Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 March 2026 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: virtual apex, second radius.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are 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.
The limitation of claim 2 that “the alignment ridge is defined by a first radius that is different from a second radius defining the virtual apex at which the first wall and second wall would otherwise intersect” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The original disclosure does not mention any virtual apex or second radius defining the virtual apex. There is no disclosure that a first radius of the alignment ridge is different from some virtual second radius of some virtual apex.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-12, and 14-19 are 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 limitation of claims 1, 10, and 16 that “the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at a virtual apex” is led to be indefinite. The original disclosure does not provide any direction as to where this virtual apex exists or where the first and second wall would intersect. Do the first and second walls travel in a continuous manner to meet at a virtual apex? Do the first and second walls turn, zig-zap, change radius, or modify their paths in any way before they meet at a virtual apex? The original disclosure provides no direction as to where this virtual apex exists or as to where the first and second walls would be arranged to intersect.
The limitation of claims 1, 10, and 16 of “a virtual apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall” is led to be indefinite. As the apex is virtual, it is unclear if a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall are truly formed, exist, and are required to be present on the sidewall. In order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as if the peaks and valleys are virtual.
The limitation of claim 2 that “the alignment ridge is defined by a first radius that is different from a second radius defining the virtual apex at which the first wall and second wall would otherwise intersect” is led to be indefinite. The original disclosure does not provide any direction as to where this virtual apex exists, the shape of the virtual apex, or where the first and second wall would otherwise intersect. Do the first and second walls travel in a continuous manner to meet at a virtual apex? Do the first and second walls turn, zig-zap, change radius, or modify their paths in any way before they meet at a virtual apex? The original disclosure provides no direction as to where this virtual apex exists, whether or not it has a radius, or where the first and second walls would be arranged to intersect.
The limitation of claim 5 that “the valleys of the interior surface of the sidewall of the second identical container are configured for receiving the peaks on the exterior surface of the sidewall of the container” is led to be indefinite. From claim 1, the only valleys and peaks that have been introduced are virtual valleys and peaks formed by virtual apexes. As these peaks and valleys do not exist, they cannot receive each other. In light of the original figures the limitation will be interpreted as the alignment structures define valleys on the interior surface of the sidewall of the second identical container that are configured for receiving peaks defined by the alignment structures on the exterior surface of the sidewall of the container.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10-12, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vovan (US D570650) further in view of Greweling (DE 9316073).
Claim 1: Vovan discloses a container comprising: an upwardly-extending frustoconical sidewall, the sidewall including an exterior surface and an interior surface, the interior surface radially and axially conforming to the exterior surface: a plurality of alignment structures circumferentially spaced around the sidewall, each alignment structure comprising: a top end circumferentially offset from a bottom end, wherein each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures extends between the top end and the bottom end thereof, a first wall, a second wall oriented at an angle relative to the first wall such that the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall (see annotated fig. 1 below and fig. 3).
Vovan does not disclose wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along a virtual apex of the exterior surface of the sidewall and extending between the top end and the bottom end of an associated alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures or when the container is nested within a second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container causes the container to rotate to align with the second identical container.
Greweling teaches a container 1 comprising: a container wall 2, the container wall 2 including a plurality of alignment structures circumferentially spaced around the container wall 2, each alignment structure extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2 and comprising a first wall, a second wall oriented at an angle relative to the first wall such that the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at a virtual apex, and an alignment ridge positioned along the virtual apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the alignment structures of Vovan to each include an alignment ridge positioned between the first and second wall at a virtual apex, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers, to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position, and to provide additional rigidity to the sidewall.
The container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the container cannot be fully nested within a second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
The circumferential offset of the top end and bottom end of the container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously allows the container to rotate to align with the second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the circumferential offset of the top end and bottom end of the container cannot allow the container to rotate to align with the second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container, when the container of the combination is nested within the second identical container, inherently or in the alternative obviously is capable of causing the container to rotate to align with the second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show that engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container does not cause the container to rotate to align with the second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
558
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein each alignment ridge projects outwardly from the virtual apex of the respective alignment structure such that the alignment ridge is defined by a first radius that is different from a second radius defining the virtual apex at which the first wall and the second wall would otherwise intersect (see annotated fig. 3 and 6 above).
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of alignment structures each include a parabolic lower end configured to reduce a likelihood of binding as the container is nested within the second identical container (see annotated fig. 1 above). Examiner notes that the BRI of parabolic is part of a parabola. As the lower end of each alignment structure has a curve it meets the BRI of parabolic.
The parabolic lower end of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously reduces a likelihood of binding as the container is nested within the second identical container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show that the parabolic lower end cannot reduce a likelihood of binding as the container is nested within the second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the valleys of the interior surface of the sidewall of the second identical container are configured for receiving the peaks on the exterior surface of the sidewall of the container when the container is nested within the second identical container (see fig. 3).
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the bottom ends of each alignment structure of the container rests on a stacking shoulder of the second identical container when the container is nested within the second identical container (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of alignment structures are located below and are spaced apart from a lip of the container (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 10: Vovan discloses a container comprising: a plurality of alignment structures forming a frustoconical sidewall having an interior surface that conforms to an exterior surface, each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures comprising: a top end circumferentially offset from a bottom end, wherein each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures extends between the top end and the bottom end thereof, a first wall, a second wall oriented at an angle relative to the first wall such that the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall, wherein each alignment structure is circumferentially curved (see annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 3).
Vovan does not disclose wherein each alignment structure includes an alignment ridge positioned along a virtual apex on the exterior surface or when the container is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container causes the container to rotate to align with the second identical container.
Greweling teaches a container 1 comprising: a container wall 2, the container wall 2 including a plurality of alignment structures circumferentially spaced around the container wall 2, each alignment structure extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2 and comprising a first wall, a second wall oriented at an angle relative to the first wall such that the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at a virtual apex, and an alignment ridge positioned along the virtual apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the alignment structures of Vovan to each include an alignment ridge positioned between the first and second wall at a virtual apex, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers, to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position, and to provide additional rigidity to the sidewall.
The circumferential offset of the top end and bottom end of the container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously allows the container to rotate to align with a second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the circumferential offset of the top end and bottom end of the container cannot allow the container to rotate to align with the second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
The container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously is capable of being fully nested within the second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the container cannot be fully nested within a second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container, when the container of the combination is nested within the second identical container, inherently or in the alternative obviously is capable of causing the container to rotate to align with to the second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show that engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container does not cause the container to rotate to align with the second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the alignment structures are connected together at intersections adjacent the plurality of alignment structures to form valleys on the exterior surface of the sidewall (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 12: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of alignment structures are located below and are spaced apart from a lip of the container (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 14: The combination discloses wherein each alignment structure has a spiral orientation (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 15: The combination discloses wherein the bottom end of each alignment structure has a curved shape (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 16: Vovan discloses a container comprising: an upwardly-extending frustoconical sidewall comprising a plurality of alignment structures oriented relative to one another, the sidewall having an exterior surface and an interior surface that radially and axially conforms to the exterior surface, wherein each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures comprises: a top end circumferentially offset from a bottom end, wherein each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures extends between the top end and the bottom end thereof, a first wall, a second wall oriented at an angle relative to the first wall such that the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall (see annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 3).
Vovan does not disclose wherein each alignment structure includes an alignment ridge positioned along the virtual apex on the exterior surface or when the container is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container causes the container to rotate into a suitable orientation with respect to the second identical container.
Greweling teaches a container 1 comprising: a container wall 2, the container wall 2 including a plurality of alignment structures circumferentially spaced around the container wall 2, each alignment structure extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2 and comprising a first wall, a second wall oriented at an angle relative to the first wall such that the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at a virtual apex, and an alignment ridge positioned along the virtual apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the alignment structures of Vovan to each include an alignment ridge positioned between the first and second wall at a virtual apex, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers, to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position, and to provide additional rigidity to the sidewall.
The circumferential offset of the top end and bottom end of the container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously allows the container to rotate to align with a second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the circumferential offset of the top end and bottom end of the container cannot allow the container to rotate to align with the second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
The container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously is capable of being fully nested within the second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the container cannot be fully nested within a second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container, when the container of the combination is nested within the second identical container, inherently or in the alternative obviously is capable of causing the container to rotate to align with to the second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show that engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container and an interior surface of the second identical container does not cause the container to rotate to align with the second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Claim 17: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of alignment structures are arranged circumferentially around the container and adjacent alignment structures intersect one another to fully enclose the sidewall (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 18: The combination discloses wherein the alignment ridges have a parabolic shape extending radially outward from the plurality of alignment structure (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 19: Each alignment ridge of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously is configured to reduce a likelihood of the container binding on the second identical container during nesting as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the alignment ridges do not reduce the likelihood of the container binding on the second identical container during nesting. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraph 2 of office action dated 30 December 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 30 March 2026.
The claim objections in paragraphs 3-7 of office action dated 30 December 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 30 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 8-19 of office action dated 30 December 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 30 March 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-9, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13,15-16, and 18-19 under 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to Davis applied under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, and 15-19 in view of Vila Davis (US D264686) further in view of Greweling (DE 9316073) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to Vovan have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Vovan fails to disclose that the circumferential offset of the top end and bottom end allows the container to rotate to align with a second identical container, that Vovan is a U.S. Design Patent and does not include any disclosure related to the functionality of a circumferential offset and the ability of the container to rotate to align with a second container, and that the drawings of Vovan do not render obvious, let alone mention or allude to the foregoing element, the Examiner responds that Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Further, the circumferential offset of the top end and bottom end of the container of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously allows the container to rotate to align with the second identical container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the container cannot be fully nested within a second identical container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights