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 .
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/07/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, AND 21-22 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response in response to the amendment filed 07/07/26. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114.See MPEP § 706.07(b).
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
As per claim 1, the second recitation of the limitation “an indent” appears to be a double inclusion not supported by the specification. A correction may include “the indent”.
Claims 2-4, 9-10, and 21-22 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-7 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3474843 to Maris in view of US 9919910 to Gibson in view of US 3076576 to Cornelius.
As per claims 1 and 21-22, and as the examiner can understand the claims, Maris discloses a container for dispensinq a beverage comprising:
a top face includinq an aperture (14) configured to receive a lid (12) and the lid closing the aperture to facilitate storage and transportation of contents in the container (Fig. 2-3); and contents being unloaded from the container by pneumatic or other means (Col. 3, Ln. 1-4).
a bottom face comprisinq an indent (14’) for receivinq a spout (14; Fig. 2);
sidewalls extendinq between the top face and the bottom face (Fig. 1), and
wherein the top face comprises one or more recesses (21) and the bottom face of the container comprises one or more downwardly extendinq feet (13), the or each foot beinq confiqured to be received by a respective recess in the top face of a like container upon which it is stacked (Fig. 2),
a spout (14) extending upwardly from a top face of the container (Fig. 1), the spout comprising said aperture;
the spout comprises a circumferentially extending lip (6 threads).
a bottom of the container comprises the indent configured to receive a spout of a like container upon which it is stacked (Fig. 2).
Maris does not explicitly disclose: the lip configured to releasably engage a closure in a snap-fitting manner to close the aperture; a particular structure of the “pneumatic or other means” comprising the lid for closing the aperture and allowing gas to be introduced into the container through an input valve in the lid; an output valve for dispensing the beverage from the container, the output valve attachable to a tube positionable in the container; milk stored in the container can be dispensed under pressure by the gas introduced into the container; a “fitting” such that the lid is adapted to allow milk to be extracted from the container through the lid via the fitting; and, the aperture being elliptical.
In regards to the lip being configured to releasably engage a closure in a snap-fitting manner to close the aperture, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). Maris discloses the claimed lip and is capable of being used to releasably engage the lip with a closure in a snap-fitting manner to close the aperture.
In regards to a particular structure comprising the lid for closing the aperture and allowing gas to be introduced into the container, Gibson teaches a container for dispensing a beverage comprising: a lid (12, 42, 50) for closing an aperture and allowing gas to be introduced into the container through an input valve (20) in the lid (Fig. 10); an output valve (88, Fig. 10-depiction of common faucet like also disclosed in US 5794823 and US 7178699) for dispensing the beverage from the container, the output valve attachable to a tube (76) positionable in the container (Fig. 8), wherein the lid comprises the input valve and the output valve and wherein the lid and tube constitute a “fitting” as claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of Maris, to modify Maris according to the aforementioned teachings from Gibson to provide the pneumatic means for unloading the contents from the container.
In regards to the limitation requiring the aperture to be elliptical, Cornelius teaches a container comprising a spout having an elliptical aperture and a handle operated lid closure (Col. 2, ¶ 3) having an elliptical shape complementing the aperture (Col. 2, ¶ 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Maris-Gibson combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Cornelius for reasons including to provide a handle operated lid closure.
The Maris-Gibson-Cornelius combination does not explicitly disclose milk stored in the container can be dispensed under pressure. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). Further, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP §2115. In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Maris-Gibson-Cornelius combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being using to dispense milk from the container, under pressure.
As per claims 2-4, the Maris-Gibson-Cornelius combination discloses the claimed structure except for the particular size of the container. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have formed the container according to the claimed parameters since it has been generally held that where the structural limitations of a claim have been disclosed, the mere change in shape and/or size is considered to be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Furthermore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to form the container according the claimed parameters, depending on variables such as the capacity of the container and a desired fit between the container and adjacent structure (i.e. cabinet). Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result (see MPEP §2144.05(III)). More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. In re Dreyfus, 22 CCPA (Patents) 830, 73 F.2d 931, 24 USPQ 52; In re Waite et al., 35 CCPA (Patents) 1117, 168 F.2d 104, 77 USPQ 586. Such ranges are termed "critical" ranges, and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 30 CCPA (Patents) 809, 132 F.2d 1020, 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 33 CCPA (Patents) 1193, 156 F.2d 72, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 22 CCPA (Patents) 1313, 77 F.2d 627, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normann et al., 32 CCPA (Patents) 1248, 150 F.2d 627, 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 32 CCPA (Patents) 1259, 150 F.2d 705, 66 USPQ 314.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3474843 to Maris in view of US 9919910 to Gibson in view of US 3076576 to Cornelius as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3905522 to Johnston.
As per claim 9, Maris further discloses each downwardly extending foot defines a well in a bottom interior surface of the container in which contents can collect (Fig. 4a-5), and from which contents can be extracted. Maris does not disclose contents being extracted from each well via the tube. Johnston teaches a distal end of the tube arranged in a recess formed in a bottom interior surface of a container (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to further modify the Maris-Gibson-Cornelius combination set forth with regard to claim 1 according to the aforementioned teachings from Johnston to extract contents collected in the wells of Maris for reasons including to prevent waste.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3474843 to Maris in view of US 9919910 to Gibson in view of US 3076576 to Cornelius as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10099822 to Slattery.
As per claim 10, the Maris-Gibson-Cornelius combination discloses the claimed invention except for internal surface of the container being sloped towards the aperture. Slattery teaches a container comprising an internal surface slope towards the aperture to facility drainage (Col. 6 , ln. 4-7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Maris-Gibson-Cornelius combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Slattery to similarly facilitate drainage through the aperture. The Maris-Gibson-Cornelius-Slattery combination does not explicitly disclose the sloped internal surface functioning to “facilitate cleaning of the container through the aperture”. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Maris-Gibson-Cornelius-Slattery combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used as claimed, i.e. such that the sloped internal surface functions to “facilitate cleaning of the container through the aperture”.
Response To Arguments
In regards to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 issued in the final office action dated 04/07/26, the amendment filed 07/07/26 appropriately addresses all except for that maintained herein with regard to “an indent”.
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, the remarks have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the claim rejections by providing the following arguments:
Maris does not disclose a circumferentially extending lip configured to releasably engage a closure in a snap-fitting manner to close the aperture.
Maris does not disclose the aperture being elliptical.
In response to (A), the claim requires merely that the circumferentially extending lip be “configured to” releasably engage a closure in “a snap-fitting manner” to close the aperture. As previously set forth, Maris a circumferentially extending lip (6) and in regards to the lip being configured to releasably engage a closure in a snap-fitting manner to close the aperture, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). Maris discloses the claimed lip and is capable of being used to releasably engage the lip with a closure in a snap-fitting manner to close the aperture.
In response to (B), and previously set forth, Cornelius teaches a container comprising a spout having an elliptical aperture and a handle operated lid closure (Col. 2, ¶ 3) having an elliptical shape complementing the aperture (Col. 2, ¶ 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Maris-Gibson combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Cornelius for reasons including to provide a handle operated lid closure.
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).
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 with expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights