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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, Applicant now provides new matter “wherein the plurality of liquid apertures are smaller than spaces of the pad body disposed between the plurality of liquid apertures”. Applicant does not clearly provide the above in Applicant’s drawings as the space is the same size of the apertures. Further, Applicant fails to disclose the above in Applicant’s written portion of Applicant’s original specification and therefore Applicant has included impermissible new matter that must be removed.
Claims 2-5 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
In claim 1, Applicant now provides new matter “wherein the plurality of liquid apertures are smaller than spaces of the pad body disposed between the plurality of liquid apertures”. Applicant does not clearly provide the above in Applicant’s drawings as the space is the same size of the apertures. Further, Applicant fails to disclose the above in Applicant’s written portion of Applicant’s original specification and therefore Applicant has included impermissible new matter that must be removed. In addition to the above, Applicant fails to include what dimension of the aperture with respect to what dimension of a space. Claims 2-5 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavenberg (US 4630739 A) in view of Condit (US 1085022 A).
Lavenberg discloses:
1. A container liner (figs 1-12) to be disposed within a container (Capable of performing the above intended use), the container liner comprising: at least one pad (Adjacent 11), comprising: a pad body to receive at least one food item thereon (body surface of 11 capable of performing the above intended use), , the pad body having a flat rectangular shape (as in figs 1, 2) and configured to be disposed on an interior surface within the container (capable of performing the above intended use), at least one protruding edge disposed on at least a portion of a first edge of the pad body (edge in fig 9 such as at bottom of figure), at least one protrusion receiving edge disposed on at least a portion of a second edge of the pad body (edge adjacent 40), and a plurality of liquid apertures disposed on at least a portion of the pad body to facilitate movement of at least one liquid therethrough (holes within device as shown in fig 9); a divider detachably connected to the at least one protrusion receiving edge to prevent mixing of at least one first food item with at least one second food item (adjacent 11); with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Condit: a plurality of pegs disposed on at least a portion of the pad body to elevate the pad body above an interior surface within the container (Adjacent C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lavenberg in view of Condit (by providing the above elements) in order to elevate the device as to improve upon air and liquid flow and also provide a cleaner environment for the device.
With respect to the shape of the apertures being a circle, the Office notes that changing one to shape to that of circle is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as for example to accommodate an item of a particular shape such as a cylinder. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of because it has been held that a change in shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, inasmuch as Applicant discloses the new amendment to “wherein the plurality of liquid apertures are smaller than spaces of the pad body disposed between the plurality of liquid apertures” the prior art also discloses the above. Further, it is well known in the art to provide the above spacing in order to accommodate in an item of a particular size and shape.
The Combined Reference discloses:
2. The container liner of claim 1, wherein the pad body at least partially expands in response to an application of force thereto (Lavenberg provide a device to flexes and therefore partially expand, abstract). Though not required, the Office merely notes to expedite prosecution for Applicant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
3. The container liner of claim 1, wherein the at least one protruding edge has a size that is narrower with respect to a remainder of the pad body (Lavenberg as shown in fig 9, where size narrows on the outside portion).
4. The container liner of claim 1, wherein the at least one protrusion receiving edge detachably connects to at least one protruding edge of at least one other pad (Lavenberg as in fig 9).
5. The container liner of claim 1, wherein the pad body is constructed of a slippery liquid-infused porous surface to prevent the at least one liquid from remaining thereon (device is porous as the device includes apertures in Lavenberg and liquid is able to pass or slip through).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavenberg (US 4630739 A) in view of Condit (US 1085022 A) and Forbes (624005).
Lavenberg discloses:
1. A container liner (figs 1-12) to be disposed within a container (Capable of performing the above intended use), the container liner comprising: at least one pad (Adjacent 11), comprising: a pad body to receive at least one food item thereon (body surface of 11 capable of performing the above intended use), , the pad body having a flat rectangular shape (as in figs 1, 2) and configured to be disposed on an interior surface within the container (capable of performing the above intended use), at least one protruding edge disposed on at least a portion of a first edge of the pad body (edge in fig 9 such as at bottom of figure), at least one protrusion receiving edge disposed on at least a portion of a second edge of the pad body (edge adjacent 40), and a plurality of liquid apertures disposed on at least a portion of the pad body to facilitate movement of at least one liquid therethrough (holes within device as shown in fig 9); a divider detachably connected to the at least one protrusion receiving edge to prevent mixing of at least one first food item with at least one second food item (adjacent 11); with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Condit: a plurality of pegs disposed on at least a portion of the pad body to elevate the pad body above an interior surface within the container (Adjacent C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lavenberg in view of Condit (by providing the above elements) in order to elevate the device as to improve upon air and liquid flow and also provide a cleaner environment for the device.
With respect to the shape of the apertures being a circle, the Office notes that changing one to shape to that of circle is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as for example to accommodate an item of a particular shape such as a cylinder. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of because it has been held that a change in shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, inasmuch as Applicant discloses the new amendment to “wherein the plurality of liquid apertures are smaller than spaces of the pad body disposed between the plurality of liquid apertures” the prior art also discloses the above. Further, it is well known in the art to provide the above spacing in order to accommodate in an item of a particular size and shape.
If there is any question to the above, in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that Forbes discloses similar art with respect to liners comprising pad, pad body of rectangular shape and also discloses apertures that are circular and that apertures are smaller than spaces of the pad body disposed between the apertures (as in fig 5 for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference (by changing the shape and sizing of the apertures and spaces) in order to accommodate items of a particular size and shape in manner that the apertures enhance the locating and steadying of the intended contents.
The Combined Reference discloses:
2. The container liner of claim 1, wherein the pad body at least partially expands in response to an application of force thereto (Lavenberg provide a device to flexes and therefore partially expand, abstract). Though not required, the Office merely notes to expedite prosecution for Applicant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
3. The container liner of claim 1, wherein the at least one protruding edge has a size that is narrower with respect to a remainder of the pad body (Lavenberg as shown in fig 9, where size narrows on the outside portion).
4. The container liner of claim 1, wherein the at least one protrusion receiving edge detachably connects to at least one protruding edge of at least one other pad (Lavenberg as in fig 9).
5. The container liner of claim 1, wherein the pad body is constructed of a slippery liquid-infused porous surface to prevent the at least one liquid from remaining thereon (device is porous as the device includes apertures in Lavenberg and liquid is able to pass or slip through).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and a new rejection has been made.
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 ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735