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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “octahedral shape” (Octahedral by definition is 8 sided. The figure doesn’t show a container with 8 sides.) and “rounded corners” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: heating element in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “an octahedral shape”. Octahedron means 8 sides by definition. However claimed limitation and figure shows only six sides (front, back, top, bottom and two sidewalls). Therefore it’s not clear as to if the limitation actually try to claim a shape having six sides or 8 sides. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “a housing”.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi (US 20150158620).
Regarding claim 1, Sekiguchi teaches a molded polymeric container for holding fluids, the container comprising: a housing (See 112b rejection for claim interpretation. Housing of bottle 20, fig 2-3) including front and back facings (two walls 25 shown in fig 3), a top (upper surface that includes shoulder portion 21 and mouth portion 11) including a neck opening (11) with a radius (mouth portion inherently has a radius), a bottom (bottom wall 23, fig 1-2), and two opposing sidewalls (26, fig 1-2) wherein each sidewall has symmetrical and angled panels (the panels are the portions of sidewalls 26 that are above and below curved portion 27, shown I fig 1) that connect at a pinched waist (27, fig 1-2); wherein the housing includes eight discrete but substantially similar rounded corners (the corners are 8 corners formed by top, bottom, front and back facings and two sidewalls) defined by a radius of curvature (see fig 2, the corners are rounded and inherently has a radius of curvature); wherein the pinched waist includes a radius of curvature (R, fig 2) that is substantially similar to a radius of curvature of the rounded corners (Noted, the limitation states “similar”. Therefore the two radii of curvature are considered to be similar); and wherein the pinched waist defines a transverse length (annotated figure 1); a transverse length across the front facing at separate positions (annotated figure 1) above and below the pinched waist.
[AltContent: textbox (transverse length of portion below pinched waist)][AltContent: textbox (transverse length of pinched waist)][AltContent: textbox (transverse length of portion above pinched waist)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
670
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated figure 1)]
Sekiguchi fails to teach the transverse length of pinched waist is between 60% to 80% of the transverse length of portions above and below the pinched waist. However Sekiguchi teaches that the size of pinched waist is a result effective variable of the force applied to the container during manufacturing and the material type of the container ([0059] “the curvature radius R of the pressing recess portion 27 is set to an arbitrary magnitude depending on the pushing out performance required to the container body 20, the moldability of the container body 20 and the like”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select proper type of material depending on consumer needs as well as applying an appropriate force on the container during molding process since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Sekiguchi teaches the housing is symmetrical about both a centerline axial plane (vertical central plane extending into the paper in fig 1) and a transverse plane (vertical central plane extending into the paper in fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Sekiguchi teaches the front and back facings are substantially similar (see fig 3 or 4B for cross sectional view).
Regarding claim 4, Sekiguchi teaches the front and back facings each have a radius of curvature (see fig 3, the front and back facings are curved). However Sekiguchi does not show that the radius of curvature of the front and back facings is at least five times larger than the radius of the neck opening. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Sekiguchi to have radius of curvature of the front and back facings being at least five times larger than the radius of the neck opening since the present application does not show that the particular ratio of radii of curvature solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration.
Regarding claim 5, Sekiguchi teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but does not show that the radius of curvature of the front and back facings is between nine and ten times larger than the radius of the neck opening. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Sekiguchi to have radius of curvature of the front and back facings being between nine and ten times larger than the radius of the neck opening since the present application does not show that the particular ratio of radii of curvature solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Sekiguchi teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but does not show that the radius of curvature of the pinched waist is between nine to ten times larger than the radius of the neck opening. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Sekiguchi to have radius of curvature of the pinched waist being between nine to ten times larger than the radius of the neck opening since the present application does not show that the particular ratio of radii of curvature solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Sekiguchi teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but does not show that the radius of curvature of the pinched waist is between one quarter to one half of the radius of the neck opening. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Sekiguchi to have radius of curvature of the pinched waist being between nine to ten times larger than the radius of the neck opening since the present application does not show that the particular ratio of radii of curvature solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration.
Regarding claim 8, Sekiguchi teaches curved transitional sections (the pie-shaped sections that intercept lines B2, B6, B8, B12 shown in fig 4B) are interposed between the interfaces of at least one: the front facing and the sidewalls, the back facing and the sidewalls (Those pie-shaped sections are interposed between front facing and sidewalls as well as back facing and sidewalls), the front facing and the top, the back facing and the top, the sidewalls and the top, the front facing and the bottom, the back facing and the bottom, and the sidewalls and the bottom.
Regarding claim 12, Sekiguchi teaches the housing is symmetrical about a centerline axial plane (vertical central plane extending into the paper in fig 1) and a centerline transverse plane (vertical central plane extending into the paper in fig 2) of the container.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (US 20100229848) in view of Sekiguchi (US 20150158620).
Regarding claim 9, Miwa teaches a portable system for heating fluids comprising:
a container (A, fig 2); at least one heating element (12, fig 2) provided as a pouch ([0036] “the heating body storing portion may be one in the shape of a bag as shown in FIGS. 3(a), (b) denoted with an reference number 12”) or cuboid having a transverse length (transverse length of the pouch when in use) that matches the transverse length of the container; and an attachment mechanism (10, fig 1) configured to hold the heating element along the container ([0029] “the opening of the lid member 9 can be closed by a string member 10.”).
Miwa fails to teach the container is the container of claim 1.
Sekiguchi teaches container as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miwa as taught by Sekiguchi by substituting the container with the container of Sekiguchi since both containers in Miwa and Sekiguchi are equivalents known for the same purpose (they are both containers), and choosing one from equivalents requires only routine skill in the art.
As modified, Miwa in view of Sekiguchi teaches that the attachment mechanism is capable of being seated on the pinched waist so as to hold the heating element along the front and/or back facings of the container.
Regarding claim 10, Miwa teaches a portable system for heating fluids comprising:
a container (A, fig 2); at least one heating element (12, fig 2) provided as a pouch ([0036] “the heating body storing portion may be one in the shape of a bag as shown in FIGS. 3(a), (b) denoted with an reference number 12”) or cuboid having a transverse length (transverse length of the pouch when in use) that matches the transverse length of the container; and an attachment mechanism (10, fig 1) configured to hold the heating element along the container ([0029] “the opening of the lid member 9 can be closed by a string member 10.”).
Miwa fails to teach the container is the container of claim 6.
Sekiguchi teaches container as recited in claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miwa as taught by Sekiguchi by substituting the container with the container of Sekiguchi since both containers in Miwa and Sekiguchi are equivalents known for the same purpose (they are both containers), and choosing one from equivalents requires only routine skill in the art.
As modified, Miwa in view of Sekiguchi teaches that the attachment mechanism is capable of being seated on the pinched waist so as to hold the heating element along the front and/or back facings of the container.
Regarding claim 11, Miwa in view of Sekiguchi teaches the attachment mechanism is a string.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571)272-6785. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights