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 .
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Bob Curcio on 9/10/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 19-23 have been cancelled.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward 4,026,801 in view of Chen et al. CN 111847586.
Claims 1 and 6, Ward teaches a container comprising: a container housing (15) comprising a base with vertically extending sidewalls forming a sump, and a tank retainer disposed on the base within the sump, the tank retainer comprising a tank platform (portion within 24) and a plurality of raised circumferential sidewalls (24) surrounding the tank platform and connected at a lower end to the tank platform, the tank retainer is asymmetrically positioned about the base and adjacent one of the vertically extending sidewalls such that the tank retainer limits movement of a media bottle (23) within the sump, and each of the plurality of raised circumferential sidewalls extends from the base a height, the raised sidewalls are not adjacent to the one of the vertically extending sidewalls of the container housing, such that one of the plurality of raised circumferential sidewalls is sufficiently low as to not contact a sidewall of the media bottle upon insertion (fig. 1-6). Ward does not teach the circumferential sidewalls include a arched section extending between coping sections.
Chen teaches a container comprising: a container housing (1) comprising a base with vertically extending sidewalls forming a sump, and a tank retainer disposed on the base within the sump (see below), the tank retainer comprising a tank platform and a plurality of raised circumferential sidewalls surrounding the tank platform and connected at a lower end to the tank platform, wherein each of the plurality of raised circumferential sidewalls further include an arched section extending between coping sections of the plurality of raised circumferential sidewalls (see below), the tank retainer is asymmetrically positioned about the base and adjacent one of the vertically extending sidewalls such that the tank retainer is capable of limiting movement of a media bottle (3) within the sump, and wherein one of the plurality of raised circumferential sidewalls extends from the base to a first height and another of the plurality of raised circumferential sidewalls extending from the base to a second height and a third raised sidewall extending from the base to a third height (fig. 1-10). The recitation of arched sections between coping sections of the raised circumferential sidewalls is a recitation of the use of a tank retainer shape of Chen in place of the tank retainer of Ward. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Each tank retainer is used to hold the bottle in place within the container and substituting one for the other would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ward clearly teaches that the height of the circumferential sidewalls do not need to contact a sidewall of the media bottle in order to provide support to the media bottle within the container.
Chen does not teach the 1st, 2nd and 3rd heights being different. The recitation of the heights being different is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the apparatus. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984). The presently filed specification does not teach or suggest that the recited difference in heights of the circumferential sidewalls provides any benefit or advantage and is rather an optional feature as detailed in the previous office action.
PNG
media_image1.png
543
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-3, Chen further teaches the tank retainer is sized to receive a bottom end of the media bottle and comprises a convex structure complementary to the media bottle bottom end (fig. 1, 7-8, pg. 3 last paragraph); the tank platform includes an opening and a bottom end of the media bottle extends into a portion of the opening of the tank platform (1, 7-8, pg. 5 last paragraph).
Claim 7, Ward further teaches the tank retainer is made of the same material as the container which is plastic (abstract) and therefore the tank retainer would be made of a plastic material which is inherently resilient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-11, 13, 15-18 and 24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 8 has been amended to recite subject matter similar to the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 14 and is allowable for the same reasons as indicated in the previous office action of 9/15/25.
Claim 11 has been amended to incorporate the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 14 with all intervening claims and is allowable for the same reasons as indicated in the previous office action of 9/15/25.
New claim 24 includes the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 8 and is allowable for the same reasons as claim 8.
The additional claims are allowable as depending from one of the above claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights