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 § 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.
Claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, the scope of the claims is unclear because it recites “each of the reinforcing structures comprising at least one portion extending along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis” and further recites “each of the reinforcing structures comprises a plurality of portions called fourth portions, each extending in one of the diamonds, along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis”. It is unclear whether these portions are the same as described in the original disclosure or are different portions that are parallel to the longitudinal axis.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0057208 to Coleman in view of US 2016/0167822 to Oostwouder and US 2007/0227094 to Oscar.
Regarding claim 1, Coleman discloses a container (Fig 6) comprising a body extending along a longitudinal axis, the body including a first closed end portion (bottom) comprising a bottom and a second open end portion (top) intended to receive a closing member, the body comprising a shape of decreasing section from the second end portion to the first end portion (Fig 6), the body including a wall on which is arranged a plurality of reinforcing structures (5.1) independent and spaced from each other over the entire wall, and air passages formed between the adjacent reinforcing structures, each of the reinforcing structures (5.1) extending along at least two different axes (vertical and horizontal). Coleman does not teach the reinforcing structure comprising at least one portion extending along an axis parallel to longitudinal axis and at least one portion extending along an axis having an angular offset relative to longitudinal axis. However, Oostwouder discloses a container (10) and in particular discloses a reinforcing structure (Fig 4a) comprising a portion (42) extending along an axis having an angular offset relative to longitudinal axis (IV B), each reinforcing structure comprises a first portion (A, Fig 4a below) extending in a zigzag from the first end portion of the body of the container to second end portion of the container body and a second portion (B, Fig 4a below) extending in a zigzag from first end portion of the container body to the second end portion of the container body so that the first and second portion form diamonds (44). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the reinforcing structure of Coleman with a functionally equivalent reinforcing structure comprising zigzags as suggested by Oostwouder in order to facilitate strengthening and reinforcement of the wall since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). The modified Coleman does not teach plurality of portions extending in one of the diamonds and along an axis parallel to longitudinal axis. However, Oscar discloses a container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses reinforcing structure comprising a portion (11) extending parallel to longitudinal axis and extending inside a diamond reinforcing structure (12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it further obvious to incorporate a reinforcing portion extending along an axis parallel to longitudinal axis and in one of the diamonds of the modified Coleman as suggested by Oscar in order to facilitate reinforcement of the container.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0017920 to Davis in view of Oostwouder and Oscar.
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses a container (10, Fig 1) comprising a body extending along a longitudinal axis, the body including a first closed end portion comprising a bottom (34) and a second open end portion (24) intended to receive a closing member, the body comprising a shape of decreasing section from the second end portion (24) to the first end portion (34) (Fig 1), the body including a wall (18) on which is arranged a plurality of reinforcing structures (36) independent and spaced from each other over the entire wall, and air passages formed between the adjacent reinforcing structures, each of the reinforcing structures (36) extending along at least two different axes (vertical and horizontal). Davis does not teach the reinforcing structure comprising at least one portion extending along an axis parallel to longitudinal axis and at least one portion extending along an axis having an angular offset relative to longitudinal axis. However, Oostwouder discloses a container (10) and in particular discloses a reinforcing structure (Fig 4a) comprising a portion (42) extending along an axis having an angular offset relative to longitudinal axis (IV B), each reinforcing structure comprises a first portion (A, Fig 4a above) extending in a zigzag from the first end portion of the body of the container to second end portion of the container body and a second portion (B, Fig 4a above) extending in a zigzag from first end portion of the container body to the second end portion of the container body so that the first and second portion form diamonds (44). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the reinforcing structure of Davis with a functionally equivalent reinforcing structure comprising zigzags as suggested by Oostwouder in order to facilitate strengthening and reinforcement of the wall since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). The modified Davis does not teach plurality of portions extending in one of the diamonds and along an axis parallel to longitudinal axis. However, Oscar discloses a container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses reinforcing structure comprising a portion (11) extending parallel to longitudinal axis and extending inside a diamond reinforcing structure (12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it further obvious to incorporate a reinforcing portion extending along an axis parallel to longitudinal axis and in one of the diamonds of the modified Davis as suggested by Oscar in order to facilitate reinforcement of the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach fourth portions extending in the diamonds along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis. This is not persuasive because Oscar discloses an arrangement of reinforcement structures where reinforcing structures extending along an axis parallel to longitudinal axis are placed with angular portions that form a diamond shape. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate such a pattern of reinforcing structures to the sidewall of the prior art containers in order to facilitate structural support.
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735