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 Interpretation
Applicant uses the language configured and adapted of which does not require the elements that follow but merely capable of performing the above intended use. If Applicant, for example, would like to require a container, then Applicant should use clear language that positively recites an element such as - - comprises - -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4, 7-10, 13, 16-17, 20, 34-44 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 claims 1, 36, 43, Applicant now provides below it of which Applicant fails to make clear as to which element Applicant intends to refer to. Claims 4, 7-10, 13, 16-17, 20, 34-35, 37-42, 44 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
In claim 7, Applicant provides “it” of which Applicant fails to make clear as to which element Applicant intends to refer to.
In claim 44, Applicant now provides “one or more vertically extending aperture” of which Applicant has failed to make clear Applicant’s intent in the above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 15-17, 20, 34-39, 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ha (KR 20160090189 A).
The Office notes the 112 rejections above. Nevertheless, Ha discloses:
1. A protector device (figs 1-7) for beverage containers (capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), the protector device formed as a unitary component from a material (as in figs 1-7) comprising: a plurality of receptacles (elements that hold 2 such as adjacent 11), each of which is configured to receive and hold a respective container (capable of performing the above intended use, such as but not required adjacent 2; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), each receptacle forming or defining a generally cylindrical cavity for receiving and accommodating a body of the respective container (as in fig 3 capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes) and each receptacle having a base for supporting a bottom part of the container (lower end of device such as in fig 5 capable of performing the above intended use, as for example with another hypothetical container with a corresponding shape as in bottom of fig 5)
wherein each of the receptacles includes a band or sleeve of the material configured to extend around a circumference of the respective container (as shown in fig 3 for example where sleeve capable of performing the above intended use, as shown but not required in figs 2-4) to isolate the container at least partially from an impact or shock (material of device capable of performing the above intended use, such as protecting contents), the plurality of receptacles being connected with one another in an array to hold the containers together in a compact group (as shown by 4x1 array as in figs 1-7); and wherein an underside of the base of each receptacle includes an annular or ring- shaped recess configured to receive and nest with an upstanding rim of another respective container arranged below it in a stacked configuration (as shown in fig 5 and adjacent element 60; capable of performing the above intended use; as already provided above, the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes; the device for example could hold a two containers at each end that fit within the perimeter recess; further, device could also hold two containers at each end where the bottle next portion of the container fits within the element adjacent 30).
With respect to polymer, the prior art may be or may not be a polymer. The Office notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material to be a polymer in order to provide a very well known material provided for its benefits in cost, strength, durability, etc. Further, the Office notes that 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.
4. A protector device according to claim 1, wherein, each receptacle comprises one or more aperture that exposes part of a side of the respective container received and held by the receptacle, the aperture preferably being elongate and extending generally vertically along a side of the respective container received and held by the receptacle (Adjacent 40 capable of performing the above intended use).
7. A protector device according to claim 2 wherein the underside of the base of each receptacle includes a second recess arranged centrally of the annular or ring-shaped recess and configured to receive and/or nest with a top of another respective container arranged below it (the Office notes the 112 rejection above; adjacent 30 as already described above; capable of performing the above intended use).
8. A protector device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the plurality of receptacles are interconnected with one another in a rectangular array (as in fig 2).
16. A protector device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the material that is adapted to isolate the respective container from an impact or shock has a hardness in a range of 20 to 100 on the Shore 00 scale or in a range of 0-60 on the shore A scale. The Office notes that it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material to provide a desired level of protection such as the above range. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Even further, 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.
17. A protector device according to any one of claims 1 to 16 claim 1, wherein the protector device is moulded or 3D-printed as an integral or unitary component from a resilient polymer material. Claim is are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to moulded or 3d printed) and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Even further, 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.
20. A protector device according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of receptacles of the protector device are configured in one of: a 3 x 2 array for receiving and holding six cans or six bottles; or in a 2 x 2 array for receiving and holding four cans or four bottles (the Office notes that prior art discloses a 4x1 array; it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other arrays such as 3x2 or 2v2 in order to hold more contents and to hold a specific number of contents such as six or four; further the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
34. A set of protector devices for containers, wherein each protector device of the set is the protector device according to any one of the preceding claims claim 1. It is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple of the same item. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device because it has been held that the duplication of parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
35. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 1, wherein the polymer material has a material thickness in a range of about 3 mm to about 8 mm (the Office has already provided material above in claim 1, with respect to the above range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
36. (NEW) A protector device (figs 1-7) for beverage cans (capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), the protector device formed as a unitary component (as in figs 1-7) from a material and comprising: a plurality of receptacles (elements that hold 2 such as adjacent 11), each receptacle configured to receive and hold a respective can (capable of performing the above intended use, such as but not required adjacent 2; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), each receptacle forming or defining a generally cylindrical cavity for receiving and accommodating a body of the can (as in fig 3 capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes) and each receptacle having a base for supporting a bottom part of the can (lower end of device such as in fig 5 capable of performing the above intended use, as for example with another hypothetical container with a corresponding shape as in bottom of fig 5); wherein each of the receptacles includes a sleeve of the material configured to extend around a circumference of the can (as shown in fig 3 for example where sleeve capable of performing the above intended use, as shown but not required in figs 2-4) to isolate the can at least partially from an impact or shock (material of device capable of performing the above intended use, such as protecting contents), the plurality of receptacles being connected with one another in an array to hold the cans together in a compact group (as shown by 4x1 array as in figs 1-7); and wherein an underside of the base of each receptacle includes an annular or ring- shaped recess configured to receive and nest with an upstanding rim of another respective can arranged below it in a stacked configuration configuration (as shown in fig 5 and adjacent element 60; capable of performing the above intended use; as already provided above, the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes; the device for example could hold a two containers at each end that fit within the perimeter recess; further, device could also hold two containers at each end where the bottle next portion of the container fits within the element adjacent 30).
With respect to polymer, the prior art may be or may not be a polymer. The Office notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material to be a polymer in order to provide a very well known material provided for its benefits in cost, strength, durability, etc. Further, the Office notes that 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.
37. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, wherein each receptacle comprises one or more aperture in the sleeve of polymer material that exposes part of a side of the respective can received and held by the receptacle, wherein each aperture is elongate and extends generally vertically along a side of the can received and held by the receptacle (Adjacent 40 capable of performing the above intended use).
38. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, comprising six receptacles interconnected with one another in a unitary 3 x 2 rectangular array for receiving and holding six cans (the Office notes that prior art discloses a 4x1 array; it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other arrays such as 3x2 or 2v2 in order to hold more contents and to hold a specific number of contents such as six or four; further the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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).
39. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, comprising four receptacles interconnected with one another in a unitary 2 x 2 array for receiving and holding four cans (the Office notes that prior art discloses a 4x1 array; it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other arrays such as 3x2 or 2v2 in order to hold more contents and to hold a specific number of contents such as six or four; further the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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).
41. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, wherein the polymer material has a material thickness of at least one millimetre, preferably in a range of about 3 mm to about 8 mm (the Office has already provided material above in claim 1, with respect to the above range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
42. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, wherein the protector device is moulded from the polymer material. Claim is are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to moulded or 3d printed) and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Even further, 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.
43. (NEW) A protector device (figs 1-7) adapted for holding beverage cans during transport in a car refrigerator or cool box (capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), the protector device formed as a unitary component from a material (as in figs 1-7) and comprising: receptacles connected with one another in a rectangular array (such as with 4x1), each receptacle configured to receive and hold a respective can, each receptacle comprising a sleeve of the polymer material that forms or defines a generally cylindrical cavity for receiving and accommodating a body of the can (capable of performing the above intended use, such as but not required adjacent 2; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), the sleeve of the material being configured to extend around a circumference of the respective can to isolate the can at least partially from an impact or shock (as in figs 1-7 capable of performing the above intended use), and each receptacle having a base for supporting a bottom part of the can; wherein an underside of the base of each receptacle includes an annular or ring- shaped recess configured to receive and nest with an upstanding rim of another respective can arranged below it in a stacked configuration (lower end of device such as in fig 5 capable of performing the above intended use, as for example with another hypothetical container with a corresponding shape as in bottom of fig 5).
With respect to polymer, the prior art may be or may not be a polymer. The Office notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material to be a polymer in order to provide a very well known material provided for its benefits in cost, strength, durability, etc. Further, the Office notes that 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.
With respect to six and 3x2, the Office notes that prior art discloses a 4x1 array; it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other arrays such as 3x2 or 2v2 in order to hold more contents; further the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
44. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 43, wherein each receptacle comprises one or more vertically extending aperture in the sleeve of polymer material to expose part of a side of the can received and held by the receptacle, and/or wherein each receptacle includes one or more inwardly directed projection(s) for engaging or contacting a side of the can inserted into the respective receptacle (Adjacent 40 capable of performing the above intended use).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR 20160090189 A) as applied to claim 1, 36 above, and further in view of Ralph (US 20130068635 A1).
Ha discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Ralph: wherein each receptacle includes one or more inwardly directed projection(s) for engaging or contacting a side of a container inserted into the respective receptacle and wherein each receptacle includes a plurality of the inwardly directed projections spaced apart around a circumference of the receptacle for engaging or contacting a side of a container inserted into the respective receptacle, wherein each of the inwardly directed projections is formed as an elongate fin or rib or bead (elements adajcent 36 capable of performing the above intended use). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ha in view of Ralph (by providing the above elements to the receptacles) in order to provide the capability of attaching to containers of various sizes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Apps (US 20110056861 A1).
Ha discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Apps: wherein at least one gripping element is provided to facilitate carrying of the protector device when it accommodates containers, the at least one gripping element preferably formed as a recess or hole for insertion of a finger of a user during lifting or carrying (adjacent 20 in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ha in view of Apps (by providing a hole between receptacles) in order to help the user carry the device and serve to stabilize the intended contents.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 15-17, 20, 34-39, 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view Watanabe (US 5038961 A).
The Office notes the 112 rejections above. Nevertheless, Ha discloses:
1. A protector device (figs 1-7) for beverage containers (capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), the protector device formed as a unitary component from a material (as in figs 1-7) comprising: a plurality of receptacles (elements that hold 2 such as adjacent 11), each of which is configured to receive and hold a respective container (capable of performing the above intended use, such as but not required adjacent 2; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), each receptacle forming or defining a generally cylindrical cavity for receiving and accommodating a body of the respective container (as in fig 3 capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes) and each receptacle having a base for supporting a bottom part of the container (lower end of device such as in fig 5 capable of performing the above intended use, as for example with another hypothetical container with a corresponding shape as in bottom of fig 5)
wherein each of the receptacles includes a band or sleeve of the material configured to extend around a circumference of the respective container (as shown in fig 3 for example where sleeve capable of performing the above intended use, as shown but not required in figs 2-4) to isolate the container at least partially from an impact or shock (material of device capable of performing the above intended use, such as protecting contents), the plurality of receptacles being connected with one another in an array to hold the containers together in a compact group (as shown by 4x1 array as in figs 1-7); and wherein an underside of the base of each receptacle includes an annular or ring- shaped recess configured to receive and nest with an upstanding rim of another respective container arranged below it in a stacked configuration (as shown in fig 5 and adjacent element 60; capable of performing the above intended use; as already provided above, the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes; the device for example could hold a two containers at each end that fit within the perimeter recess; further, device could also hold two containers at each end where the bottle next portion of the container fits within the element adjacent 30).
With respect to polymer, the prior art may be or may not be a polymer. The Office notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material to be a polymer in order to provide a very well known material provided for its benefits in cost, strength, durability, etc. Further, the Office notes that 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.
The prior art discloses the above. If there is any question to the mutiple rings/recesses in the base to hold various contents, the Office notes that Watanabe discloses the above (abstract and figs 5-7 for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ha in view of Watanabe (by providing a base shape with multiple rings/recesses) in order to accommodate contents of different sizes. The Office notes that Watanabe also discloses polymers (abstract and also discloses additional types of arrays such as (3x4 in fig 2).
The Combined Reference discloses:
4. A protector device according to claim 1, wherein, each receptacle comprises one or more aperture that exposes part of a side of the respective container received and held by the receptacle, the aperture preferably being elongate and extending generally vertically along a side of the respective container received and held by the receptacle (Ha adjacent 40 capable of performing the above intended use).
7. A protector device according to claim 2 wherein the underside of the base of each receptacle includes a second recess arranged centrally of the annular or ring-shaped recess and configured to receive and/or nest with a top of another respective container arranged below it (the Office notes the 112 rejection above; Ha adjacent 30 as already described above; capable of performing the above intended use).
8. A protector device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the plurality of receptacles are interconnected with one another in a rectangular array (Ha as in fig 2; Watanabe also discloses the above in fig 2).
16. A protector device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the material that is adapted to isolate the respective container from an impact or shock has a hardness in a range of 20 to 100 on the Shore 00 scale or in a range of 0-60 on the shore A scale. The Office notes that it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material to provide a desired level of protection such as the above range. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Even further, 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.
17. A protector device according to any one of claims 1 to 16 claim 1, wherein the protector device is moulded or 3D-printed as an integral or unitary component from a resilient polymer material. Claim is are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to moulded or 3d printed) and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Even further, 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.
20. A protector device according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of receptacles of the protector device are configured in one of: a 3 x 2 array for receiving and holding six cans or six bottles; or in a 2 x 2 array for receiving and holding four cans or four bottles (the Office notes that prior art discloses a 4x1 array; it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other arrays such as 3x2 or 2v2 in order to hold more contents and to hold a specific number of contents such as six or four; further the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
34. A set of protector devices for containers, wherein each protector device of the set is the protector device according to any one of the preceding claims claim 1. It is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple of the same item. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device because it has been held that the duplication of parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
35. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 1, wherein the polymer material has a material thickness in a range of about 3 mm to about 8 mm (the Office has already provided material above in claim 1, with respect to the above range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Ha discloses:
36. (NEW) A protector device (figs 1-7) for beverage cans (capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), the protector device formed as a unitary component (as in figs 1-7) from a material and comprising: a plurality of receptacles (elements that hold 2 such as adjacent 11), each receptacle configured to receive and hold a respective can (capable of performing the above intended use, such as but not required adjacent 2; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), each receptacle forming or defining a generally cylindrical cavity for receiving and accommodating a body of the can (as in fig 3 capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes) and each receptacle having a base for supporting a bottom part of the can (lower end of device such as in fig 5 capable of performing the above intended use, as for example with another hypothetical container with a corresponding shape as in bottom of fig 5); wherein each of the receptacles includes a sleeve of the material configured to extend around a circumference of the can (as shown in fig 3 for example where sleeve capable of performing the above intended use, as shown but not required in figs 2-4) to isolate the can at least partially from an impact or shock (material of device capable of performing the above intended use, such as protecting contents), the plurality of receptacles being connected with one another in an array to hold the cans together in a compact group (as shown by 4x1 array as in figs 1-7); and wherein an underside of the base of each receptacle includes an annular or ring- shaped recess configured to receive and nest with an upstanding rim of another respective can arranged below it in a stacked configuration configuration (as shown in fig 5 and adjacent element 60; capable of performing the above intended use; as already provided above, the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes; the device for example could hold a two containers at each end that fit within the perimeter recess; further, device could also hold two containers at each end where the bottle next portion of the container fits within the element adjacent 30).
With respect to polymer, the prior art may be or may not be a polymer. The Office notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material to be a polymer in order to provide a very well known material provided for its benefits in cost, strength, durability, etc. Further, the Office notes that 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.
The prior art discloses the above. If there is any question to the multiple rings/recesses in the base to hold various contents, the Office notes that Watanabe discloses the above (abstract and figs 5-7 for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ha in view of Watanabe (by providing a base shape with multiple rings/recesses) in order to accommodate contents of different sizes. The Office notes that Watanabe also discloses polymers (abstract and also discloses additional types of arrays such as (3x4 in fig 2).
Ha discloses:
37. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, wherein each receptacle comprises one or more aperture in the sleeve of polymer material that exposes part of a side of the respective can received and held by the receptacle, wherein each aperture is elongate and extends generally vertically along a side of the can received and held by the receptacle (Ha Adjacent 40 capable of performing the above intended use).
38. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, comprising six receptacles interconnected with one another in a unitary 3 x 2 rectangular array for receiving and holding six cans (the Office notes that prior art discloses a 4x1 array; it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other arrays such as 3x2 or 2v2 in order to hold more contents and to hold a specific number of contents such as six or four; further the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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).
39. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, comprising four receptacles interconnected with one another in a unitary 2 x 2 array for receiving and holding four cans (the Office notes that prior art discloses a 4x1 array; it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other arrays such as 3x2 or 2v2 in order to hold more contents and to hold a specific number of contents such as six or four; further the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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).
41. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, wherein the polymer material has a material thickness of at least one millimetre, preferably in a range of about 3 mm to about 8 mm (the Office has already provided material above in claim 1, with respect to the above range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
42. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 36, wherein the protector device is moulded from the polymer material. Claim is are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to moulded or 3d printed) and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Even further, 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.
Ha discloses:
43. (NEW) A protector device (figs 1-7) adapted for holding beverage cans during transport in a car refrigerator or cool box (capable of performing the above intended use; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), the protector device formed as a unitary component from a material (as in figs 1-7) and comprising: receptacles connected with one another in a rectangular array (such as with 4x1), each receptacle configured to receive and hold a respective can, each receptacle comprising a sleeve of the polymer material that forms or defines a generally cylindrical cavity for receiving and accommodating a body of the can (capable of performing the above intended use, such as but not required adjacent 2; the Office notes that the device is capable of holding a variety of types of containers of different sizes and different shapes), the sleeve of the material being configured to extend around a circumference of the respective can to isolate the can at least partially from an impact or shock (as in figs 1-7 capable of performing the above intended use), and each receptacle having a base for supporting a bottom part of the can; wherein an underside of the base of each receptacle includes an annular or ring- shaped recess configured to receive and nest with an upstanding rim of another respective can arranged below it in a stacked configuration (lower end of device such as in fig 5 capable of performing the above intended use, as for example with another hypothetical container with a corresponding shape as in bottom of fig 5).
With respect to polymer, the prior art may be or may not be a polymer. The Office notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material to be a polymer in order to provide a very well known material provided for its benefits in cost, strength, durability, etc. Further, the Office notes that 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.
With respect to six and 3x2, the Office notes that prior art discloses a 4x1 array; it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other arrays such as 3x2 or 2v2 in order to hold more contents; further the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
The prior art discloses the above. If there is any question to the multiple rings/recesses in the base to hold various contents, the Office notes that Watanabe discloses the above (abstract and figs 5-7 for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ha in view of Watanabe (by providing a base shape with multiple rings/recesses) in order to accommodate contents of different sizes. The Office notes that Watanabe also discloses polymers (abstract and also discloses additional types of arrays such as (3x4 in fig 2).
HA discloses:
44. (NEW) A protector device according to claim 43, wherein each receptacle comprises one or more vertically extending aperture in the sleeve of polymer material to expose part of a side of the can received and held by the receptacle, and/or wherein each receptacle includes one or more inwardly directed projection(s) for engaging or contacting a side of the can inserted into the respective receptacle (Adjacent 40 capable of performing the above intended use).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 1, 36 above, and further in view of Ralph (US 20130068635 A1).
The Combined Reference discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Ralph: wherein each receptacle includes one or more inwardly directed projection(s) for engaging or contacting a side of a container inserted into the respective receptacle and wherein each receptacle includes a plurality of the inwardly directed projections spaced apart around a circumference of the receptacle for engaging or contacting a side of a container inserted into the respective receptacle, wherein each of the inwardly directed projections is formed as an elongate fin or rib or bead (elements adajcent 36 capable of performing the above intended use). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Ralph (by providing the above elements to the receptacles) in order to provide the capability of attaching to containers of various sizes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Apps (US 20110056861 A1).
the Combined Reference discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Apps: wherein at least one gripping element is provided to facilitate carrying of the protector device when it accommodates containers, the at least one gripping element preferably formed as a recess or hole for insertion of a finger of a user during lifting or carrying (adjacent 20 in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Apps (by providing a hole between receptacles) in order to help the user carry the device and serve to stabilize the intended contents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant indicates that amendments have been made to correct Applicant’s 112 issues. The Office notes that 112 rejections are still present. Applicant states that the prior art does not provide contact between the device and the intended contents. The Office notes that Applicant has limited their scope to the container shown, but the device is capable of holding many types of containers and containers of all types of shapes and all types of sizes. Accordingly, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the factual findings or reasoning set forth by the Office and the Office maintains the 112 rejections.
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 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