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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-38, 40-41 are pending.
Claims 39 is canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 4,10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 29, 30 are amended.
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 “the recessed tunnel being open at opposing ends” as claimed in claim 20 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10, 20 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “mating of the first and second locating bosses constrains relative lateral movement and inhibits relative rotational movement between the stacked angled containers.” however, the written speciation fails to disclose this limitation as such this limitation is considered new matter.
Claim 20 recites “the recessed tunnel being open at opposing ends” however, the written speciation fails to disclose this limitation as such this limitation is considered new matter.
Claim 30 recites “laterally constrained by opposing side surfaces of the tunnel to inhibit relative lateral movement between the stacked containers” however, the written speciation fails to disclose this limitation as such this limitation is considered new matter.
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 1-38, 40-41 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.
The term “ substantially” in claim 1, 10, 20, and 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. All the dependent claims inherit the same issue. Further correction and or clarification is required.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it recites “when the angled container is stacked on a second identical angled container”. It is unclear if the second container is positively recited structure or intended use. For examination purpose, it will be assumed that the second container is positively recited structure. However, further correction and or clarification is required. All the dependent claims inherit the same issue.
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, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US D829543) in view of Manderfield (US 11117721).
Regarding claim 1, Coleman discloses, An angled container comprising: a first substantially planar wall (See annotated fig. below); a second substantially planar wall (See annotated fig. below), the second wall adjacent to the first wall; an arcuate wall (See annotated fig. below)extending between and adjoining the first and second planar walls; a top wall (See annotated fig. below) extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls; a bottom wall (See annotated fig. below) extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls; wherein the first, second, arcuate, top, and bottom walls define an interior region; a cap assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Coleman does not disclose, a selectively removable cap assembly providing selective access to the interior region of the container, and at least one compression rib extending along a majority of a height of the container, the compression rib being positioned at a junction between at least one of the planar walls and the arcuate wall.
Manderfield discloses, a selectively removable cap assembly providing selective access to the interior region of the container (Col. 4; lines 14-16) and at least one compression rib (212) extending along a majority of a height of the container, the compression rib being positioned at a junction between every wall (Fig. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have a selectively removable cap assembly providing selective access to the interior region of the container and at least one compression rib extending along a majority of the a of the container, the compression rib being positioned at a junction between every wall as taught by Manderfield to allow access to content of the interior and strengthen the chamfered container corners (Col. 5; lines 1-2) respectively.
As a result of medication, Coleman- Manderfield would have compression rib being positioned at a junction between at least one of the planar walls and the arcuate wall.
The limitation “the compression rib […] being configured to transmit vertical compressive loads between the top wall and the bottom wall of the container wherein the rib provides increased load bearing capacity of the container” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Coleman as modified has all the structures (i.e., compression rib being positioned at a junction) required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 4, Coleman discloses the recessed tunnel is located on the bottom wall.
The limitation “if the angled container is stacked on a second identical angled container having the handle and the tunnel, the handle of the second angled container is received within a tunnel of the angled container.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the container has a handle and a tunnel, thus when stacked with identical container, the handle of the second container would be in the tunnel of the fist container.
Regarding claim 8, Coleman discloses, an angle A defined between the first wall and the second wall ranges from 180° to about 10° ( the angle between the first and the second walls appears to be 120° which is within the range).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman- Manderfield as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yourist (US 20160176574).
Regarding claim 2, Coleman as modified does not disclose, the top wall defines a first locating boss and the bottom wall defines a second locating boss, the second locating boss positioned on the bottom wall such that if the angled container is stacked on a second identical angled container having the first and second locating bosses, the second locating boss of the angled container mates with and contacts a first locating boss of the second identical angled container.
Yourist teaches a rigid structured polymer container (Abstract) having a top wall that defines a first locating boss and the bottom wall that defines a second locating boss (container 100 includes top reference plane ("TRP") [top wall] including stabilizing tab 17 [first boss] and bottom reference plane ("BRP") [bottom wall] including recess feature 18 [second boss], Fig. 6, 7 and 8), the second locating boss positioned on the bottom wall such that if the container is stacked on a second identical container having the first and second locating bosses, the second locating boss of the container mates with and contacts a first locating boss of the second identical container (stabilizing tab 17 and recess feature 18 can facilitate stacking of similarly configured containers 100, (Para. [0063] & Fig. 6, 7 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Coleman to include locating bosses as taught by Yourist in order to minimize shifting of stacked containers.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman- Manderfield as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flanagan (US 20070261983).
Regarding claim 3, Coleman discloses, the top wall includes an upwardly extending handle (See annotated fig. below), and the bottom wall defines a recessed tunnel (See annotated fig. below) extending along at least a portion of the bottom wall, wherein a depth of the tunnel is greater than the height of the handle(the recess is clearly shown in the bottom wall which can house the handle and therefore must have a depth greater than the height of the handle).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
1013
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Arguendo, Coleman does not disclose, a depth of the tunnel is greater than the height of the handle.
Flanagan discloses a stackable container (Fig. 6,7) wherein a depth of the tunnel is greater than the height of the handle (Fig. 7; the recess is shown to fully cover the handle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have a depth of the tunnel is greater than the height of the handle as taught by Flanagan for the purpose of improving stackability.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman-Manderfield a as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nilsson (US 6029864).
Coleman as modified discloses the angled container of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of graduations along the arcuate wall.
Nilsson teaches a container (Abstract) having a plurality of graduations along an arcuate wall (in the corner area [arcuate wall] between sides 5 and 6) a scale 29 [graduations] suitably is provided, which will indicate the level of the liquid in the container, the container as such being translucent or the scale area being made of such a material. (Col. 3, Lines. 46-53 & Fig. 1 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Coleman to include graduations as taught by Nilsson in order to provide a plurality of graduations along an arcuate wall so that the amount of contents within the container can be viewed/measured.
Claim(s) 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman- Manderfield as applied to claim 1 and 8 above respectively, and further in view of Wagner (US 7988005).
Regarding claim 6, Coleman does not disclose, at least one label panel along at least one of the first wall and the second wall.
Wagner discloses a container with a first and second wall (30, and 32 respectively) with a arcuate wall in between, wherein the first wall comprises at least one label panel (Col. 5; lines 44-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate at least one label panel along at least one of the first wall and the second wall as taught by Wagner for the purpose of providing details of the container’s content.
Regarding claim 9, Coleman discloses, the angle A is selected from the group consisting of 180°, 120°, 90°, 72°, 60°, 45°, 40°, and 36° (the angle between the first and the second walls appears to be 120°).
However, in the event, the angle in not 120°, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have the degree between the first and the second wall at 120°, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is substantially recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.1 This is done for the purpose of fitting into a circular vessel as taught by Wagner.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman- Manderfield as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hestehave (US 4541529).
Regarding claim 7, Coleman does not explicitly disclose, a plurality of feet along the bottom wall.
Hestehave discoes a stackable container (abstract) comprising a plurality of feet (12, 13) along the bottom wall (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate a plurality of feet along the bottom wall as taught by Hestehave “for supporting the container in an unstacked condition on a floor or the like” (Col. 4; lines 55-56).
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US D829543) in view of Yourist (US 20160176574).
Regarding claim 10, Coleman discloses, An angled container comprising: a first substantially planar wall (See annotated fig. below); a second substantially planar wall (See annotated fig. below), the second wall adjacent to the first wall; an arcuate wall (See annotated fig. below)extending between and adjoining the first and second planar walls; a top wall (See annotated fig. below) extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls; a bottom wall (See annotated fig. below) extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls; wherein the first, second, arcuate, top, and bottom walls define an interior region.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Coleman does not disclose, the top wall defines a first locating boss and the bottom wall defines a second locating boss, the second locating boss positioned on the bottom wall such that when the angled container is stacked on a second identical angled container having the first and second locating bosses, the second locating boss of the angled container mates with and contacts a first locating boss of the second identical angled container.
Yourist teaches a rigid structured polymer container (Abstract) having a top wall that defines a first locating boss and the bottom wall that defines a second locating boss (container 100 includes top reference plane ("TRP") [top wall] including stabilizing tab 17 [first boss] and bottom reference plane ("BRP") [bottom wall] including recess feature 18 [second boss], Fig. 6, 7 and 8), the second locating boss positioned on the bottom wall such that when the container is stacked on a second identical container having the first and second locating bosses, the second locating boss of the container mates with and contacts a first locating boss of the second identical container (stabilizing tab 17 and recess feature 18 can facilitate stacking of similarly configured containers 100, Para. [0063] & Fig. 6, 7 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Coleman to include locating bosses as taught by Yourist in order to minimize shifting of stacked containers.
The limitation “wherein mating of the first and second locating bosses constrains relative lateral movement and inhibits relative rotational movement between the stacked angled containers.” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Coleman as modified has all the structures required (i.e. feature 17 and 18 of Yourist), to perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2173.05(g)
Regarding claim 12, Coleman discloses, the top wall includes an upwardly extending handle (See annotated fig. below), and the bottom wall defines a recessed tunnel (See annotated fig. below) extending along at least a portion of the bottom wall, wherein a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle.
PNG
media_image2.png
426
1013
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Arguendo, Coleman does not disclose, wherein a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle.
Yourist discloses a container (100) comprising a bottom with a recessed tunnel (Fig. 4,5, 10, and 12) and a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle (handle 20 is fully within recess, therefore a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have a recessed tunnel wherein a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle for the purpose of improving stacking stability of containers.
Regarding claim 13, Coleman discloses the recessed tunnel is located on the bottom wall.
The limitation “if the angled container is stacked on a second identical angled container having the handle and the tunnel, the handle of the second angled container is received within a tunnel of the angled container.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the container has a handle and a tunnel, thus when stacked with identical container, the handle of the second container would be in the tunnel of the fist container.
Regarding claim 18, Coleman discloses, an angle A defined between the first wall and the second wall ranges from 180° to about 10°( the angle between the first and the second walls appears to be 120° which is within the range).
Regarding claim 20, Coleman discloses, An angled container comprising: a first substantially planar wall (See annotated fig. below); a second substantially planar wall (See annotated fig. below), the second wall adjacent to the first wall; an arcuate wall (See annotated fig. below)extending between and adjoining the first and second planar walls; a top wall (See annotated fig. below) extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls; a bottom wall (See annotated fig. below) extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls; wherein the first, second, arcuate, top, and bottom walls define an interior region, wherein the top wall includes an upwardly extending handle (See annotated fig. below), and the bottom wall defines a recessed tunnel (See annotated fig. below) extending along at least a portion of the bottom wall, wherein a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle (the recess is clearly shown in the bottom wall which can house the handle and therefore must have a depth greater than a height of the handle).
PNG
media_image3.png
411
984
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Coleman does not disclose, the recessed tunnel being open at opposite ends, and arguendo, does not disclose, wherein a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle.
Yourist discloses a container (100) comprising a bottom with a recessed tunnel being open at opposite ends (Fig. 4,5, 10, and 12) and a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle (handle 20 is fully within recess, therefore a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have a recessed tunnel being open at opposite ends and a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle for the purpose of allowing the container to be stacked by sliding from any sides while allowing for stable stacking.
Regarding claim 22, Coleman does not disclose, the top wall defines a first locating boss and the bottom wall defines a second locating boss, the second locating boss positioned on the bottom wall such that if the angled container is stacked on a second identical angled container having the first and second locating bosses, the second locating boss of the angled container mates with and contacts a first locating boss of the second identical angled container.
Yourist teaches a rigid structured polymer container (Abstract) having a top wall that defines a first locating boss and the bottom wall that defines a second locating boss (container 100 includes top reference plane ("TRP") [top wall] including stabilizing tab 17 [first boss] and bottom reference plane ("BRP") [bottom wall] including recess feature 18 [second boss], Fig. 6, 7 and 8), the second locating boss positioned on the bottom wall such that if the container is stacked on a second identical container having the first and second locating bosses, the second locating boss of the container mates with and contacts a first locating boss of the second identical container (stabilizing tab 17 and recess feature 18 can facilitate stacking of similarly configured containers 100, Para. [0063] & Fig. 6, 7 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Coleman to include locating bosses as taught by Yourist in order to minimize shifting of stacked containers.
Regarding claim 26, Coleman discloses, the recessed tunnel is located on the bottom wall.
The limitation “if the angled container is stacked on a second identical angled container having the handle and the tunnel, the handle of the second angled container is received within a tunnel of the angled container.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the container has a handle and a tunnel, thus when stacked with identical container, the handle of the second container would be in the tunnel of the fist container.
Regarding claim 28, Coleman discloses, an angle A defined between the first wall and the second wall ranges from 180° to about 10°( the angle between the first and the second walls appears to be 120° which is within the range).
Claim(s) 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rivera (US 20060260971).
Regarding claim 11, Coleman as modified does not disclose, at least one compression rib extending along a majority of a height of the container.
Rivera discloses, a stackable container comprising at least one compression rib (70) extending along a majority of a height of the container(para 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate at least one compression rib extending along a majority of a height of the container as taught by Rivera for the purpose of “enhance the strength of the container” (para 47).
Regarding claim 17, Coleman discloses, a cap (as annotated in claim 10) but does not explicitly disclose, a selectively removable cap assembly providing selective access to the interior region of the container.
Rivera discloses, a stackable container comprising a selectively removable cap assembly (28) providing selective access to the interior region of the container (para 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate a selectively removable cap assembly providing selective access to the interior region of the container as taught by Rivera for the purpose of “selectively opening and closing the container's outlet opening” (para 34).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Nilsson (US 6029864).
Regarding claim 14, Coleman as modified discloses the angled container of claim 10 but fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of graduations along the arcuate wall.
Nilsson teaches a container (Abstract) having a plurality of graduations along an arcuate wall (in the corner area [arcuate wall] between sides 5 and 6 a scale 29 [graduations] suitably is provided, which will indicate the level of the liquid in the container, the container as such being translucent or the scale area being made of such a material. Col. 3, Lines. 46-53 & Fig. 1 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Coleman to include graduations as taught by Nilsson in order to provide a plurality of graduations along an arcuate wall so that the amount of contents within the container can be viewed/measured.
Claim(s) 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 10 and 18 above respectively, and further in view of Wagner (US 7988005).
Regarding claim 15, Coleman does not disclose, at least one label panel along at least one of the first wall and the second wall.
Wagner discloses a container with a first and second wall ((30, and 32 respectively) with a arcuate wall in between, wherein the first wall comprises at least one label panel (Col. 5; lines 44-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate at least one label panel along at least one of the first wall and the second wall as taught by Wagner for the purpose of providing details of the container’s content.
Regarding claim 19, Coleman discloses, the angle A is selected from the group consisting of 180°, 120°, 90°, 72°, 60°, 45°, 40°, and 36° (the angle between the first and the second walls appears to be 120°).
However, in the event, the angle in not 120°, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have the degree between the first and the second wall at 120°, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is substantially recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.2 This is done for the purpose of fitting into a circular vessel as taught by Wagner.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hestehave (US 4541529).
Regarding claim 16, Coleman does not explicitly disclose, a plurality of feet along the bottom wall.
Hestehave discoes a stackable container (abstract) comprising a plurality of feet (12, 13) along the bottom wall (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate a plurality of feet along the bottom wall as taught by Hestehave “for supporting the container in an unstacked condition on a floor or the like” (Col. 4; lines 55-56).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman-Yourist as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Rivera (US 20060260971).
Regarding claim 21, Coleman does not disclose, at least one compression rib extending along a majority of a height of the container.
Rivera discloses, a stackable container comprising at least one compression rib (70) extending along a majority of a height of the container(para 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate at least one compression rib extending along a majority of a height of the container as taught by Rivera for the purpose of “enhance the strength of the container” (para 47).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman-Yourist as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Nilsson (US 6029864).
Regarding claim 23, Coleman fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of graduations along the arcuate wall.
Nilsson teaches a container (Abstract) having a plurality of graduations along an arcuate wall (in the corner area [arcuate wall] between sides 5 and 6 a scale 29 [graduations] suitably is provided, which will indicate the level of the liquid in the container, the container as such being translucent or the scale area being made of such a material. Col. 3, Lines. 46-53 & Fig. 1 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Coleman to include graduations as taught by Nilsson in order to provide a plurality of graduations along an arcuate wall so that the amount of contents within the container can be viewed/measured.
Claim(s) 24, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman-Yourist as applied to claim 20 and 28 above respectively, and further in view of Wagner (US 7988005).
Regarding claim 24, Coleman does not disclose, at least one label panel along at least one of the first wall and the second wall.
Wagner discloses a container with a first and second wall ((30, and 32 respectively) with a arcuate wall in between, wherein the first wall comprises at least one label panel (Col. 5; lines 44-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate at least one label panel along at least one of the first wall and the second wall as taught by Wagner for the purpose of providing details of the container’s content.
Regarding claim 29, Coleman discloses, the angle A is selected from the group consisting of 180°, 120°, 90°, 72°, 60°, 45°, 40°, and 36° (the angle between the first and the second walls appears to be 120°).
However, in the event, the angle in not 120°, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have the degree between the first and the second wall at 120°, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is substantially recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.3 This is done for the purpose of fitting into a circular vessel since such vessel has a degree of 360 as taught by Wagner.
Claim(s) 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman-Yourist as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Hestehave (US 4541529).
Regarding claim 25, Coleman does not explicitly disclose, a plurality of feet along the bottom wall.
Hestehave discoes a stackable container (abstract) comprising a plurality of feet (12, 13) along the bottom wall (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate a plurality of feet along the bottom wall as taught by Hestehave “for supporting the container in an unstacked condition on a floor or the like” (Col. 4; lines 55-56).
Regarding claim 27, Coleman discloses, a cap (as annotated in claim 20) assembly providing selective access to the interior region of the container.
While Coleman does not explicitly disclose if the cap is selectively removable, Hestehave discloses a stackable container (abstract) comprising a cap threadably connected to the neck of the container (Claim 2; Fig. 2, 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have cap that is selectively removable as taught by Hestehave for the purpose of allowing user access to the opening/interior of the container.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Coleman (US D829543)or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Coleman (US D829543) in view of Yourist (US 20160176574).
Regarding claim 30, Coleman disclose, A container system, the system comprising a first angled container comprising: a first substantially planar wall (See annotated fig. below); a second substantially planar wall (See annotated fig. below), the second wall adjacent to the first wall; an arcuate wall (See annotated fig. below)extending between and adjoining the first and second planar walls; a top wall (See annotated fig. below) extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls; a bottom wall (See annotated fig. below) extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls; the bottom wall defines a recessed tunnel (See annotated fig. below) wherein the first, second, arcuate, top, and bottom walls define an interior region.
PNG
media_image4.png
449
984
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Another identical container of Coleman can be considered to be the second angled container and since they are identical, the second container would have a first substantially planar wall; a second substantially planar wall, the second wall adjacent to the first wall; an arcuate wall extending between and adjoining the first and second planar walls; a top wall extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls, the top wall including an upwardly extending handle (See annotated fig. above); a bottom wall extending between the first second, and arcuate walls; wherein the first, second, arcuate, top, and bottom walls define an interior region just as the first container and laterally constrained by opposing side surfaces of the tunnel.
wherein the recessed tunnel has a depth greater than a height of the handle, the tunnel located along the bottom wall of the first container such that if the first container is stacked on the second container, the handle of the second container is received within the tunnel of the first container (the recessed tunnel is clearly provided at the bottom for stacking identical containers which houses the upward extending handle) and laterally constrained by opposite side surface of the tunnel (the left and right side of the tunnel of fig. 2; See annotated fig. above) .
The limitation “to inhibit relative lateral movement between the stacked containers” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the prior art has the recessed tunnel as claimed and is considered to be capable of performing the limitation as claimed.
In the event, arguendo, Coleman does not disclose the stacking of identical containers and a depth of the tunnel is greater than a height of the handle., Yourist discloses a container system comprising two identical containers (Fig. 10) that allows for stacking one over the other, the recessed tunnel has a depth greater than a height of the handle (handle 20 is shown within the recess fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to have an identical container and the recessed tunnel has a depth greater than a height of the handle as taught by Yourist for the purpose of holding additional articles while keeping the containers stable when stacked while allowing for improved stacking.
As a result of such modification, the second container would have a first substantially planar wall; a second substantially planar wall, the second wall adjacent to the first wall; an arcuate wall extending between and adjoining the first and second planar walls; a top wall extending between the first, second, and arcuate walls, the top wall including an upwardly extending handle (See annotated fig. above); a bottom wall extending between the first second, and arcuate walls; wherein the first, second, arcuate, top, and bottom walls define an interior region just as the first container.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman or Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 30 above, in view of Yourist (US 20160176574).
Regarding claim 31, Coleman does not disclose, the top wall of the second container defines a first locating boss and the bottom wall of the first container defines a second locating boss, the second locating boss positioned on the bottom wall such that if the angled container is stacked on a second identical angled container having the first and second locating bosses, the second locating boss of the angled container mates with and contacts a first locating boss of the second identical angled container.
Yourist teaches a rigid structured polymer container (Abstract) having a top wall of the second container (Fig. 10; bottom container) defines a first locating boss and the bottom wall of the first container (Fig. 10; upper container) defines a second locating boss (container 100 includes top reference plane ("TRP") [top wall] including stabilizing tab 17 [first boss] and bottom reference plane ("BRP") [bottom wall] including recess feature 18 [second boss], Fig. 6, 7 and 8), the second locating boss positioned on the bottom wall such that if the container is stacked on a second identical container having the first and second locating bosses, the second locating boss of the container mates with and contacts a first locating boss of the second identical container (stabilizing tab 17 and recess feature 18 can facilitate stacking of similarly configured containers 100, Para. [0063] & Fig. 6, 7 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Coleman to include locating bosses as taught by Yourist in order to minimize shifting of stacked containers.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman or Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Rivera (US 20060260971).
Regarding claim 32, Coleman does not disclose, at least one compression rib extending along a majority of a height of the container.
Rivera discloses, a stackable container comprising at least one compression rib (70) extending along a majority of a height of the container(para 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate at least one compression rib extending along a majority of a height of the container as taught by Rivera for the purpose of “enhance the strength of the container” (para 47).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman or Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Nilsson (US 6029864).
Regarding claim 33, Coleman fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of graduations along the arcuate wall.
Nilsson teaches a container (Abstract) having a plurality of graduations along an arcuate wall (in the corner area [arcuate wall] between sides 5 and 6 a scale 29 [graduations] suitably is provided, which will indicate the level of the liquid in the container, the container as such being translucent or the scale area being made of such a material. Col. 3, Lines. 46-53 & Fig. 1 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Coleman to include graduations as taught by Nilsson in order to provide a plurality of graduations along an arcuate wall so that the amount of contents within the container can be viewed/measured.
Claim(s) 34, 36-38, 40, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman or Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Wagner (US 7988005).
Regarding claim 34, Coleman does not disclose, at least one label panel along at least one of the first wall and the second wall.
Wagner discloses a container with a first and second wall ((30, and 32 respectively) with a arcuate wall in between, wherein the first wall comprises at least one label panel (Col. 5; lines 44-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate at least one label panel along at least one of the first wall and the second wall as taught by Wagner for the purpose of providing details of the container’s content.
Regarding claim 36, Coleman does not disclose, a vessel defining an interior region sized to receive at least both of the first container and the second container.
Wagner discloses, a vessel defining an interior region sized to receive at least both of the first container and the second container (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate a vessel defining an interior region sized to receive at least both of the first container and the second container in stacked manner as taught by Wagner for ease of transportation.
Regarding claim 37, Coleman as modified discloses, the interior region of the vessel is sized to receive the first container and the second container in a stacked configuration (Wagner , Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 38, Coleman as modified discloses the interior region of the vessel is sized to receive the first container and the second container in an aligned configuration (Fig. 1; the contains are stacked/aligned) .
Regarding claim 40, Coleman as modified discloses, the vessel includes at least one wall (Sidewall, bottom wall) that encloses the interior region of the vessel and precludes access to the interior region.
Regarding claim 41, Coleman as modified discloses a packing efficiency of the container system is greater than 70% (Wagner shows there is not much space left within the vessel in fig. 1 after placement of containers and thus the system must have a packing efficiency greater than 70%).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman or Coleman- Yourist as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Hestehave (US 4541529).
Regarding claim 35, Coleman does not explicitly disclose, a plurality of feet along the bottom wall.
Hestehave discoes a stackable container (abstract) comprising a plurality of feet (12, 13) along the bottom wall (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coleman to incorporate a plurality of feet along the bottom wall as taught by Hestehave “for supporting the container in an unstacked condition on a floor or the like” (Col. 4; lines 55-56).
Response to Amendment
Applicants argument with regards to newly amended limitation of ribs being in the junction is considered but not persuasive as prior art of Manderfield discloses incorporation of ribs at each junction.
The applicants regarding prior art of Rivera for claim 1 is considered , but are moot because this prior art is no longer utilized for claim 1.
Applicants argument with regards to newly added limitation “ mating of the first and second locating bosses constrains relative lateral movement and inhibits relative rotational movement between the stacked angled containers.” is considered but not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art of Yourist fails to disclose this limitation. The examiner replies that the limitation as claimed in considered functional language and the prior art has all the structures to perform the limitation as claimed. When features 17 engages with 18, it is capable of constraining relative lateral movement and inhibits relative rotational movement between containers.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Coleman and Rivera fails to provide teaching for including boss to that the examiner replies that the prior art of Yourist was utilized for disclosure of such features.
Applicants argument regarding prior art of Coleman failing to disclose a recess tunnel being open at opposite end for claim 20 is considered but not persuasive as this limitation is disclosed by Yourist.
The applicant further argues that the prior art fails to provide recessed tunnel has a depth greater than a height of the handle, The prior art of Coleman clearly shows space for housing the handle as such it must have depth greater than the height of the handle. The current office action utilizes the prior art of Flanagan and Yourist it is well known in the art as an alternative rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It is well known to have tunnel that are open ended as disclosed by prior art of Yourist.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The applicant further argues that the prior art fails to disclose the limitation of “laterally constrained by opposing side surfaces of the tunnel to inhibit relative lateral movement between the stacked containers.” To that the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Coleman is annotated in claim 30 to show opposite side surface and is considered to be capable of performing the limitation as claimed.
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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
1 See MPEP 2144.04(IVA)
2 See MPEP 2144.04(IVA)
3 See MPEP 2144.04(IVA)