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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application 18/657,860 filed 5/8/24. Claims 11-30 are pending with claim 11 in independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bryant US 2014/0116911 A1.
Bryant teaches:
Re: claim 11, A polymeric article (container 10; fig. 1; [0011]) comprising a body (body 14; fig. 1) and encoded visual indicia (code reference feature 24; fig. 2; [0014]) formed on the body (body 14) and configured to be scanned by an optical camera to generate computer readable instructions ([0034]-[0035]).
Re: claim 12, The polymeric article of claim 11, wherein the body includes a surface (body 14 of container 10 inherently contains a surface) and the encoded visual indicia includes a plurality of depressions or protrusions that extend away from the surface and arranged in a predetermined pattern ([0014] code reference feature 24 may include one or more embossments or debossments in the container wall).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 13-18, 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant US 2014/0116911 A1.
The teachings of Bryant have been discussed above.
Bryant fails to specifically teach
Re: claim 13, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein some of the plurality of depressions or protrusions are circular and have a width between about 0.005 inches and about 0.020 inches.
Re: claim 14, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein the width of some of the plurality of depressions or protrusions is about 0.007 inches.
Re: claim 15, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein the width of some of the plurality of depressions or protrusions is about 0.010 inches.
Re: claim 16, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein the width of some of the plurality of depressions or protrusions is about 0.012 inches.
Re: claim 17, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein the width of some of the plurality of depressions or protrusions is about 0.014 inches.
Re: claim 18, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein the width of some of the plurality of depressions or protrusions is about 0.016 inches.
Re: claim 23, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein the plurality of protrusions or depressions have a density along the surface within a range of about 75 protrusions or depressions per square inch to about 175 protrusions or depressions per square inch.
Re: claim 29, The polymeric article of claim 11, wherein the encoded visual indicia is formed from a plurality of features arranged in a pattern and some of the features included in the plurality of features are curved lobes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a specific shape of the depressions or protrusions and the features included in the encoded visual indicia along with a range of or specific widths and densities of the depressions or protrusions since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey 357 F. 2d. 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to make the depressions or protrusions circular as that is the simplest configuration to form. It would have been obvious to choose a with between about 0.0005 inches and 0.020 inches in order to ensure the pattern can be scanned more easily.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant US 2014/0116911 A1 in view of Tjhai et al. US 2013/0346169 A1.
The teachings of Bryant have been discussed above.
Bryant teaches encoded visual indicia can be on any other part of a container ([0012], [0014]).
Bryant fails to specifically teach:
Re: claim 19, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein the body is shaped as a lid for a cup and includes a brim mount and a central closure appended from the brim mount.
However, Tjhai teaches:
Re: claim 19, The polymeric article of claim 12, wherein the body is shaped as a lid for a cup (polymeric lid 600; fig. 19; [0085], [0135] reference numeral 600 designates a drinks container lid…plastics and paper and other types of drinks container lids for a cup (fig. 24)) and includes a brim mount (604; fig. 19) including a ring-shaped brim mount (ring-shaped brim mount 600 depicted in more details such as 200 in fig. 15-16 and 900 in fig. 24) and a central closure appended from the brim mount (601; fig. 19) comprising an encoded visual indicia (604; fig. 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tjhai into the polymeric article of Bryant as an obvious matter of design choice to prevent spilling of the contents inside the cup.
Re: claim 20, Bryant as modified by Tjhai additionally teaches the polymeric article of claim 19, wherein the encoded visual indicia is formed on the central closure (Tjhai – fig. 19).
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant US 2014/0116911 A1 in view of Doheny US 2022/0004832 A1.
The teachings of Bryant have been discussed above.
Bryant fails to specifically teaches:
Re: claim 24, The polymeric article of claim 11, wherein the encoded visual indicia includes a first pattern of features and a second pattern of features different than the first pattern of features.
However, Doheny teaches:
Re: claim 24, The polymeric article of claim 11, wherein the encoded visual indicia includes a first pattern of features and a second pattern of features; second pattern different than the first pattern of features ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Doheny into the article of Bryant as an obvious matter of design choice in order to enable many users to scan a more common type of identification to obtain the information encoded therein and limit reading of encoded information to a few users using a less common method of detection to enable information to be read in different types of environments ([0079]).
Re: claim 25, Bryant as modified by Doheny additionally teaches the polymeric article of claim 24, wherein the first pattern of features and the second pattern of features are interspersed with one another on the surface of the polymeric article (Doheny – fig 10; [0122]-[0123])).
Re: claim 26, Bryant as modified by Doheny additionally teaches the polymeric article of claim 24, wherein the first pattern of features and the second pattern of features are separate from one another on the surface of the polymeric article (Doheny – fig. 6b; [0086]-[0087]).
Re: claim 27, Bryant as modified by Doheny additionally teaches the polymeric article of claim 24, wherein the first pattern of features are configured to be scanned by a first device to generate a first set of instructions and the second pattern of features is configured to be scanned by a second device to generate a second set of instructions different than the first set of instructions (Doheny – fig. 6a; [0086]-[0089]).
Re: claim 28, Bryant as modified by Doheny additionally teaches the polymeric article of claim 11, wherein the encoded visual indicia forms a random texture or pattern on the polymeric article (Bryant – [0011], [0033]).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant US 2014/0116911 A1 in view of Eickhoff et al. US 2019/0039328 A1.
The teachings of Bryant have been discussed above.
Bryant teaches the polymeric article can be made of plastic ([0011]-[0012]) but fails to specifically teach:
Re: claim 30, The polymeric article of claim 11, wherein the body includes polypropylene.
However, Eickhoff teaches:
Re: claim 30, The polymeric article of claim 11, wherein the body includes polypropylene (claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eickhoff into the article of Bryant as an obvious matter of design choice where a body made from polypropylene has the benefits of withstanding high temperatures, is moisture resistant, cost-effective and recyclable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, in conjunction with all the other limitations of the claims: With respect to claim 21 and all its dependencies, wherein the lid is formed to include a plurality of product identification domes around the central closure and the plurality protrusions or depressions are spaced apart from the product identification domes, when included with all the limitations of claims 11, 12, 19 and 20 from which it depends. The prior art of record fails to provide sufficient teaching or motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the additionally recited features of these claims in the combinations as claimed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTY A HAUPT whose telephone number is (571)272-8545 and email address is kristy.haupt@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sun 5:30 AM- 10PM; Flex during day.
If all attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/KRISTY A HAUPT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
KAH