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
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, 4-7 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US 2020/0079073) in view of Weiss et al. (US 2011/000802).
In re claim 1: Hughes et al. discloses a beverage container, comprising: a container body comprising an outer surface ([0002]); and a textured graphic disposed on a portion of the outer surface ([0008]), wherein: the textured graphic comprises a plurality of protrusions that are randomly oriented on the portion of the outer surface ([0036]); at least some of the plurality of protrusions have a lateral dimension that is at least 1 mm ([0021]); at least some of the plurality of protrusions have a maximum height of in microns relative to a lowest point on the portion of the outer surface ([0014] and [0045]); and each of the plurality of protrusions comprises an ink and a varnish ([0008]).
Hughes et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations that are taught by Weiss et al.:
Weiss et al. teaches the provision of a printed textured graphic with at least some of the plurality of protrusions have a maximum height of at least 40 microns which can provide a better three-dimensional look and to increase the gropability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the protrusions height of Hughes et al. with the ranges discussed above as taught by Weiss et al. in order to provide the desired texture for gripping (see [0018] of Weiss et al.).
Hughes et al. in view of Weiss et al. teach the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of specifically claiming the following limitation
an upper surface of at least some of the plurality of protrusions comprises at least one dimple.
Hughes et al. in view of Weiss et al. teach the claimed invention except for a dimple inherently made from a popped bubble during application method. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, since applicant has not disclosed that the inherent dimples solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with random voids from the prior art teaching. The Applicant’s specification mentions that the wet ink may cause air bubbles that may pop and may create a dimple, which may create a texture that is grippable. The application as taught by the prior art includes ink that may have air bubble and therefore may inherently have popped air bubble dimples. It should be noted that having air bubble during the application of the ink was notoriously well known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed.
In re claim 4: at least some of the plurality of protrusions have a lateral dimension that is at least 2 mm ([0021]).
In re claim 5: substantially all of the plurality of protrusions comprise irregular shapes ([0036] and figure 2).
In re claim 6: the container body comprises a neck; and the portion of the outer surface is disposed below the neck ([0002]).
In re claim 7: the portion of the outer surface extends entirely about a circumference of the outer surface ([0002]-{0008]).
In re claim 21: at least some of the plurality of protrusions have a maximum height of at least 80 microns relative to a lowest point on the portion of the outer surface (see [0018] of Weiss et al.).
In re claim 22: at least some of the plurality of protrusions have a maximum height of at least 100 microns relative to a lowest point on the portion of the outer surface (see [0018] of Weiss et al.).
In re claim 23: at least some of the plurality of protrusions have a maximum height of at least 125 microns relative to a lowest point on the portion of the outer surface (see [0018] of Weiss et al.).
In re claim 24: at least some of the plurality of protrusions have a maximum height of between 40 microns and 150 microns relative to a lowest point on the portion of the outer surface (see [0018] of Weiss 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 protrusions height of Hughes et al. with the ranges discussed above as taught by Weiss et al. in order to provide the desired texture for gripping (see [0018] of Weiss et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly added limitations is not considered nonobvious as discussed above in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-33 appear to define over the available prior art and therefore allowed.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights