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 .
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are presented for examination.
Claims 8 and 16-30 have been withdrawn.
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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voelker (US 20120312813) in view of Kuhar et al. (US 9,637,302).
In re claim 1: Voelker discloses an integrated liquid container system 200 including a housing 202 and a liquid delivery container 104/204, comprising:
the housing 202, the housing 202 comprising:
a housing top portion 210 comprising a neck aperture 220,
a housing bottom portion 112 opposite the housing top portion 210, and
a housing body portion 208 extending between the housing top portion 220 and the housing bottom portion and defining a housing inner cavity, wherein the housing body portion 208 comprises a first surface 208a and at least one aperture 226 extending through the first surface of the housing body portion 208; and
the liquid delivery container 104/204 comprising:
a container top portion (top of 104/204) comprising a neck 150 having a length,
a container bottom portion (bottom of 104/204) opposite the container top portion, and
a container body portion (portion between the top and bottom surface of 104/204) extending between the container top portion and the container bottom portion to define a container inner cavity configured to store liquid, the liquid delivery container 104/204 being configured to be received within the housing inner cavity such that the neck aperture 220 of the housing top portion 210 circumferentially extends around the neck 150 of the container top portion , and the container top portion, the container bottom portion, and the container body portion each comprising a thermoplastic polymer (See [0092], lines 1-3, rigid high-density polyethylene (HDPE) of Voelker),
wherein the housing bottom portion 112 comprises a pouring aperture 138 (see figures 13 and 18 below of Voelker).
Voelker discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Kuhar et al.:
Kuhar et al. teaches the provision of an integrated liquid container system including a housing 195 with a housing bottom portion (FIG.7) and a liquid delivery container 100, wherein the housing bottom portion comprises a plurality of bottom flaps (the four flaps make up the bottom portion) and a pouring aperture 197, wherein the pouring aperture 197 is defined by at least three flaps (see FIG.7 of Kuhar et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the housing bottom panel and pouring aperture of Voelker with the four flaps and aperture as taught by Kuhar et al. in order to have quick access to the bottom of the container and to assist in holding the container when pouring (see FIG.7 and Col.5, ln.53- Col.6, ln.11 of Kuhar et al.).
Voelker further discloses:
In re claim 2: the housing top portion 210, the housing bottom portion 112, and the housing body portion 208 comprise corrugated cardboard (see [0056] of Voelker).
In re claim 3: the neck comprises: a neck top portion comprising a support ring and a threaded portion, and a neck bottom portion comprising a straight portion below the support ring; and the integrated liquid container system further comprises: a cap 152 that is selectively attachable to and detachable from the neck top portion, wherein (i) when the cap 152 is configured to be attached to the neck top portion by engagement with the threaded portion, the liquid delivery container 104/204 is in a closed state, and (ii) when the cap 152 is detached from the neck top portion, the liquid delivery container 104/204 in an open state, and a container handle 156 proximate to the neck bottom portion (see annotated figures 12 and 13 of Voelker below).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
1131
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 4: the container bottom portion comprises a pouring indent, and optionally the pouring indent (see figures 13 and 18 below) at least partially faces the pouring aperture 138 (see [0063] and figure 9 and figures 13 and 18 below of Voelker).
In re claim 5: the housing top portion 210 further comprises a first handle aperture 222/272 (see figure 20 of Voelker).
In re claim 6: the housing body portion 208/908 comprises: a second surface 908d; and a second handle aperture 926 extending through the second surface of the housing body portion 208/908 (see figure 27 of Voelker).
In re claim 7: the neck 150 comprises a first surface (top rim surface) having a substantially constant circumference such that an outermost portion of the first surface of the neck 150 is equidistant from a center axis of the neck 150; and the first surface of the neck 150 is structured without protuberances (the top surface rim is a flat surface) extending circumferentially therefrom (see figures 16 and 17 of Voelker).
In re claim 9: the at least one aperture 226 is provided proximate to a plurality of indicia indicating a fill level (see level line indicia in figure 20 of Voelker).
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) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voelker (US 20120312813) in view of Kuhar et al. (US 9,637,302) and in further view of Ferrari (US 2016/0207242). Voelker in view of Kuhar et al. teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following limitations that are taught by Ferrari:
In re claim 10: the thermoplastic polymer has an intrinsic viscosity of about 0.70 dl/g to about 0.90 dl/g (see [0138] and [0160] of Ferrari).
In re claim 11: the thermoplastic polymer has a melting temperature in a range of about 230°C to about 270°C (see [0139] and [0161] of Ferrari).
In re claim 13: the thermoplastic polymer comprises bioplastics, co-polymers, or combinations thereof (see table 1 of Ferrari).
In re claim 14: the thermoplastic polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), poly lactic acid (PLA), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and combinations thereof (see [0097] and [0171] of Ferrari).
In re claim 15: the thermoplastic polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (see [0097] and [0171] of Ferrari).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the thermoplastic material of the liquid delivery container of Voelker in view of Kuhar et al. with the thermoplastic material as taught by Ferrari in order to provide a durable and compatible material with the liquid being stored within the container ( see [0148]-[0178] of Ferrari). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Voelker in view of Kuhar et al. and in view of Ferrari further teach:
In re claim 12: the thermoplastic polymer further comprises a b* value of a CIEL*a*b* color measurement of the thermoplastic polymer (see [0175] of Ferrari).
Voelker in view of Kuhar et al. and in view of Ferrari further teach the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of a color measurement of the thermoplastic polymer of about -3.5 to about 2.5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a color measurement of the thermoplastic polymer of about -3.5 to about 2.5, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the prior rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735