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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants that Manderfield doesn’t teach the claim amendments of the spherical polygons defined by a tiling in which a surface is divided by arcs into bounds. However, drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). In this case, as depicted in annotated in Fig. 2 below clearly depicts a tiling of special polygons bounded by arcs since the surfaces are curves so would be the arcs that bound them. Further delineation is needed to adequately define the prior art from the claimed invention.
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) 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manderfield, Jr. (US 2021/0261303 A1), and further in view of Ring et al. (US Patent No 10,093,444).
Re: Claim 1, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including a container comprising:
a top wall (202) (Depicted in Fig. 2);
a spout (112) extending from the top wall (Figs. 2 & 5);
a flange (210) including a first end that engages the top wall and an opposite second end (Fig. 2);
a handle (108) having a first end that engages the spout and an opposite second end that engages the second end of the flange (Depicted in Fig. 5);
a bottom wall (204) (Depicted in Fig. 2); and
a plurality of sidewalls (218) defining a plurality of side corners, each of the side corners including a top corner (Depicted in Fig. 1), at least one of the sidewalls including at least two longitudinal ribs (220) (Depicted in Fig. 5) except for ribs being spaced apart from the corners. However, Ring teaches ribs (110) along said corners and additional longitudinal ribs (80) being spaced apart from the side corners (Fig. 7);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include ribs spaced apart from the corners of the container as taught by Ring, since Ring states in column 5, lines 26-27 that such a modification provides additional support to the container.
wherein at least one of the top corners has a plurality of spherical polygons including at least a first spherical polygon having a first radius of curvature contiguous with a second spherical polygon having a second radius of curvature, the spherical polygons each being defined by a tiling of a sphere in which a surface is divided by arcs into bounded regions. (Annotated Fig. 2 depicts top corners having first and second spherical polygons, polygons depicted as tiling divided by arcs into bounded regions).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: Claim 2, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including the plurality of spherical polygons includes at least one four-sided polygon (Depicted in Annotated Figure above)
Re: Claim 3, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including the plurality of spherical polygons includes at least one three-sided polygon (Depicted in Annotated Figure above).
Re: Claim 4, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including the first spherical polygon comprises a four-sided polygon and the second spherical polygon comprises a three-sided polygon (Depicted in Annotated Figure above).
Re: Claim 5 and 19, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention except for specifying radius curvatures. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Manderfield with a first spherical polygon having four sides and a radius of curvature of 0.75, a second spherical polygon having four sides and a radius of curvature of 1.10, and a third spherical polygon having three sides and a radius of curvature of 1.00. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular radius of curvature (see Specification wherein a wide range of radius of curvatures may be selected) and it appears that the device of Manderfield would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of radius of curvatures.
Re: Claim 7, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention except for specifying radius curvatures. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Manderfield with including the first spherical polygon includes a first portion having a radius of curvature of 0.60 and a second portion having a radius of curvature of 0.75. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular radius of curvature (see Specification wherein a wide range of radius of curvatures may be selected) and it appears that the device of Manderfield would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of radius of curvatures.
Re: Claim 8, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including a longitudinal axis, the first spherical polygon having a first radius of curvature relative to the longitudinal axis and the second spherical polygon having a second radius of curvature relative to the longitudinal axis (Depicted in Annotated Fig. 2).
Re: Claim 9, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including a substantially rectangular cross section and including a first top corner, a second top corner, a third top corner and a fourth top corner (Depicted in Fig. 6 with four corners and substantially rectangular).
Re: Claims 11 and 16, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including longitudinal ribs (220) disposed adjacent the side corners and longitudinal ribs (212) disposed adjacent the bottom wall (Depicted in Fig. 5).
Re: Claim 12 and 17, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention except for specifying radius curvatures. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Manderfield at least one of the radius of curvature is a radius of curvature selected in a range of 0.25 through 1.50. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular radius of curvature (see Specification wherein a wide range of radius of curvatures may be selected) and it appears that the device of Manderfield would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of radius of curvatures.
Re: Claim 13, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including a spout (112) extending from the top wall and a handle (108) extending from the spout, the handle being in fluid communication with the spout and including a transverse grip portion (Fig. 5-7, grip portion connects right into the spout for fluid communication).
Re: Claim 14, the rejections from claims 1 and 9 above cover the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 18, the rejection from claim 1 covers the limitations recited in this claim, and further Manderfield discloses a box (16) comprising a top cover, a bottom cover and connected sidewalls defining an interior cavity configured for disposal of the container (Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 20, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including the top cover defines an opening (114) configured to provide access to a spout (112) of the container (104) (Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 21, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including each of the sidewalls includes at least two longitudinal ribs (Depicted in Fig. 5).
Re: Claim 22, Manderfield discloses the claimed invention including a proximal surface of the spout is positioned at a proximal surface of the handle (Depicted in Fig. 5) except for expressly above. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to extend a spout surface to be above a handle surface, since it has been held where 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manderfield, Jr. (US 2021/0261303 A1) and Ring et al. (US Patent No 10,093,444) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dygert (US 2008/0073317 A1).
Re: Claim 6, Manderfield teaches the first polygon, the second polygon and at least one additional 4-sided polygon on a first corner as depicted in annotated fig. 2 below except for said four-sided polygon defining a planar surface. However, Dygert teaches a first top corner includes a four-sided polygon defining a planar outer surface (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 planar surface as taught by Dygert, 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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