DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US-3516572-A) in view of Van Melle (US-5678720-A).
Davis discloses a cover(18) of a container assembly (10, the container assembly further including a container having a mouth portion surrounding an axis, said cover being configured to be detachably connected to the mouth portion of the container and being configured to cooperate with the container to define a receiving space (the claims are drawn to just a cover), said cover comprising: a cover portion (20); a connecting portion (at 38) connected to a periphery of said cover portion and including an outer sidewall that is configured to surround and press against the mouth portion and that has an end edge (Fig. 2); and a stopping portion surrounding the axis and formed around said outer sidewall, said stopping portion having a plurality of protruding ribs (40, 42) arranged in an array around said outer sidewall and extending around the axis (Fig. 1), each of said protruding ribs defining a gap with an adjacent one of said protruding ribs, said stopping portion having a highest point and a lowest point opposite to each other along the axis (Fig. 2, at 38 and 44), the highest point of the stopping portion being configured to cooperate with a lowest point of the mouth portion to define a contact area for frictional contact with the mouth portion, said contact area having a height from the lowest point of the mouth portion to the highest point of the stopping portion along the axis that is more than 30% of a height from the lowest point of the stopping portion to the highest point of said stopping portion along the axis (Fig. 1, depending on the container used), and a container (10) including a mouth portion (at 16) surrounding an axis; and said cover as claimed in claim 1, said cover being detachably connected to said mouth portion of said container, and cooperating with said container to define a receiving space (Fig. 2).
Davis fails to teach said array consisting of at least three rows of said protruding ribs, and fails to specifically teach the claimed sizes/dimensions of the cover.
Van Melle teaches that it is was known in the art to manufacture an array of at least three rows of protruding ribs (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the cover with at lest three rows, in order to attach to different containers and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the cover with the claimed sizes/dimensions, in order to adjust the cover to different containers, and since such modifications would have been changes in size of existing components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US-3516572-A) and Van Melle (US-5678720-A) in view of LaMasney (US-8870015-B1).
Regarding claim 5, Davis fails to teach wherein said cover portion, said connecting portion, and said stopping protrusions are integrally formed as one piece from pulp.
LaMasney teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a cover out of pulp (col. 5, lines 10-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the cover out of pulp, in order to make the cover environmentally friendly, 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Davis fails to teach wherein said connecting portion further includes an inner sidewall surrounded by and radially spaced apart from said outer sidewall, and an abutment end wall connected between said inner sidewall and said outer sidewall and having a position difference with said cover portion along the axis said inner sidewall and said outer sidewall being configured to press against and clamp therebetween the mouth portion, and wherein said abutment end wall said inner sidewall and said outer sidewall cooperatively define an accommodating space for receiving the mouth portion, said accommodating space having an opening opposite to said abutment end wall, wherein said accommodating space has a width along a width direction transverse to the axis greater than a width of said abutment end wall along the width direction.
LaMasney teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a cover with a connecting portion (113) that further includes an inner sidewall (114) surrounded by and radially spaced apart from an outer sidewall (116), and an abutment end wall (118) connected between said inner sidewall and said outer sidewall and having a position difference with said cover portion along the axis said inner sidewall and said outer sidewall being configured to press against and clamp therebetween the mouth portion, and wherein said abutment end wall said inner sidewall and said outer sidewall cooperatively define an accommodating space for receiving the mouth portion, said accommodating space having an opening opposite to said abutment end wall (Fig. 11A), wherein said accommodating space has a width along a width direction transverse to the axis greater than a width of said abutment end wall along the width direction (Fig. 11A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the cover with the structure taught by LaMasney, in order to strength the cover and since such a modification would be substitution of known cover structures for attaching to a container.
Regarding claim 8, Davis discloses all the claimed limitations as show above, but fails to teach a plurality of containers, each of which includes a mouth portion surrounding an axis; and a plurality of said covers wherein said covers are stackable along the axis; and wherein, when said covers are stacked, said abutment end wall of one of said covers abuts against said stopping protrusions of an adjacent one of said covers, and said cover portion, said abutment end wall and said inner sidewall of each of said covers are respectively spaced apart from said cover portion, said abutment end wall and said inner sidewall of an adjacent one of said covers.
LaMasney teaches a plurality of containers, each of which includes a mouth portion surrounding an axis; and a plurality of said covers (col. 1, lines 13-16) wherein said covers are stackable along the axis; and wherein, when said covers are stacked, said abutment end wall of one of said covers abuts against said stopping protrusions of an adjacent one of said covers, and said cover portion, said abutment end wall and said inner sidewall of each of said covers are respectively spaced apart from said cover portion, said abutment end wall and said inner sidewall of an adjacent one of said covers (col. 2, lines 12-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured a plurality of stacked containers and covers, in order to make it easier to transport components.
Regarding claim 10, Davis fails to teach wherein: said container further includes a bottom wall, and a surrounding wall extending upwardly from a periphery of said bottom wall along the axis and connected to said mouth portion; said mouth portion includes an inner annular wall connected to an end of said surrounding wall that is opposite to said bottom wall, an outer annular wall radially spaced apart from said inner annular wall, and a top end wall interconnecting said inner annular wall and said outer annular wall and having a position difference with said bottom wall of said container along the axis; said top end wall, said inner annular wall and said outer annular wall of said mouth portion cooperatively define an annular space having an opening opposite to said top end wall; said outer sidewall of said cover surrounds said outer annular wall of said mouth portion, and together with said stopping protrusions presses against said outer annular wall of said mouth portion such that said outer annular wall is deformed to engage said gaps formed said adjacent stopping protrusions and is in frictional contact with said outer sidewall and said stopping protrusions of said cover, such that said inner sidewall of said cover presses against said inner annular wall of said mouth portion, and such that said abutment end wall of said cover presses against said top end wall of said mouth portion.
LaMasney teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container (10) with a bottom wall (11) , and a surrounding wall (13)extending upwardly from a periphery of said bottom wall along the axis and connected to said mouth portion; said mouth portion includes an inner annular wall (32) connected to an end of said surrounding wall that is opposite to said bottom wall, an outer annular wall (34) radially spaced apart from said inner annular wall, and a top end wall (36) interconnecting said inner annular wall and said outer annular wall and having a position difference with said bottom wall of said container along the axis; said top end wall, said inner annular wall and said outer annular wall of said mouth portion cooperatively define an annular space having an opening opposite to said top end wall; said outer sidewall of said cover surrounds said outer annular wall of said mouth portion, and together with said stopping protrusions presses against said outer annular wall of said mouth portion such that said outer annular wall is deformed into said gaps between said adjacent stopping protrusions (Figs. 11A, 11B; col. 6, lines 1-24) and is in frictional contact with said outer sidewall and said stopping protrusions of said cover, such that said inner sidewall of said cover presses against said inner annular wall of said mouth portion, and such that said abutment end wall of said cover presses against said top end wall of said mouth portion (Fig. 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with the structure taught by LaMasney, in order to strengthen the cover and since such a modification would be substitution of known container structures for attaching to a cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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. Furthermore, note that 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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