall as taught by Hayes, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
a lid (120) movably coupled to the base at a first end thereof (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 8-9, lid);
a spigot (350, 850) coupled to a front wall of the base at a second end thereof, the second end being opposite the first end (Col. 3, lines 57-65, container may be cylindrical or rectangular in shape, rectangular shaped depicted in Fig. 8); and
a plurality of flow channels (780) defined by the bottom surface of formed in the inner wall of the base, wherein the plurality of flow channels including a first flow channel and a second flow channel (Depicted in Fig. 3, 7, Col. 4, lines 45-50, multiple channels leading to spigot), wherein the first flow channel is spaced apart from and parallel with respect to the second flow channel. ((Depicted in Fig. 3, 7, Col. 4, lines 45-50, multiple channels leading to spigot, disposed adjacent leading in the same direction, thus parallel) except for a plurality of spigots and a plurality of channel apertures However, Hayes teaches a plurality of spigots connected to a plurality of channel apertures (Figs. 5-6, 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality of spigots and channel apertures as taught by Hayes, since such a modification would increase the through put of the device allowing two users at once to obtain fluid from the device, and further 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.
Re: Claim 30, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including the plurality of flow channels extend from the rear side of the inner wall to the front side of the inner wall, and wherein the spigot are fluidly coupled to the plurality of flow channels (Depicted in Fig. 3, 7, Col. 4, lines 45-50, multiple channels from rear to the front).
Re: Claim 31-32, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including the channels may be made in any width or shape (Col. 6, lines 51-55, any shape or width) except expressly stating wider at the rear than the front or being width 1 to 20 percent of the external width. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the width of the first flow channel is between 1% and 20% of an external width of the container or that the first flow channel and the second flow channel are wider at the rear side of the inner wall than at the front side of the inner wall, since the court has held that the configuration of the claimed feature of a container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re: Claim 33, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including the first flow channel and the second flow channel each slope downward from the rear side of the inner wall to the front side of the inner wall Col. 6, lines 56-57, slope downward).
Re: Claim 34, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including a z-axis that extends between the front side and the rear side, wherein the first flow channel slopes downward from the rear side of the inner wall to the front side of the inner wall at an angle that is between 0 degrees and 5 degrees with respect to the z-axis (Fig. 7, Col. 6, lines 59-65, 3–30-degree slope falls within the claimed range).
Re: Claim 37, Mottaz as modified by Hayes in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention including the outer wall and the insulation layer each define a plurality of spigot apertures therethrough, and wherein each spigot of the plurality of spigots is disposed inside of a respective one of the plurality of spigot apertures and is secured to the inner wall (Hayes: Depicted in Fig. 1-4, 9).
Claim(s) 4-6, 26, 27, 28 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mottaz et al. (US Patent No. 10,294,094) and Hayes et al. (US 2009/0241584 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Levey et al. (US 2004/0251444 A1).
Re: Claims 4, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention except for the particulars of the spigot including rotating the spigot. However, teaches the spigot (10) is configured to be rotated between a closed position (Levey: Fig. 1) and an open position (Levey: Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a spigot to be rotated as taught by Levey, since such a modification provides an art recognized alternative to conventional spigots, and further Levey states in paragraph 8 that such a modification provides a spigot that can be operated easily at various positions and heights, and that closes automatically to seal the outlet effectively and reduce the occurrences of drips.
Re: Claim 5 and 35, Mottaz as modified by Levey in the rejection of claim 4 above teaches a spring (60) is coupled to the spigot body within the cavity and is configured to rotate the spigot in a first direction towards the closed position, and wherein pressing the press tab rotates the spigot in a second direction toward the open position (Levey: Figs. 1-2, Para. 34, spring for automatically closing the spigot).
Re: Claim 6, Mottaz as modified by Levey in the rejection of claim 4 above teaches a locking bar (78) is coupled to the housing and is configured to selectively engage with the press tab (68) to lock the spigot in the open position (Levey: Fig. 1, Para. 31, locking bar for keeping in an open position).
Re: Claims 26, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention except expressly stating the particulars of the faucet. However, Levey teaches a spigot including a housing (10), a press tab (68) defining a plurality of ridges (74, 76), and a locking bar (78) coupled to the housing. (Levey: Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a spigot to be rotated as taught by Levey, since such a modification provides an art recognized alternative to conventional spigots, and further Levey states in paragraph 8 that such a modification provides a spigot that can be operated easily at various positions and heights, and that closes automatically to seal the outlet effectively and reduce the occurrences of drips.
Re: Claim 27, Mottaz as modified by Levey in the rejection of claim 26 above teaches the locking bar is configured to selectively engage with the plurality of ridges of the press tab to lock the spigot in an open position. (Levey: Fig. 1-2, Para. 31, ridges lock).
Re: Claim 28, Mottaz as modified by Levey in the rejection of claim 26 above teaches the locking bar is a spring (Para. 31 & 35, the resilience between bar and ridges that provides for pinching therebetween forms a spring like feature).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mottaz et al. (US Patent No. 10,294,094) and Hayes et al. (US 2009/0241584 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Jacob (US 2022/0170683 A1).
Re: Claim 7, Mottaz discloses the claimed invention including the lid may be attached by multiple means (Col. 3, lines 8-11, lid may be secured as desired) except for multiple fasteners. However, Jacob teaches an outer wall that defines a y-axis that extends between the first end and the second end of the container (Depicted in Fig. 3), and wherein the container further includes a plurality of lid fasteners (116, 122) coupled to the lid (Figs. 3-4, Para. 73, shows a fastener either side of the lid). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the plurality of fasteners as taught by Jacob, since Jacob states in para. 86, that such a modification ensures the lid is secured to the container, and further It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality of lid fasteners, since 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.
Re: Claim 8, Mottaz as modified by Hayes in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the plurality of spigots are horizontally aligned with respect to the y-axis (Hayes: Figs. 1-2) except for also with the of lid fasteners. However, Jacob teaches aligning a spigot (112) with a lid fastener (116) with respect to the y-axis (Depicted in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the aligned spigot and fastener of Jacob, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights