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
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, 16-21 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 20180155096 – hereafter referred to as Pan) in view of Rowan et al. (US 5579946 – hereafter referred to as Rowan.) and in further view of Hosford Jr. (US 2828043 – hereafter referred to as Hosford). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for Pan follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
794
1302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram A
In regards to Claim 1, Pan teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035) comprising:
an outer shell (Outer Sidewall – 301 and Bottom End - 26 assembly) formed of a thin wall of aluminum (Paragraph 0039 – made of stainless steel), the outer shell (301 and 303) including an outer wall (301) and an outer base (26);
an inner shell (Inner Shell includes: Inner Sidewall – 302 and Base Portion – 303) formed of a thin wall of aluminum (Paragraph 0039 – made of stainless steel), the inner shell (302 and 303) including an inner wall (302) and an inner base (303), the inner wall being coupled to the outer wall at a top of the container, the inner wall being at least partially tapered (Paragraph 0035 where the top is seal such that the “…sealing may be achieved for example, by soldering, brazing, welding, epoxying or conforming the inner sidewall – 302 and the outer sidewall – 301…); and
(NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {
wherein the outer shell (301 and 26) and the inner shell (302 and 303) define a space (Sealed Airspace – 310) between the outer wall (301 and 26) and the inner wall (302 and 303) along a height of the container and between the outer base and the inner base across the bottom of the container (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 3B where the sealed airspace – 310 is across the sidewall and bottom of the container.)
Pan does not explicitly teach Aluminum as a material for fabricating the inner and outer insulated container, and does not teach a joint between the outer base and inner base at the bottom of the container.
The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram B for Rowan follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
824
1216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram B
Rowan teaches: a composite plastic outer shell (Rowan, Column 4, Line 67) and aluminum inner shell (Column 4, Lines 62-66) (ADDED FOR CLARITY: that is separated) by a joint (Continuous Partition – 152) between the previously taught outer base and the previously taught inner base at a previously taught bottom of the container. (MOTIVATION: to improve insulation between the inner and outer shells – Column 7, Lines 23-40.).
Rowan also teaches:
and a continuous circular portion (152) around the joint (152) across the bottom of the container (See Figure 10 where this is true) (NOTE THAT: Rowan teaches continuous and discontinuous joints at the bottom of the container (Continuous – Figure 10; Discontinuous – Figure 11, No Spacer – Figure 9) as a range of design choices).
the continuous cylindrical portion - 152 is closed to the continuous circular portion by an interference fit between the inner wall and the outer wall (Figure 9 and Column 7, Lines 23-40 where the continuous partition – 152 “…integrally connected to the bottom wall partition 122 of the interior wall - 127 and the bottom wall portion - 116 of the exterior wall…”forming “…two separate sealed chambers.”
Use of a gas that has a thermal conductivity lower than air (Column 7, Lines 10-16 where Rowan teaches, “…the advantages of partially filling with Carbon Dioxide or Nitrogen are…the gas will provide better insultation to the interior chamber…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the material and spacer structure of Pan, providing the spacer structure and material selection taught by Rowan (Continuous annular partition – 152 and Aluminum inner shell – Column 4, Lines 62-66; a continuous circular portion (152) around the joint across the bottom of the container (See Figure 10 where this is true) NOTE THAT: Rowan teaches continuous and discontinuous joints at the bottom of the container (Continuous – Figure 10; Discontinuous – Figure 11, No Spacer – Figure 9) as a range of design choices; Use of gas other than ambient air as an insulator – including Carbon Dioxide or Nitrogen – Column 7, Lines 10-16), motivated by the benefit of improving the insulation between the inner and outer shells – Column 7, Lines 23-40. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Inner/Outer Wall Separation and spacing to improve insulation of the container) according to known methods (Varying material selection and internal spacing structure) to yield predictable results (Improved insulation of container contents) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
It should be noted that the modified container and closure of Pan as modified by Rowan, does not teach an exterior shell made of aluminum.
However, Hosford does teach an inner and outer shell configuration of Aluminum for an insulated container (Column 1, Lines 67-72 describes both containers as made of aluminum.)(MOTIVATION: to advantageously improve the toughness of the container while minimizing the weight – Column 1, Lines 43-46.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the material structure of Pan, providing the aluminum inner and outer shell material choice of Hosford (Column 1, Lines 67-72), motivated by the benefit of improving the toughness of the container while minimizing the weight – Column 1, Lines 43-46. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Material Choice of Aluminum for the inner and outer shells of the insulated container) according to known methods (Varying material selection with respect to the required container characteristics) to yield predictable results (Improved container toughness and weight profile) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 2, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the space (310) includes a continuous cylindrical portion (Annotated Diagram A, Item A) along the height of the container (See Diagram A, Figure 3B, Item A– where this is true) and a continuous circular portion (See Diagram A, Figure 3B, Item B) around the joint across the bottom of the container (NOTE: The joint at the bottom of the container is taught in the modification above by Rowan – including the range of bottom joint options taught by Rowan) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 3, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the continuous cylindrical portion (A) is open to the continuous circular portion (B) (Where Rowan teaches a range of bottom joint options where the bottom and sidewall spaces are continuous.).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inner and outer spacing structures at the bottom of the container of Pan as modified by Rowan (Rowan – Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12) because Applicant has not disclosed that a singular spacing structure at the bottom of the container provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with any of the bottom sidewall spacing structures of Rowan because the sidewall spacing allows for the desired insulating characteristics claimed in the instant application. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Pan as modified by Rowan to obtain the invention as claimed.
In regards to Claim 4, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the continuous cylindrical portion (Pan – A) is closed to the continuous circular portion (Pan – B) by an interference fit between the inner wall and the outer wall the continuous cylindrical portion. (See Rowan - 152 is closed to the continuous circular portion by an interference fit between the inner wall and the outer wall (Figure 9 and Column 7, Lines 23-40 where the continuous partition – 152 “…integrally connected to the bottom wall partition 122 of the interior wall - 127 and the bottom wall portion - 116 of the exterior wall…”forming “…two separate sealed chambers.” NOTE THAT: Pursuant of MPEP 2113.1, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (Interference fit versus joint as described in Rowan). If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The joint disclosed by Pan as modified by Rowan anticipates the claimed Interference Fit structure, and is formed through a process, (Interference fit is assumed since the result between the parts within Rowan result in two separate sealed chambers), and as such meets the limitation that a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim.
In regards to Claim 5, Pan already teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the space (310) is under vacuum relative to the atmosphere (Paragraph 0036 teaches the “…seal airspace-310 may be partially evacuated prior to, at the same time as, or after sealing the inner and outer sidewalls (302 and 301, respectively.)
In regards to Claim 6, Pan – already teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the space (310) is filled with at least one gas (Paragraph 0038 describes “…an inert gas such as, for example, helium or argon may be pumped into the space or the airspace – 310 may be sealed in an environment filled with an inert gas.”) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 7, Pan already teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035) as modified in Claim 6: wherein the at least one gas is air (See Claim 5 where air is used as an insulator – by virtue of pulling a partial vacuum.).
In regards to Claim 8, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035) the container of claim 6, wherein the at least one gas has a thermal conductivity lower than air (Rowan teaches a gas that has a thermal conductivity lower than air (Column 7, Lines 10-16 where Rowan teaches, “…the advantages of partially filling with Carbon Dioxide or Nitrogen are…the gas will provide better insultation to the interior chamber…”) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 16, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the space (310) is tapered such that a distance between the inner wall (302) and the outer wall (301) at the top of the container (At Item 28 in Annotated Diagram A, Figure 3B) is smaller than at the bottom of the container (See Annotated Diagram A where Pan has multiple tapers across the height of the container, but specifically matching the claimed limitations at Item 28 versus at the intersection of 303 and 302.).
In regards to Claim 17, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the outer shell (301) is cylindrical (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 3A where this limitation is met.).
In regards to Claim 18, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the outer shell is at least partially tapered (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 3A where this limitation is met.).
In regards to Claim 19, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035) where container of claim 18, wherein an amount of taper of the inner shell (302) is greater than an amount of taper of the outer shell (301) (This limitation is generally met by Pan with the distance between the outer and inner shell increasing from the top of the container to the bottom of the container, per Annotated Diagram A, Figure 3B.) (It should be noted that, per MPEP 2144.04 Section IV – Changes in Size, Shape – Section A, that changes in relative dimensions while performing the same function does not result in a patentable distinction. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 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…” .).
In regards to Claim 20, Pan already teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the container is formed of only one or more recyclable metals (Paragraph 0039 describes various design choices for the material used including “…may be formed a stainless steel…” and “…may be formed of the same or different materials.”)
In regards to Claim 21, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the one or more recyclable metals is aluminum (Hosford – as modified in claim 1, teaches aluminum.) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 26, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the joint (Taught by ROWAN in the parent claim – 152) is a protrusion (A continuous circular protrusion – 152 – Column 7, Lines 23-40 where 152 is “...integrally connected to the bottom wall partition 122 and the interior wall – 127 and the bottom wall portion – 116 of the exterior wall…” FORMING”…two separate sealed chambers.” in one of the previously taught inner base or the previously taught outer base that contacts the other of the inner base or the outer base (NOTE: The structures taught in Rowan teach the interactions and resulting wall spacing and insultation functions claimed in the instant application – no matter from which interior or exterior structure they depend from.). Still further, it should be noted that, per MPEP 2144.04 Section IV – Changes in Size, Shape – Section A, that changes in relative dimensions while performing the same function does not result in a patentable distinction. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 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…” .
In regards to Claim 27, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the protrusion (Rowan - 152) is a circular protrusion centered about the inner base and the outer base (The protrusion of Rowan meets this limitation.) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 28, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035) of claim 26: wherein the protrusion (152) is an annular ring centered about the inner base and the outer base (The protrusion of Rowan meets this limitation.) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
Claims 9-15 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Rowan and Hosford and in further view of Booska (US 20140263368 – hereafter referred to as Booska). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram C for Booska follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
692
1122
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram C
In regards to Claim 9, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the previously taught inner shell is coupled to the previously taught outer shell.
Pan – as modified previously – does not teach connection of the shells by a curl in the wall.
Booska – in a similar disclosure on composite insulated metal containers – does teach a connection: by a curl (Annotated Diagram C, Item G) in one or both of the inner shell and the outer shell (Annotated Diagram C shows both shells crimped.) (MOTIVATION: Improve an insulated cup that has a sealed inner space to help control liquid temperature – Paragraph 0003.).
Booska also teaches:
A wall texture (Crimp – per paragraph 0033 and Paragraph 0035) in the thin wall of aluminum (Paragraph 0040) where the inner shell is coupled to the outer shell at the curl (See Figure 1 of Annotated Diagram C where this is true.)
An inner shell is coupled to the outer shell by a weld between the inner wall and the outer wall (Paragraph 0038).
A distance (Diagram C, Item J) between the outer shell and the inner shell is substantially constant along the height of the container (See Diagram C, Figure 1 where this limitation is met.).
The inner shell includes a radially outward step (Diagram C, Item I and Figure 2 at Item 34) where the inner shell is coupled to the outer shell (See Diagram C, Figure 3 where this is true.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the upper lip joint structure of Pan, providing the rolled joint structure choice of Booska (Paragraph 0033 – for the double rolled hermetic seal – Diagram C, Item G, Crimp – Item H, Welding and location – Paragraph 0038, Substantially the same distance between inner and outer shell – Diagram C, Figure 1, and step where the inner the outer shell are connected – Diagram C, Figure 3 and Item I), motivated by the benefit of improving an insulated cup that has a sealed inner space to help control liquid temperature – Paragraph 0003. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Material Joining Options – including rolled and crimped joints) according to known methods (Forming an insulated, double walled container) to yield predictable results (Provide a seal capable of holding a vacuum – Paragraphs 0033 and 0035) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 10, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): teaches all the limitations of the parent claim, including: wherein at least one of the previously taught outer shell and the inner shell includes a texture (Booska - Crimp – per paragraph 0033 and Paragraph 0035) in the thin wall of aluminum (Paragraph 0040) where the inner shell is coupled to the outer shell at the curl (See Figure 1 of Annotated Diagram C where this is true.) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 11, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the inner shell is coupled to the outer shell by a weld (Booska - Paragraph 0038 teaches this connection) between the previously taught inner wall and the previously taught outer wall (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 12, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the weld (Paragraph 0035) is an electromagnetically formed weld (Booska teaches a weld – see product by process claim that follows.) such that the transition between the outer wall and the inner wall is continuous (Booska teaches various methods for making a hermetic seal – resulting in a continuous seal – per paragraphs 0035, 0038 and 0039) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
Also note that: pursuant of MPEP 2113.1, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The rolled and welded seal joint disclosed by Booska anticipates the claimed electromagnetically welded structure, and is formed through a process, (varying the type of welding to achieve the sealed joint does not impart a patentable difference to the resulting structure.), and as such meets the limitation that a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim.
In regards to Claim 13, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein previously taught inner shell, outer shell, or both are curled above the weld at the top of the container (See Annotated Diagram D, Figures 1-3 where the inner and outer shells are curled.) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 14, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein a distance (Booska, Diagram C, Item J) between the outer shell and the inner shell is substantially constant along the height of the container (See Diagram C, Figures 1-3 where the distance between inner and outer shells is substantially constant.) (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 15, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the inner shell includes a radially outward step (At Part 34 on Figure 2) where the inner shell is coupled to the outer shell (SEE PARENT CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION.).
In regards to Claim 33, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035):
Pan does not teach a coated inner shell.
Booska – in a similar disclosure on composite insulated metal containers – does teach: an inner shell polymer coating (Paragraph 0038 teaches this a one of the methods of improving the seal of the crimped joint shown in Diagram C, Figures 1-3) (MOTIVATION: Improve an insulated cup that has a sealed inner space to help control liquid temperature – Paragraph 0003.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the inner shell structure of Pan, providing the polymer inner shell coating (Paragraph 0038 – where an “additional sealant, adhesive or melting of plastic may be used to improve the seal.”), motivated by the benefit of improving an insulated cup that has a sealed inner space to help control liquid temperature – Paragraph 0003. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Material Joining and Coating Options – including a polymer coating) according to known methods (Forming an insulated, double walled container) to yield predictable results (Provide a seal capable of holding a vacuum – Paragraphs 0033 and 0035) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Rowan and Hosford and in further view of Scott (US 20190112100 – hereafter referred to as Scott). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram D for Scott follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
826
1292
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram D
In regards to Claim 22, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Pan – as modified previously – does not teach a specific outer wall thickness limitation.
Scott – in a similar disclosure on aluminum container manufacturing – does teach an outer wall thickness 0.07 mm to 0.20 mm (Scott teaches an outer wall thickness that is approximately 0.10 mm) (MOTIVATION: Improve shipping and storing of metal cup assemblies – Paragraph 0007).
The modified insulated container of Pan as further modified by Scott discloses the claimed invention except for a specific outer wall thickness range of 0.07-2.0 mm (Scott teaches a value of approximately 0.10mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the claimed range, recognizing that the material thickness of the wall is directly correlated to the strength of the container wall, which is a desirable characteristic, since 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation that is not already taught in the prior art.
In regards to Claim 23, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Pan – as modified previously – does not teach a specific inner wall thickness limitation.
Scott – in a similar disclosure on aluminum container manufacturing – does teach a wall thickness wherein a thickness of the wall is 0.07 mm to 0.20 mm (Scott teaches an wall thickness that is approximately 0.10 mm) (MOTIVATION: Improve shipping and storing of metal cup assemblies – Paragraph 0007).
The modified insulated container of Pan as further modified by Scott discloses the claimed invention except for a specific inner wall thickness range of 0.07-2.0 mm (Scott teaches a value of approximately 0.10 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the claimed range, recognizing that the material thickness of the wall is directly correlated to the strength of the container wall, which is a desirable characteristic, since 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation that is not already taught in the prior art.
In regards to Claim 24, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Pan – as modified previously – does not teach a specific bottom wall thickness limitation.
Scott – in a similar disclosure on aluminum container manufacturing – does teach a wall thickness wherein a thickness of the outer base is 0.15 mm to 0.36 mm (Scott teaches an outer wall thickness that is approximately 0..23 mm) (MOTIVATION: Improve shipping and storing of metal cup assemblies – Paragraph 0007).
The modified insulated container of Pan as further modified by Scott discloses the claimed invention except for a specific thickness range of 0.15 mm to 0.36 mm (Scott teaches a value of approximately 0.23 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the claimed range, recognizing that the material thickness of the bottom wall is directly correlated to the strength of the container wall, which is a desirable characteristic, since 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation that is not already taught in the prior art.
In regards to Claim 25, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): The container of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the inner base is 0.15 mm to 0.36 mm.
Pan – as modified previously – does not teach a specific inner base thickness limitation.
Scott – in a similar disclosure on aluminum container manufacturing – does teach a wall thickness wherein a thickness of the inner base is 0.15 mm to 0.36 mm (Scott teaches an outer wall thickness that is approximately 0..23 mm) (MOTIVATION: Improve shipping and storing of metal cup assemblies – Paragraph 0007).
The modified insulated container of Pan as further modified by Scott discloses the claimed invention except for a specific thickness range of 0.15 mm to 0.36 mm (Scott teaches a value of approximately 0.23 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the claimed range, recognizing that the material thickness of the inner bottom wall is directly correlated to the strength of the container wall, which is a desirable characteristic, since 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation that is not already taught in the prior art.
Claims 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Rowan and Hosford and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20100108693 – hereafter referred to as Zhang.). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram E for Zhang follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
810
1280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram E
In regards to Claim 29, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the joint (Taught by Rowan - 152): teaches structures that interact within the inner and outer bases.
Pan does not teach a circular protrusion configuration that mates the inner and outer base joints.
Zhang – in a similar disclosure on containers with nesting structures that form a joint at the bottom of the container does - teach: a circular protrusion (Zhang, Inwardly extending protrusion – 130) in the previously taught inner base or the previously taught outer base that mates with an annular protrusion (See Figure 1 of Zhang where this limitation is met.) in the outer base or the inner base, respectively (Zhang teaches a range of configurations to create separation between the inner and outer bases.) (MOTIVATION: to provide an even distribution of gas or air in the insulation space. – Paragraph 0025.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the inner and outer shell structure of Pan, providing the annular protrusion of Zhang (Paragraph 0025 and Inwardly extending protrusion – 130) motivated by the benefit of providing an even distribution of gas or air in the insulation space. – Paragraph 0025. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Material Spacing and Joining Options – including a nesting annular protrusions - 130) according to known methods (Forming an insulated, double walled container) to yield predictable results (Provide an even distribution of insulation properties– Paragraphs 0025) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 30, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035):
Pan does not teach a circular protrusion configuration that mates the inner and outer base joints.
Zhang – in a similar disclosure on containers with nesting structures that form a joint at the bottom of the container does - teach: a circular protrusion (Zhang, Inwardly extending protrusion – 130) wherein the previously taught joint is a protrusion in the inner base that contacts a protrusion in the outer base. (See Figure 1 of Zhang where this limitation is met in the reverse.) in the outer base or the inner base, respectively (Zhang teaches a range of configurations to create separation between the inner and outer bases.) (MOTIVATION: to provide an even distribution of gas or air in the insulation space. – Paragraph 0025.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the inner and outer shell structure of Pan, providing the annular protrusion of Zhang (Paragraph 0025 and Inwardly extending protrusion – 130) motivated by the benefit of providing an even distribution of gas or air in the insulation space. – Paragraph 0025. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Material Spacing and Joining Options – including a nesting annular protrusions - 130) according to known methods (Forming an insulated, double walled container) to yield predictable results (Provide an even distribution of insulation properties– Paragraphs 0025) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Per MPEP 2144.04 Section VI. The reversal of parts performing the same function (Annular Mating Protrusions for linking and separating inner and outer shells of the claimed container.) does not lend patentability to the claimed structures. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
In regards to Claim 31, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035):
Pan does not teach a circular protrusion configuration that mates the inner and outer base joints.
Zhang – in a similar disclosure on containers with nesting structures that form a joint at the bottom of the container does - teach: a circular protrusion (Zhang, Inwardly extending protrusion – 130) in the previously taught inner base or the previously taught outer base that mates with an annular protrusion (See Figure 1 of Zhang where this limitation is met.) in the outer base or the inner base, where the joint is an interference fit (Zhang – Annotated Diagram E, Figure 1 – where the joint is an interference fit.) (Zhang teaches a range of configurations to create separation between the inner and outer bases.) (MOTIVATION: to provide an even distribution of gas or air in the insulation space. – Paragraph 0025.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the inner and outer shell structure of Pan, providing the annular protrusion with interference fit of Zhang (Paragraph 0025 and Inwardly extending protrusion – 130) motivated by the benefit of providing an even distribution of gas or air in the insulation space. – Paragraph 0025. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Material Spacing and Joining Options – including a nesting annular protrusions - 130) according to known methods (Forming an insulated, double walled container) to yield predictable results (Provide an even distribution of insulation properties– Paragraphs 0025) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 32, Pan – as modified above - teaches an insulated container (Pan, Beverage Container – 20 that is insulated – Paragraph 0035): wherein the joint is a post that extends from one of the outer base or the inner base and contacts the other of the outer base or the inner base.
Pan does not teach a circular protrusion configuration that mates the inner and outer base joints.
Zhang – in a similar disclosure on containers with nesting structures that form a joint at the bottom of the container- does teach: a circular protrusion (Zhang, Inwardly extending protrusion – 130) in the previously taught inner base or the previously taught outer base that mates with an annular protrusion (See Figure 1 of Zhang where this limitation is met.) in the outer base or the inner base, where the joint is a post that extends from one of the outer base or the inner base and contacts the other of the outer base or the inner base (Zhang – Annotated Diagram E, Figure 1 – where the joint meets the claimed configuration.) (Zhang teaches a range of configurations to create separation between the inner and outer bases.) (MOTIVATION: to provide an even distribution of gas or air in the insulation space. – Paragraph 0025.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the inner and outer shell structure of Pan, providing the annular protrusion with a post configuration of Zhang (Paragraph 0025 and Inwardly extending protrusion – 130) motivated by the benefit of providing an even distribution of gas or air in the insulation space. – Paragraph 0025. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Material Spacing and Joining Options – including a nesting annular protrusions - 130) according to known methods (Forming an insulated, double walled container) to yield predictable results (Provide an even distribution of insulation properties– Paragraphs 0025) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John M. Hoppmann whose telephone number is (571) 272-7344. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on (571) 270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOHN MARTIN HOPPMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 15 December 2025