Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 first wall and the second wall 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 of claims 1, 10, and 16, the peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall formed by the apex being circumferentially collocated with the valley on the interior surface formed by the apex of claims 1, 10, and 16, the alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall of claims 1, 10, and 16, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
207
267
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and has such that” of line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a top end” of line 1 should be corrected to “the top end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a bottom end” of line 2 should be corrected to “the bottom end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a top end” of line 1 should be corrected to “the top end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a bottom end” of line 2 should be corrected to “the bottom end”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-12, and 14-19 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The limitation of claim 1 of “an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall” while claim 1 further requires 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, the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak” and that “the interior surface radially and axially conforming to the exterior surface” fails to comply with the enablement requirement. If the interior surface radially and axially conforms to the exterior surface the apex cannot have an additional structure, alignment ridge, projecting therefrom. If the apex is the virtual intersection of the first and second walls then the peak formed on the exterior surface would not be circumferentially collocated with the valley on the interior (see applicants annotated fig. 10D). How can an alignment ridge be positioned along an apex located at the intersection of a first and second wall while the interior surface radially and axially conforms to the exterior surface? Examiner notes that applicant’s attempt at annotating figure 10D does not satisfy all of the required limitations of claim 1 as the first and second wall do not intersect at the annotated apex, the annotated “peak” on the exterior surface is not circumferentially collocated with the annotated valley on the interior surface, and the annotated alignment ridge is not located along an intersection of the first and second wall which forms an apex as no intersection between the first and second wall even exists. Claims 10 and 16 are similarly deficient. The Wands factors of MPEP 2164.01(a) have been considered. Based upon the state of the prior art presented in the attached PTO-892, the level of ordinary skill in the art presented in those references, the level of predictability (strong in the mechanical arts), and the amount of direction provided (as presented above), the quantity of experimentation needed to make the claimed invention commensurate in scope with the claims is undue.
The limitation of claim 2 that “each alignment ridge projects outwardly from the apex of the respective alignment structure and has such that the alignment ridge is defined by a radius that is different from a second radius defining the apex at which the first wall and the second wall would otherwise intersect” while claim 1 requires that “the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at an apex” fails to comply with the enablement requirement. How can the first and second wall both intersect at an apex and there be an apex at which the first wall and second wall would otherwise intersect? Either the first and second wall intersect or they do not.
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, 4-12, 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 term “substantially” in claims 1, 10, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, 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. The term frustoconical is led to be indefinite by the usage of substantially.
The limitation of claim 1 that “an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall”, 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, the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak”, and that “the interior surface radially and axially conforming to the exterior surface” are indefinite when taken together. It is unclear if the apex and peak are virtual or physical. As best can be understood from the original disclosure and applicant’s amended figure 10D, virtual continuations of the first wall and the second wall are arranged to intersect at a virtual apex forming a virtual peak and virtual valley where that virtual apex would exist. The peak on the exterior surface and valley on the interior surface appear to be defined by the alignment ridge which is located along the virtual apex. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art Claims 1, 10, and 16 will be interpreted as such.
The limitation of claim 2 that “each alignment ridge projects outwardly from the apex of the respective structure and has such that the alignment ridge is defined by a first radius that is different from a second radius defining the apex at which the first wall and second wall would otherwise intersect” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if the apex is physical or not. As best can be understood from the original disclosure and applicant’s amended figure 10D, the apex is virtual and the alignment structure does not extend from the virtual apex, but from the first and second wall. The claim will be interpreted as if each alignment ridge projects outwardly from the first and second wall of the respective structure such that the alignment ridge is defined by a first radius that is different from a second radius of the virtual apex at which virtual continuations of the first and second wall intersect.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are led to be indefinite as the metes and bounds of “suitable orientation” are unclear. The specification does not provide any direction as to what orientation is considered to be “suitable”.
The term “substantially” in claim 4 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. The term parabolic is led to be indefinite by the usage of substantially.
Claim 4 is led to be indefinite as it is dependent on cancelled claim 3. For the purposes of examination claim 4 will be interpreted as if it were dependent from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greweling (DE 9316073).
Claim 1: Greweling discloses a container 1 comprising: a container wall 2 (upwardly-extending substantially frustoconical sidewall), the container wall 2 (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 container wall 2 (sidewall), each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures extending between a top end and a bottom end thereof, each alignment structure 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 an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the container wall 2 (sidewall) and a valley on the interior surface of the container wall 2 (sidewall), the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak, and an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface of the container wall 2 (sidewall) and extending between the top end and the bottom end of the associated alignment structure, wherein the container 1 is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container, and wherein when the container 1 is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container 1 and an interior surface of the second identical container causes the container 1 to rotate into a suitable orientation with respect to the second identical container (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
558
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Greweling discloses wherein each alignment ridge projects outwardly from the apex of the respective alignment structure and has such that the alignment ridge is defined by a first radius that is different from a second radius defining the apex at which the first wall and the second wall would otherwise intersect (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 5: Greweling 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 container wall 2 (sidewall) of the container 1 when the container 1 is nested within the second identical container (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 8: Greweling discloses wherein a top end of each alignment structure is vertically aligned with a bottom end of such alignment structure (see annotated fig. 6 above and fig. 5).
Claim 16: Greweling discloses a container 1 comprising: a container wall 2 (upwardly-extending substantially frustoconical sidewall) comprising a plurality of alignment structures oriented relative to one another, the container wall 2 (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 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 container wall 2 (sidewall) and a valley on the interior surface of the container wall 2 (sidewall), the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak, and an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface and between a top end and a bottom end of the associated alignment structure, wherein the container 1 is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container, and wherein, when the container 1 is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the alignment ridges of the container 1 and an interior surface of the second identical container causes the container 1 to rotate into a suitable orientation with respect to the second identical container (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 18: Greweling discloses wherien each alignment ridge is configured to reduce the likelihood of the container 1 binding on the second identical container during nesting (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes (WO 2006093952).
Claim 1: Hayes discloses a container 100 comprising: an upwardly-extending substantially frustoconical sidewall 114, the sidewall 114 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 114, each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures extending between a top end and a bottom end thereof, each alignment structure 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 an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall 114 and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall 114, the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak, and a protuberance 142” (alignment ridge) protruding along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall 114 and extending between the top end and the bottom end of the associated alignment structure, wherein the container 100 is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container, and wherein, when the container 100 is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the protuberances 142” (alignment ridges) of the container 100 and an interior surface of the second identical container causes the container 100 to rotate into a suitable orientation with respect to the second identical container (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 12D & 12E below).
PNG
media_image3.png
536
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
490
385
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Hayes discloses wherein each protuberance 142” (alignment ridge) projects outwardly from the apex of the respective alignment structure and has such that the protuberance 142” (alignment ridge) is defined by a first radius that is different from a second radius defining the apex at which the first wall and the second wall would otherwise intersect (see annotated fig. 12E above).
Claim 4: Hayes discloses wherein the plurality of alignment structures each include a substantially parabolic lower end configured to reduce the likelihood of binding as the container 100 is nested within the second identical container (see annotated fig. 12D above).
Claim 5: Hayes discloses wherein the valleys of the interior surface of the sidewall 114 of the container 100 are configured for receiving the peaks on the exterior surface of the sidewall 114 of the container 100 when the container 100 is nested within the second identical container (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 12D & 12E above).
Claim 6: Hayes discloses wherein the bottom ends of each alignment structure of the container 100 rests on a protruding shelf 144 (stacking shoulder) of the second identical container when the container 100 is nested within the second identical container (see fig. 1).
Claim 7: Hayes discloses wherein the plurality of alignment structures are located below and are spaced apart from a lip 150 of the container 100 (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 12D & 12E above).
Claim 8: Hayes discloses wherein a top end of each alignment structure is vertically aligned with a bottom end of such alignment structure (see annotated fig. 12D & 12E above).
Claim 10: Hayes discloses a container 100 comprising: a plurality of alignment structures forming a substantially frustoconical sidewall 114 having an interior surface that conforms to an exterior surface, each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures 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 an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall 114and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall 114, and a protuberance 142” (alignment ridge) positioned along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall and extending between a top end and a bottom end of the associated alignment structure, wherein each alignment structure is circumferentially curved; and wherein the container 100 is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container such that, when the container 100 is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the protuberances 142” (alignment ridges) of the container 100 and an interior surface of the second identical container causes the container 100 to rotate into a suitable orientation with respect to the second identical container (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 12D & 12E above).
Claim 11: Hayes discloses wherein the plurality of alignment structures are connected together at intersections adjacent the alignment structures to form valleys on the exterior surface of the sidewall 114 (see annotated fig. 12E below).
PNG
media_image5.png
513
349
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 12: Hayes discloses wherein the alignment structures are located below and are spaced apart from a lip 150 of the container 100 (see annotated fig. 12D & 12E above).
Claim 15: Hayes discloses wherein the bottom end of each alignment structure has a curved shape (see annotated fig. 12D and 12E where the bottom end has a curved shape as it is circumferential and fig. 1 where the bottom end has a curved shape due to protruding shelf 144).
Claim 16: Hayes discloses a container 100 comprising: an upwardly-extending substantially frustoconical sidewall 114 comprising a plurality of alignment structures oriented relative to one another, the sidewall 114 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 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 114 and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall 114, the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak, and a protuberance 142” (alignment ridge) positioned along the apex on the exterior surface and extending between a top end and a bottom end of the associated alignment structure, wherein the container 100 is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container, and wherein, when the container 100 is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures and the protuberances 142” (alignment ridges) of the container 100 and an interior surface of the second identical container causes the container 100 to rotate into a suitable orientation with respect to the second identical container (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 12D & 12E below).
Claim 18: Hayes discloses wherein the protuberances 142” (alignment ridges) have a parabolic shape extending radially outward from the alignment structure (see annotated fig. 12D above).
Claim 19: Hayes discloses wherein each protuberance 142” (alignment ridge) is configured to reduce the likelihood of the container 100 binding on the second identical container during nesting (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 12D & 12E above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vila Davis (US D264686) further in view of Greweling (DE 9316073).
Claim 1: Davis discloses a container comprising: an upwardly-extending substantially 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 of the plurality of alignment structures extending between a top end and a bottom end thereof, each alignment structure 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 an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall, the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak, wherein the container is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container, and wherein, when the container is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures 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 (see annotated fig. 1 below and fig. 3).
Davis does not disclose wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along the apex of the exterior surface of the sidewall and extending between the top end and the bottom end of the associated alignment structure 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 and extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2; wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along an apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between the top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 above).
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 Davis to each include an alignment ridge positioned along the apex, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers and to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position.
PNG
media_image6.png
368
419
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein each alignment ridge projects outwardly from the apex of the respective alignment structure and has such that the alignment ridge is defied by a first radius that is different from a second radius defining the apex at which the first wall and the second wall would otherwise intersect (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of alignment structures each include a substantially parabolic lower end configured to reduce the likelihood of binding as the container is nested within the second identical container (see annotated fig. 1 above).
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 8: The combination discloses wherein a top end of each alignment structure is vertically aligned with a bottom end of such alignment structure (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 10: Davis discloses a container comprising: a plurality of alignment structures forming a substantially frustoconical sidewall having an interior surface that conforms to an exterior surface, each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures 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 an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall, and a top end and a bottom end, wherein each alignment structure is circumferentially curved; and wherein the container is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container such that, when the container is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures 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 (see annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 3).
Davis does not disclose wherein each alignment structure includes an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface and extending between a top end and a bottom end of the associated alignment structure 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 and extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2; wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along an apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between the top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 above).
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 Davis to each include an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers and to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position.
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the alignment structures are connected together at intersections adjacent the alignment structures to form valleys on the exterior surface of the sidewall (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 12: The combination discloses wherein the alignment structures are located below and are spaced apart from a lip of the container (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: Davis discloses a container comprising: an upwardly-extending substantially 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 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, the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak, and a top end and a bottom end, wherein the container is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container, and wherein, when the container is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures 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 (see annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 3).
Davis does not disclose wherein each alignment structure includes an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface and extending between a top end and a bottom end of the associated alignment structure 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 and extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2; wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along an apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between the top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 above).
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 Davis to each include an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers and to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position.
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 alignment structure (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 19: The combination discloses wherein each alignment ridge is configured to reduce the likelihood of the container binding on the second identical container during nesting (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 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 substantially 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 of the plurality of alignment structures extending between a top end and a bottom end thereof, each alignment structure 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 an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall, the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak, wherein the container is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container, and wherein, when the container is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures 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 (see annotated fig. 1 below and fig. 3).
Vovan does not disclose wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along the apex of the exterior surface of the sidewall and extending between the top end and the bottom end of the associated alignment structure 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 and extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2; wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along an apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between the top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 above).
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 along the apex, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers and to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position.
PNG
media_image7.png
576
436
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 8: The combination discloses wherein a top end of each alignment structure is vertically aligned with a bottom end of such alignment structure (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 9: The combination discloses wherein a top end of each alignment structure is circumferentially offset relative to a bottom end of such alignment structure (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 10: Vovan discloses a container comprising: a plurality of alignment structures forming a substantially frustoconical sidewall having an interior surface that conforms to an exterior surface, each alignment structure of the plurality of alignment structures 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 an apex forming a peak on the exterior surface of the sidewall and a valley on the interior surface of the sidewall, and a top end and a bottom end, wherein each alignment structure is circumferentially curved; and wherein the container is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container such that, when the container is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures 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 (see annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 3).
Vovan does not disclose wherein each alignment structure includes an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface and extending between a top end and a bottom end of the associated alignment structure 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 and extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2; wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along an apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between the top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 above).
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 along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers and to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position.
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the alignment structures are connected together at intersections adjacent the alignment structures to form valleys on the exterior surface of the sidewall (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 12: The combination discloses wherein the 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 16: Vovan discloses a container comprising: an upwardly-extending substantially 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 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, the valley circumferentially collocated with the peak, and a top end and a bottom end, wherein the container is capable of being fully nested within a second identical container, and wherein, when the container is nested within the second identical container, engagement between the plurality of alignment structures 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 (see annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 3).
Vovan does not disclose wherein each alignment structure includes an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface and extending between a top end and a bottom end of the associated alignment structure 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 and extending at least a portion of a height of the container wall 2; wherein each alignment structure further includes an alignment ridge positioned along an apex of an exterior surface of the container wall 2 and extending between the top and bottom ends of the associated alignment structure (see fig. 5 and annotated fig. 6 above).
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 along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall, as taught by Greweling, in order to enhance interlocking between nested containers and to further prevent nested containers from rotating in relation to one another when in a fully nested position.
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 alignment structure (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 19: The combination discloses wherein each alignment ridge is configured to reduce the likelihood of the container binding on the second identical container during nesting (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of office action dated 18 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 13 September 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 7-20 of office action dated 18 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 13 September 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that reference characters 148 and 168 have not both been used to designate the alignment ridge as the positions of the peak 148 and alignment ridge 168 are substantially similar and the peak 148 in FIG. 8A and the alignment ridge 168 in FIG. 8D are distinct parts despite being substantially aligned with one another, the Examiner responds that the structures identified by 148 in Fig. 8A and 168 in fig. 8D are identical, not distinct parts. The original disclosure provides that ridge 168 may project outwardly from the remainder of peak 148. Examiner notes that applicant’s amended figure 10D directs peak to a different structure than indicated by ref. 148 of fig. 8A. This likewise applies to applicant’s arguments regarding reference characters 248 and 268.
In response to applicant’s argument that fig. 10C depicts the alignment structures 208 forming valleys along the longitudinal apex on the interior surface of the sidewall and peaks along the exterior surface of the sidewall, the Examiner replies that no figures depict apexes at an intersection of first and second walls.
In response to applicant’s argument that fig. 10D illustrates an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface and extending between a top end and a bottom end of the associated alignment structure, the Examiner replies that no figure depict apexes at an intersection of first and second walls, and therefore cannot depict an alignment ridge positioned along that nonexistent apex.
In response to applicant’s argument that Greweling fails to disclose a container that is designed to rotate into a desired orientation when stacked or nested within a second container and discusses the need for a user to manually rotate the container relative to a second container in order to achieve the desired nesting or stacking, the Examiner replies that as the bottom of the alignment ridge is more narrow than the open top, the structure of Greweling is capable of rotating into nested orientation upon a slight misalignment. Nowhere does Greweling state that a user must manually rotate the container to be in an identical orientation relative to a second container in order to nest.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hayes fails to disclose “an alignment ridge positioned along the apex on the exterior surface of the sidewall and extending between the top end and the bottom end of the associated alignment structure” as Hayes fails to disclose the protuberance 142” extending between the top end and the bottom end of the associated alignment structure and instead extend only a portion of the respective alignment structure, the Examiner responds that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “between” as in intermediate relation to. As such, the broadest most reasonably interpretation of “an alignment ridge … extending between the top end and the bottom end of the associated alignment structure” is that an alignment ridge exists at some location that exists between the top end and the bottom end of the associated alignment structure, and therefore the protuberance 142” of Hayes meets the claimed limitation.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is nothing in Hayes that indicates that the alignment structures (or the smaller structures positioned thereon) are designed to provide a self-correcting container that will nest within a second container in a desired orientation even if the two containers are initially misaligned, the Examiner replies that the pointed lower ends of the protuberances 142” are capable of causing a container to rotate into a nested aligned orientation when and angled or curved edge of that pointed lower end contacts the inner side of the sidewall of the protuberance 142” at its opening of a second container, which meets the claimed limitation.
In response to applicant’s arguments against claim 10 rejected in view of Davis (US D264686) that “for at least the reasons outlined above with reference to claim 1, Applicant submits that Davis fails to disclose these limitations, the Examiner responds that no analysis between Davis and claim 1 has previously been argued.
In response to applicant’s arguments against claim 10 rejected in view of Vovan (US D570650) that “for at least the reasons outlined above with reference to claim 1, Applicant submits that Vovan fails to disclose these limitations, the Examiner responds that no analysis between Vovan and claim 1 has previously been argued.
In response to applicant’s argument that Davis in view of Greweling fails to disclose certain limitations, the Examiner responds that Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 2113 II. Applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
In response to applicant’s argument that Vovan in view of Greweling fails to disclose certain limitations, the Examiner responds that Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 2113 II. Applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
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 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