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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Platzman (US 3113761).
Platzman discloses a container (housing member 12) having an interchangeable liner (tank member 10) comprising: a bottom portion (bottom wall of housing) having at least one securing aperture (aperture in grommet 40 and corresponding aperture in bottom wall) for receiving the interchangeable liner, the at least one securing aperture extending through an entire thickness of the bottom portion; and at least one securing protrusion (stud 26 on tank member 10) on the interchangeable liner for placement within the at least one securing aperture to lock the interchangeable liner within the container; wherein the removal of the interchangeable liner is facilitated through the interaction of the at least one securing aperture and the at least one securing protrusion; and wherein the at least one securing aperture prevents the interchangeable liner from moving within the container.
Re claim 2, the at least one securing aperture has at least one vertically extending wall (inner diameter wall of grommet).
Re claim 3, the at least one securing protrusion has at least one vertically extending wall (outer surface of threaded stud 26 is a vertically extending wall).
Re claim 16, the at least one vertically extending wall of the securing aperture protrudes from a bottom surface (bottom surface of bottom wall of housing immediately adjacent to the grommet) of the container.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Spoeth, Jr. (US 3971360) (Spoeth).
Spoeth discloses a container (outer housing 12) having an interchangeable liner (40) comprising: a bottom portion (bottom wall of housing) having at least one securing aperture (orifice 36) for receiving the interchangeable liner, the at least one securing aperture extending through an entire thickness of the bottom portion; and at least one securing protrusion (engagement means 46) on the interchangeable liner for placement within the at least one securing aperture to lock the interchangeable liner within the container; wherein the removal of the interchangeable liner is facilitated through the interaction of the at least one securing aperture and the at least one securing protrusion; and wherein the at least one securing aperture prevents the interchangeable liner from moving within the container.
Re claim 2, the at least one securing aperture has at least one vertically extending wall (inner diameter wall of orifice 36).
Re claim 3, the at least one securing protrusion has at least one vertically extending wall (outer surface of engagement means 46 above and below step 50).
Re claim 15, the securing aperture comprises a smooth inner side wall and the securing protrusion comprises a smooth outer side wall (smooth surfaces above and below step 50), thereby facilitating the protrusion to slide in and out of the aperture.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platzman in view of Lovell et al. (US 5816439) (Lovell).
Platzman fails to disclose the plurality of ridges. Lovell teaches a plurality of ridges [a pair of ridges (keyhole sections 11 which extend downwardly), each on a diametrically opposed portion of the container for each end of the handle 2]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a plurality of ridges to allow a bail handle to be connected to provide convenience, comfort and ease to the lifting and carrying of a container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Platzman and Spoeth.
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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733