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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,588,612 B1 to Dorn et al. (“Dorn”) in view of U.S. PGPUB 2013/0292287 A1 to Stanley et al. (“Stanley”).
This figure, now referred to as Dorn annotated Fig. 2A, used for the rejection of claims 1-20 has been replicated below, and the Examiner has added reference points for ease of explanation, and said reference points will be used for the rejection of claims 1-20 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
688
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Dorn teaches a plastic container, comprising: a base (bottom portion 14); a body having two opposing sides (side walls 16 and 20), at least one of the two opposing sides including a plurality of panels (planar panels, Dorn annotated Fig. 2A); and an opening (pouring spout 24) for filling and/or dispensing; wherein, viewed from a side view, a collective surface area of the plurality of panels on the at least one of the two opposing sides comprises at least 0.70 of a total surface area of the at least one of the two opposing sides with the plurality of panels (Dorn annotated Fig. 2A shows the plurality of planar panels covers at least 0.70 of a total surface area of the side wall); but does not teach the plurality of panels configured for digital printing and at least two of the plurality of panels on the at least one of the two opposing sides including surface portions that are substantially planar to facilitate controlled offset distances for digital printing.
Stanley teaches the plurality of panels (decoration panel 103) configured for digital printing (Stanley, pg. 16, ¶ 0231) and at least two of the plurality of panels on the at least one of the two opposing sides including surface portions that are substantially planar to facilitate controlled offset distances for digital printing (Stanley, pg. 19, ¶ 0253). Stanley teaches digital printing on the decoration panels 103 that are surrounded by the longitudinally outboard 113 to control where the digital printing can occur.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the digital printing of Stanley with the container as taught by Dorn to provide a container with one or more decorative embellishments that comprise indicia (Stanley, pg. 16-17, ¶ 0233).
As to claim 2, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the plurality of panels comprises at least 0.90 of the total surface area of the at least one of the two opposing sides with the plurality of panels.
Dorn discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of panels comprises at least 0.90 of the total surface area of the at least one of the two opposing sides with the plurality of panels. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the panels cover at least 0.90 of the total surface area of the at least one of the two opposing sides with the plurality of panels to allow for a larger area for the plastic containers to nest together, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
As to claim 3, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of panels include surface portions that extend inwardly or outwardly to different radial extents or offset distances (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the depression 34 extends inwardly and the protrusion 36 extends outwardly).
As to claim 4, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, including a land (rib 52) or a projection disposed between adjacent panels of the plurality of panels.
As to claim 5, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 4, wherein the land or the projection projects inwardly (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the ribs 52 project inwardly) or outwardly.
As to claim 6, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of panels extends radially outwardly to a different radial extent or offset distance than another of the plurality of panels (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the middle of the protrusion 36 extends outwardly more than the ends of the protrusion 36).
As to claim 7, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of panels includes a first portion and a second portion, and the first portion extends to a different radial extent or offset distance than the second portion (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the middle of the protrusion 36 extends outwardly more than the ends of the protrusion 36).
As to claim 8, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein the plurality of panels comprise at least three panels (Dorn annotated Fig. 2A shows at least three panels).
As to claim 9, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of panels is curvilinear in shape (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the depression 34 has a curvilinear shape).
As to claim 10, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein all of the plurality of panels are curvilinear in shape (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the depression 34 and the protrusion 36 have a curvilinear shape).
As to claim 11, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of panels is rectilinear in shape (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the depression 34 has a rectilinear shape).
As to claim 12, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein all of the plurality of panels are rectilinear in shape (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the depression 34 and the protrusion 36 have a rectilinear shape).
As to claim 13, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein each of the opposing sides includes a plurality of panels (Dorn Fig. 2A shows each of the opposing sides includes depressions 34 and protrusions 36).
As to claim 14, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 13, wherein the opposing sides are mirror images of each other (Dorn Fig. 2A shows each of the opposing sides includes depressions 34 and protrusions 36).
As to claim 15, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, including a handle (handle 26).
As to claim 16, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 15, wherein at least one of the plurality of panels includes a curvilinear portion (depression 34) or segment adjacent a portion of the plastic container that forms a portion of a handle opening (space 30).
As to claim 17, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 1, wherein the plastic container is comprised of one or more of the following: polypropylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high density polyethylene (HDPE), and low density polyethylene (LDPE) (Dorn, col. 4, lines 31-32).
As to claim 18, Dorn teaches a plastic container, comprising: a base (bottom portion 14); a body including a plurality of panels (depression 34 and protrusion 36); and an opening (pouring spout 24) for filling and/or dispensing; wherein, one or more of the plurality of panels include surface portions that extend inwardly or outwardly to different radial extents or offset distances (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the middle of the protrusions 36 extends outwardly more than the ends of the protrusion 36); a land (rib 52) or a projection is disposed between adjacent panels of the plurality of panels (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the ribs 52 are between the depression 34 and protrusion 36); one of the plurality of panels extends radially outwardly to a different radial extent or offset distance than another of the plurality of panels (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the middle of the protrusion 36 extends outwardly more than the ends of the protrusion 36); and the different radial extent or offset of the panels provide a tiered or multi-dimensional effect (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the different radial extent of the panels provide a multi-dimensional effect); but does not teach panels configured for digital printing.
Stanley teaches panels (decoration panel 103) configured for digital printing (Stanley, pg. 16, ¶ 0231).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the digital printing of Stanley with the container as taught by Dorn to provide a container with one or more decorative embellishments that comprise indicia (Stanley, pg. 16-17, ¶ 0233).
As to claim 19, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 18, wherein the land or the projection projects inwardly (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the ribs 52 project inwardly) or outwardly.
As to claim 20, Dorn modified by Stanley teaches the plastic container of claim 18, wherein at least one of the plurality of panels includes a first portion and a second portion, and the first portion extends to a different radial extent or offset distance than the second portion (Dorn Fig. 1 shows the middle of the protrusion 36 extends outwardly more than the ends of the protrusion 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference. Further, applicant argued that the protrusions and depressions taught by Dorn are not planar panels, and these features are not relied upon to teach the planar panels in the rejection above. Lastly, the annotated drawing and the rejection of claim 1 discuss how Dorn’s panels comprise at least 0.70 of a total surface area of the at least one of the two opposing sides with the plurality of panels.
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).
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 MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 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 at 571-270-5055. 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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 16 March 2026