DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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, 2, 7-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama et al. (US-6079589-A) in view of Smith (US-3040938-A).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuyama discloses:
1. A container (10), comprising: a canister (11) comprising: a wall structure (Fig. 1); an opening extending through the wall structure (Fig. 2); and a neck structure (at 18) encircling the opening and extending in an axial direction; a lid (12) adapted to seal the opening, the lid comprising: a threaded sidewall configured to be received into the neck structure (col. 2, lines 29-31); a top surface (20) with a spout (13), wherein the spout extends from the top surface of the lid (Fig. 2); a vent cavity (at 39); and a vent body (14) configured to fit into the vent cavity, and a cap (24) adapted to resealably seal the spout.
Matsuyama fails to teach the vent cavity extending from a bottom surface of the lid to the spout, wherein the vent body, the vent cavity, the spout, and the bottom surface of the lid define a vent that extends from the spout to the bottom surface of the lid and into the canister, wherein the vent body comprises a tab extending distally away from the vent body, and wherein the tab separates and divides a liquid pouring from the spout and air venting from the spout.
Smith teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid and spout with a vent cavity (at 12) extending from a bottom surface of the lid to the spout; and a vent body (26) configured to fit into the vent cavity (Fig. 2), wherein the vent body, the vent cavity, the spout, and the bottom surface of the lid define a vent that extends from the spout to the bottom surface of the lid and into the canister (col. 3, lines 12-21) wherein the vent body comprises a tab (31) extending distally away from the vent body, and wherein the tab separates and divides a liquid pouring from the spout and air venting from the spout (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have manufactured the container of Matsuyama with the vent body structure taught by Smith, in order to provide the spout with smooth liquid flow and prevent splashing.
Regarding claims 2, 7-10 and 21, the modified container of Matsuyama teaches:
2. The container of claim 1, wherein the vent provides an unrestricted and direct path with the spout through to the canister (Smith, col. 3, lines 12-21).
7. The container of claim 1, wherein the vent body is in a shape of a triangular wedge (Smith, Fig. 2, due to the tapered shape).
8. The container of claim 7, wherein the vent body includes two side surfaces, a back surface, a sloping surface, and a bottom surface and the vent cavity includes two side walls, a back wall, and a sloping wall (Matsuyama, Figs. 2, 3).
9. The container of claim 8, wherein the two side surfaces cooperate and engage with the two side walls of the vent cavity, the back surface cooperates and engages with the back wall of the vent cavity, and the sloping surface cooperates and engages with the sloping surface of the vent cavity (Matsuyama, Figs. 2).
10. The container of claim 1, wherein the double wall structure comprises a sealed vacuum cavity between the inner wall and the outer wall (Matsuyama, col. 2, lines 27-28).
21. The container of claim 1, wherein the tab extends from a back surface of the vent (Smith, Fig,. 2).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama et al. (US-6079589-A) in view of Smith (US-3040938-A) and further in view of Short et al. (US-20130101708-A1).
The modified container of Matsuyama teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach two indentations.
Short teaches that it was known to attach components together with projections and indentations (par. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have connecte3d the vent with projections and indentations, in order to securely attach components together and since a modification would be the use of a known connection structure.
Claim(s) 11-15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama et al. (US-6079589-A) in view of Smith (US-3040938-A), Meyers et al. (US-20230312179-A1), Petre et al. (US-20230322444-A1) and Murakami (US-6626326-B2).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuyama discloses:
11. A container (10), comprising: a bottom portion, comprising: a first end configured to support the container on a surface, wherein the first end has a first outer diameter (Fog. 1); a second end having an opening (Fig. 2); a wall spaced between the first end and the second end, wherein an outer diameter of the cylindrical wall tapers from the first outer diameter to the second outer diameter along a shoulder chamfer of the cylindrical wall (Fig. 2, below 18); and a neck structure (at 18) encircling the opening and extending in an axial direction; a lid (12) adapted to resealably seal the opening, the lid comprising: a threaded sidewall configured to be received into the neck structure (col. 2, lines 29-31); a top surface (20); a spout (13) with a spout opening, wherein the spout extends through the top surface of the lid and a bottom surface of the lid (Fig. 2); a vent cavity (at 39) extending from the bottom surface of the lid; and a vent body (14) located within the vent cavity; and a cap (24) adapted to resealably seal the spout opening.
Matsuyama appears to teach but fails to specifically teach wherein the opening has a second outer diameter smaller than the first outer diameter and a cylindrical wall (Fis. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have manufactured the container with claimed shapes, since the shape appears to follow from the disclosure of Matsuyama and since such a modification would have been a change in shape of an existing component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Matsuyama fails to teach the vent cavity extending from the bottom surface of the lid to the spout; and the vent body located within the vent cavity, such that the vent body, the vent cavity, the spout, and the bottom surface of the lid define a vent that extends from the spout to the bottom surface of the lid and into the container; and a carry handle, rotatably coupled to a cylindrical sidewall of the lid, wherein the carry handle includes a handle index that locks the carry handle at a zero-degree position or horizontal-right, a 90-degree position or vertical, and a 180-degree position or horizontal-left, wherein the vent body is coupled by interference fit.
Smith teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid and spout with a vent cavity (at 12) extending from a bottom surface of the lid to the spout; and a vent body (26) configured to fit into the vent cavity (Fig. 2), wherein the vent body, the vent cavity, the spout, and the bottom surface of the lid define a vent that extends from the spout to the bottom surface of the lid and into the canister (col. 3, lines 12-21), wherein the vet body can be attached my any suitable means (col. 2, lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have manufactured the container of Matsuyama with the vent body structure taught by Smith, in order to provide the spout with smooth liquid flow and prevent splashing.
Meyers teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid with a handle structure (300) that can rotate to various positions (par. 0033).
Petre teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a handle with a handle index that locks the carry handle at a zero-degree position or horizontal-right, a 90-degree position or vertical, and a 180-degree position or horizontal-left (Figs. 3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have manufacture the lid with a handle in order to make it easier to carry the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have manufactured the handle with an index structure in order to make the container easier to carry and so that the handle could be carried and located in different positions.
Murakami teaches that it was known to attach components together with an interference fit (col. 5, lines 60-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the vent with an interference fit, in order to securely attach components together and since a modification would be the use of a known connection structure.
Regarding claims 12-15 and 22, the modified container of Matsuyama teaches:
12. The container of claim 11, wherein the handle index includes a spring-ball plunger (Petre, 32) that cooperates and fits within one or more detents (Petre, 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have reversed to location of the plungers and detents, since the handle locking structure would still function the same and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
13. The container of claim 12, wherein the handle detent plate includes three detents (Petre, Fig. 5), wherein a first detent cooperates and engages with the spring-ball plunger and locks the carry handle in the zero-degree position or horizontal-right, a second detent cooperates and engages with the spring-ball plunger and locks the carry handle in the 90-degree position or vertical, and a third detent cooperates and engages with the spring-ball plunger and locks the carry handle in the 180-degree position or horizontal-left ((Petre, par. 0034).
14. The container of claim 11, wherein the handle index includes two or more indexing washers (Petre, 24, 54, 52) located on a fastener on each side of the carry handle, wherein the two or more indexing washers include one or more grooves and corresponding projections to lock and index the carry handle (Petre, Fig. 5).
15. The container of claim 11, wherein the carry handle comprises one or more chamfered handle hole openings (Petre, 23) with a chamfered edge located around a hole on the carry handle for a fastener (Petre, Fig. 5).
22. The container of claim 11, wherein the vent body comprises protrusions (Smith, 29) or indentations configured to engage indentations or protrusions in the lid (intended use).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama et al. (US-6079589-A) in view of Smith (US-3040938-A), Meyers et al. (US-20230312179-A1), Petre et al. (US-20230322444-A1), and Murakami (US-6626326-B2) and further in view of Metz (US-0459253-A).
Regarding claim 16:
The modified container of Matsuyama teaches all the claimed limitations as show above but fails to teach wherein the carry handle comprises a grip structure and wherein the grip structure is a sleeve and wherein the grip structure has a larger diameter than the carry handle.
Metz teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a carry handle with a grip structure (f) and wherein the grip structure is a sleeve and wherein the grip structure has a larger diameter than the carry handle (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have manufactured the handle with a grip structure, in order to make the handle easier for a user to grasp.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama et al. (US-6079589-A) in view of Smith (US-3040938-A) and Chen (US-5158193-A).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Matsuyama discloses:
A container (10), comprising (11): a wall structure formed of an inner wall (15) and an outer wall (16) comprising: a first end, configured to support the canister on a surface, wherein the first end includes a base (Fig. 1); and a second end (Fig. 1); an opening in the second end extending through the double wall structure (Fig. 2); and a neck structure (at 18) encircling the opening and extending in an axial direction; and a lid (12) adapted to seal the opening, the lid comprising: a threaded sidewall configured to be received into the neck structure (col. 2, lines 29-31); a top surface (20), comprising: a spout (13) on the top surface, wherein the spout extends through the top surface and a bottom surface of the lid; and a removable cap (24) adapted to resealably seal the spout; a vent cavity (at 39) extending from the bottom surface of the lid; and a vent body (14) located within the vent cavity.
Matsuyama fails to teach a base bumper that fits within a circular base slot located on the base, wherein the circular base slot circumferentially extends around the base, a vent cavity extending from the bottom surface of the lid to the spout; and a vent body located within the vent cavity, wherein the vent body, the vent cavity, the spout, and the bottom surface of the lid define a vent that extends from the spout to the bottom surface of the lid and into the container, wherein the vent is offset from the spout and extends diagonally from the spout to an opposite side of the lid permitting air to flow into the container above a liquid when container is in a pouring position.
Smith teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid and spout with a vent cavity (at 12) extending from a bottom surface of the lid to the spout; and a vent body (26) configured to fit into the vent cavity (Fig. 2), wherein the vent body, the vent cavity, the spout, and the bottom surface of the lid define a vent that extends from the spout to the bottom surface of the lid and into the canister (col. 3, lines 12-21), wherein the vent is offset from the spout (at 31) and extends diagonally (At 31) from the spout to an opposite side of the lid permitting air to flow into the container above a liquid when container is in a pouring position (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have manufactured the container of Matsuyama with the vent body structure taught by Smith, in order to provide the spout with smooth liquid flow and prevent splashing.
Chen teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container with a base bumper (2) that fits within a circular base slot located on the base, wherein the circular base slot circumferentially extends around the base (Figs. 7, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have manufactured the container with a base bumper in order to stabilize the container and to prevent sliding.
Regarding claim 23:
23. The container of claim 18, wherein the vent extends distally and above the spout when the container is in the pouring position (when inverted).
Regarding claim 24:
The modified container of Matsuyama fails to specifically teach wherein the elastic material is a polymer, but It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have used a polymer since polymers are elastic and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
20. The container of claim 18, wherein the vent provides an unrestricted and direct path with the spout through to the canister and is configured to eliminate potential glug sounds and splashing when pouring the container (Smith, col. 3, lines 12-21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). IN this case the prior art of record reads on the limitations as currently claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 at (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 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights