DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 in response to Office Action 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Applicant argues that primary prior art Bostrom does not explicitly teach shown container 14 because Bostrom discloses “Essentially, the tub 14 does not constitute a part of the invention, but is merely shown in use with the present invention” (page 7 first half). Examiner disagrees, pointing out it is used. Further explained, while Bostrom may not point out details of the container 14 being that it’s not explicitly part of the invention of the patent, it is disclosed and clearly shown used, so is explicitly taught.
Applicant argues that Bostrom is not able to stack container 14 in container 10 as claimed because container 14 is too wide, and container 11 with cover 13 would block stacking (page 7 first half, page 8 paras 1-2 and 4, page 9 paras 1-2, page 10 para 1). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that secondary prior art Smith teaches the stacking, rendering the argument to be piecemeal analysis. Examiner notes generally speaking that stacking identical containers is pretty common for the purpose of ease of transport and storage, and Bostrom’s pieces are all removable from each other. Applicant argues Smith does not teach the stepped portions for stacking (page 8 para 3). However no evidence is supplied so examiner cannot respond to the allegation.
Applicant argues stacking identical containers is hindsight (page 9 para last). Examiner disagrees, pointing out Smith teaches stacking identical containers.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, “The double-walled resin container of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of the outer containers; a plurality of the inner containers” is untrue. Claim 1 already limits “the double-walled resin container” to one outer container and one inner container forming each wall of the double wall. So claim 8 is equivalent to saying “the container comprises multiple of itself” which is impossible. Applicant’s intent appears to be toward multiple double-wall containers in a stacked system to positively claim multiple containers as opposed to the current functional language capability of doing so through stacking (Applicant Fig 5a). Regardless, Smith’s modification analysis reads on the claim as written and the intent in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by US Pat 3070275 issued to Bostrom (hereinafter “Bostrom”) in view of US Pub 20030029876 by Giraud (hereinafter “Giraud”) in view of US Pub 20050115975 by Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith”) in view of US Pat 6598786 issued to Guo (hereinafter “Guo”) in view of US Pat 3456860 issued to Janninck (hereinafter “Janninck”).
Regarding claim 1, Bostrom teaches a double-walled resin container (Fig 1, col 2, lines 55-57, “resinous material”) comprising:
an outer container (see examiner annotated Bostrom Figure 2, hereinafter “EAFB2”; EAFB2, outer container) and having a tapered shape in which an upper surface is opened, a bottom surface is closed, and a diameter is reduced from an upper surface side to a bottom surface side (is a tapered cup shape (meaning diameter reduces from upper to bottom) with open upper surface top and closed bottom); and
an inner container (EAFB2, inner container, is tub 10) made of resin (col 2, lines 51-57, “tub 10” is of “resinous material”) and inserted into the outer container from the upper surface side (inner container shown inserted into/through the top upper side of the outer container), the double-walled resin container including a heat insulating space in a gap between the outer container and the inner container (EAFB2, heat insulating space gap), wherein the outer container and the inner container are each molded by a biaxial stretch blow method (examiner notes this is a product by process claim, so the type of molding does not apply to this apparatus claim. MPEP 2113.),
the inner container has at least one engagement protrusion extending in a circumferential direction (EAFB2, protrusion), the outer container has an engagement groove extending in the circumferential direction and engaging with the at least one engagement protrusion (EAFB2, groove with outward bulge, engages protrusion);
PNG
media_image1.png
644
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Bostrom does not explicitly teach that the outer container is resin material.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bostrom’s a resin container (above) before them before the effective filing date, to make the outer container of resin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Bostrom does not explicitly teach the engagement protrusion surrounding some but not all of the inner container.
Giraud, however, teaches a similar double walled cup comprising:
at least one engagement protrusion surrounding some but not all of the inner container (Fig 2B, [0030], an engagement protrusion is comprised of at least some gapped ribs 26. Said another way, at least one gap in rib 26);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engagement protrusion of the inner container of Bostrom to not completely surround the inner container as taught by Giraud in order to beneficially reinforce the inner container against premature removal from jostling, wherein “The vertical ribs [26] assist in… preventing the inner cup from being pulled out of the outer cup… by a compression fit” (Giraud, [0030], since the plurality includes the gap, the gap causes this benefit as well).
But Bostrom/Giraud does not explicitly teach a stepped surface on the inner container for stacking.
Smith, however, teaches a similar double walled cup comprising:
a stepped surface formed in a side wall of the inner container to define an inner ledge to receive a bottom surface of a second outer container stacked within the inner container (see examiner annotated Smith Figure 6, hereinafter “EAFS6”; EAFS6, stepped surface, of a first container’s inner container receives a stacked second container within, each container having an outer and inner container, all shown adjacent to one another);
PNG
media_image2.png
692
693
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner container of Bostrom with a stepped surface as taught by Smith in order to beneficially stack similar containers with improved strength from the reinforcing shape of the step, and allow more containers to stack vertically which beneficially saves horizontal storage space.
But Bostrom/Giraud/Smith does not explicitly teach spacers in the inner container side wall.
Guo, however, teaches a similar double walled cup comprising:
an inner container includes: a first spacer portion proximate to a top of the inner container that protrudes toward the outer container and holds the heat insulating space to thereby suppress wobble between the inner container and the outer container proximate the top of the inner container (see examiner annotated Guo Figure 3, hereinafter “EAFG3”; EAFG3, first spacer, is proximate a top of an inner container “inner cup 1” and protrudes toward an outer container “outer cup 3”); and a second spacer portion adjacent (under broadest reasonable interpretation, “adjacent” includes meaning all elements are adjacent one another) the stepped surface that protrudes toward the outer container and holds the heat insulating space to thereby suppress wobble between the inner container and the outer container proximate a bottom of the inner container (EAFG3, second spacer, together with the first spacer holds a heat insulating space in between them, and is shown capable of suppressing wobble between 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
493
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner container of Bostrom with spacers as taught by Guo in order to beneficially “stabilize said inner cup in said outer cup” (Guo, Abstract/claim 1) versus jostling or shifting during assembly, and advantageously bolster the inner container wall strength against bursting from heavier contents inside versus the otherwise free hanging position of Bostrom’s inner container.
But Bostrom/Giraud/Smith/Guo does not explicitly teach the concept of combining all the above cited structural elements.
Janninck, however, discloses an outer container having a groove/bulge (Figs 1 & 3, 42) and an inner container with a protrusion to engage the groove (36), wherein the inner container has spacers (at least two other 36) and a stepped surface (32) for stacking a second similar container inserted in a top of a first container (shown), with a heat insulating gap between containers (28) thereby also capable of suppressing wobble (shown), and both containers are tapered (shown) and made of “polystyrene” which is a resin material (col 2, lines 4-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have conceived of piecing together the references above, having Janninck conceive of having the elements together thereby avoiding sequential hindsight construction of Bostrom/Giraud/Smith/Guo.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claim invention via having Bostrom’s groove/outward bulge of the outer container and protrusion of the inner container, with Giraud’s gap to make the protrusion of Bostrom surround some but not all of the inner container, placing the stepped surface of Smith in the inner container of Bostrom which allows stacking a second similar container to the first container with its Bostrom’s bulge height being not in but above the inner container of the first container, and placing the two spacers of Guo in the inner container of Bostrom that thereby contact Bostrom’s outer container, wherein all these elements are obvious to combine due to all of them being present in Janninck.
Regarding claim 4, Bostrom further teaches the inner container (EAFB2, inner container) includes, at an upper end, a flange portion having an annular shape and projecting radially outward, and an upper end of the outer container contacts a lower surface of the flange portion (EAFB2, radial annular flange is a flange portion, shown outward at an upper end of the inner container, and its lower surface contacting an upper end of the outer container).
Regarding claim 6, Bostrom further teaches the engagement groove is partially defined by an outward bulge in an outer wall of the outer container (EAFB2, groove is at least partially defined by an outward bulge/bulging of an outer container outer wall/surface (i.e. the groove inseparably forms the bulge)).
Regarding claim 7, Bostrom/Giraud/Smith/Guo/Janninck further teaches the outward bulge has a diameter larger than a diameter of a top of the inner container (EAFB2, larger diameter, as shown) such that when the second outer container is stacked within the inner container the outward bulge does not enter the inner container (EAFS6 which shows a first and a second container arrangement, utilizing the containers of Bostrom, shows that the bulge (of the second Bostrom container nested in) does not enter the inner container (of the first Bostrom container at base)). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 8, Bostrom/Giraud/Smith/Guo/Janninck further teaches a plurality of the outer containers; a plurality of the inner containers; and the plurality of the outer containers and the plurality of the inner containers being alternatively arranged in a common stack to create a plurality of adjacent pairs of one of the inner containers and one of the outer containers (EAFS6, stepped surface, of a first container’s inner container receives a stacked second container within, each container having an outer and inner container, all shown adjacent to one another). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights