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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 10,472,117) in view of Vlahakis (US 10,384,831).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer (figs. 1-8) discloses a connectable beverage bottle, comprising:
a hollow bottle body 3, comprising:
a central cavity 11; and
a bottle top 5, including a bottle opening 15, such that the bottle opening 15 provides access to the central cavity 11;
a bottom 7;
a sidewall 9, which forms the central cavity 11, wherein the sidewall 9 comprises:
a vertical bottle locking protrusion 19 having a maximum protrusion width, which is positioned on a first side of the sidewall 9; and
a vertical bottle locking indentation 25, having a maximum indentation width which is positioned on a second side of the sidewall 9;
such that the vertical bottle locking indentation 25 is opposedly positioned relative to the vertical bottle locking protrusion 19;
such that the vertical bottle locking protrusion 19 is configured to be slidable into a corresponding bottle locking indentation 25 of a first like connectable beverage bottle, such that the connectable beverage bottle is connected to the first like connectable beverage bottle; and
wherein the vertical bottle locking indentation 25 is configured to slidably receive a corresponding vertical bottle locking protrusion 19 of a second like connectable beverage bottle, such that the connectable beverage bottle is connected to the second like connectable beverage bottle (paragraph 4, lines 40-44).
Meyer fails to disclose:
outwardly-curving left and right vertical bulges tapering from maximum bulge points at lower outer left and right edges of the vertical botte locking protrusion 19, respectively, to upper bulge transition points;
inward-curving left and right vertical indentations tapering from maximum indentation points at lower outer left and right edges of the vertical bottle locking indentation 25, respectively, to upper indentation transition points;
wherein the inward-curving left and right vertical indentations are configured to receive the outward-curving left and right vertical bulges, respectively, and a lower portion of the vertical bottle locking protrusion is detachably locked in place inside a lower portion of the vertical bottle locking indentation.
However, Vlahakis teaches two bottles being connected by outwardly-curving left and right vertical bulges 42 tapering from maximum bulge points and corresponding inward-curving left and right vertical indentations 44 tapering from maximum indentation points (fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the device of Meyer, bulges and corresponding indentations, as taught by Vlahakis, to provide further securement of two beverage bottles.
Regarding location of the bulges and corresponding indentations, It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Meyer further discloses:
the outward-curving left vertical bulge is configured to taper from a left maximum bulge point of a left lower edge of the vertical bottle locking protrusion to an upper left bulge transition point, wherein the outward- curving left vertical bulge vanishes;
the outward-curving right vertical bulge is configured to taper from a right maximum bulge point of a right lower edge of the vertical bottle locking protrusion to an upper right bulge transition point, wherein the outward-curving right vertical bulge vanishes and the vertical bottle locking protrusion becomes substantially straight;
the inward-curving left vertical indentation is configured to taper from a left maximum indentation of a left lower edge of the vertical bottle locking indentation to an upper left indentation transition point, wherein the inward-curving left vertical indentation vanishes; and
the inward-curving right vertical indentation is configured to taper from a right maximum indentation of a right lower edge of the vertical bottle locking indentation to an upper right indentation transition point, wherein the inward-curving right vertical indentation vanishes (fig. 6 and figs. 8-9 of Meyer and fig 4A of Vlahakis).
Regarding claims 16-17, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, Meyer further discloses the hollow bottle body being made from a flexible material, such that the vertical bottle locking protrusion is laterally slidable into the corresponding bottle locking indentation of the first like connectable beverage bottle (col. 4, lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 19, Meyer further discloses:
a) a lower locking protrusion portion of the vertical bottle locking protrusion 9, wherein the lower locking protrusion portion is positioned between uniform lower bulge horizontal levels of left and right lower maximum bulge points and uniform upper bulge horizontal levels of left and right upper bulge transition points; and
b) a lower locking indentation portion of the vertical bottle locking indentation 25, wherein the lower locking indentation portion is positioned between uniform lower indentation horizontal levels of left and right lower maximum indentation points and uniform upper indentation horizontal levels of left and right upper indentation transition points; wherein a first height of the lower locking protrusion portion of the vertical bottle locking protrusion and a second height of the lower locking indentation portion of the vertical bottle locking indentation, are each of a uniform height (figs. 1-2).
The modified Meyer fails to disclose the first height of the lower locking protrusion portion of the vertical bottle locking protrusion 9 and the second height of the lower locking indentation portion of the vertical bottle locking indentation 25, being in range of 30 - 50% of a bottle height of the hollow bottle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the height of the bottom portion of the locking protrusion 9 and indentation 25 of the modified Meyer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the protrusion 42 and indentation 44 of Vlahakis extend along the entire height of the container as shown in figs. 7A-7C. However, figs. 7A-7B are another embodiment of Vlahakis (col. 3, lines 7-9). Figs. 8A-8B which show the primary container of fig. 1 without the secondary container attached (col. 3, lines 10-11) clearly shows that the protrusion 42 does not extend along the entire height of the container.
Regarding applicant’s argument of fig. 6 of Vlahakis, it is noted that the examiner is not using the embodiment of fig. 6 to reject the claims.
Regarding location of the bulges and corresponding indentations, It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Relocating such features would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art and does not impart patentable distinction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights