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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/23/24 has been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of applying prior art the following broadest reasonable interpretations are applied. The disclosure does not set forth uncommon, special, or otherwise explicit definitions for terms for which the following aforementioned broadest reasonable interpretations are provided. These broadest reasonable interpretations do not appear inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretations
In regards to claim 31,
the term adjacent is interpreted as:
“not distant, nearby” as per the attached definition obtained on 01/04/26 from Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured inhibit” should be “configured to inhibit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0051575 to Durivage in view of US D220831 to Zimmerman.
As per claim 1, Durivage discloses a fluid storage container assembly (Fig. 1) comprising:
a container (10) having a base wall and a top wall (30) and a peripheral wall (12, 30, 14) being coupled to and extending between the base wall and the top wall to define an interior space (Fig. 1; abstract) wherein the container is configured to retain a fluid in the interior space (abstract), the base wall being planar (abstract “flat circumferential end wall”);
a spout (42) being coupled to the container, the spout being fluidly coupled to the interior space wherein the spout is configured to facilitate the fluid in being removed from the interior space ([0036]) and wherein the spout is configured to facilitate the fluid in being added to the interior space ([0036]).
Durivage does not disclose: wherein the base wall is configured to stabilize a position of the container on a surface and the base wall is configured to inhibit the container from tipping over when the container is positioned on the surface; and the base wall having a length and a width each exceeding a height of the peripheral wall wherein the base.
In regards to the claimed functionality of the base wall to stabilize the container and inhibit the container from tipping, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). Durivage discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used such that: the base wall is configured to stabilize a position of the container on a surface and the base wall is configured to inhibit the container from tipping over when the container is positioned on the surface.
In regards to the limitation requiring the base wall to have a length and a width each exceeding a height of the peripheral wall wherein the base, Zimmerman teaches a fluid storage container assembly wherein a base wall has a length and width each exceeding a height of a peripheral wall of the container assembly. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Durivage according to the aforementioned teachings from Zimmerman for reasons including to accommodate space limitations on storing the container assembly.
As per claims 2, 3, and 4, the Durivage-Zimmerman combination discloses the claimed invention except for the particular dimensions shape and volume claimed. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have provided the container with the claimed length and base shape and volume since it has been generally held that where the structural limitations of a claim have been disclosed, the mere change in shape and/or size is considered to be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
As per claim 5, Durivage further discloses the peripheral wall has a front side and a back side, the front side including:
a first panel being coupled to and extending upwardly from the base wall, the first panel being perpendicular to the base wall (see Figure A, below); and
a second panel (see Figure A, below) being coupled to and extending between the first panel to the top wall, the second panel being angled to extend upwardly from the first panel and inwardly toward the top wall wherein the base wall has a width exceeding a width of the top wall, the width of each of the base wall and the top wall being measured between the front side and the back side of the peripheral wall (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: US 2005/0051575, Figure 1 – annotated.
As per claim 6, Durivage further discloses a side cutout (38) extending into the back side of the peripheral wall.
As per claim 7, Durivage further discloses the side cutout is centrally positioned on the peripheral wall between the base wall and top wall (Fig. 5).
As per claim 8, Durivage further discloses the side cutout further comprising:
a side cutout top edge being positioned proximate to the top wall (Fig. 5); and
a side cutout bottom edge being positioned proximate to the base wall (Fig. 5), the side cutout being concavely arcuate between the side cutout top edge and the side cutout bottom edge (Fig. 3).
As per claim 9, Durivage further discloses the side cutout bottom edge is parallel to the side cutout top edge (Fig. 3, 5).
As per claim 10, Durivage further discloses a side handle (Fig. 3, 5) coupled to the back side of the container (Fig. 3, 5), the side handle extending across the side cutout (Fig. 3, 5).
As per claim 11, Durivage further discloses the side handle comprising a side handle upper surface being coplanar with the peripheral wall (Fig. 3).
As per claim 12, Durivage further discloses the side handle is centrally positioned on the side cutout (Fig. 5).
As per claim 13, Durivage further discloses a top cutout (32) extending into the top wall (Fig. 1).
As per claim 14, Durivage further discloses the top cutout is centrally positioned on the top wall (Fig. 6).
As per claim 15, Durivage further discloses the top cutout comprising:
a top cutout front edge (Fig. 6); and
a top cutout back edge (Fig. 6), the top cutout being concavely arcuate between the top cutout front edge and the top cutout back edge (Fig. 1 and 3).
As per claim 16, Durivage further discloses a top handle (Fig. 1, 3) being coupled to the top wall of the container, the top handle extending across the top cutout (Fig. 1, 3).
As per claim 17, Durivage further discloses the top handle is perpendicular to the top cutout (Fig. 6).
As per claim 18, Durivage further discloses the top handle comprising a top handle upper surface being coplanar with the top wall (Fig. 3).
As per claim 19, Durivage further discloses the top handle is centrally positioned on the top cutout (Fig. 6).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0051575 to Durivage in view of US D220831 to Zimmerman in view of US D589809 to Gundrum et al in view of US 6003735 to Strecker.
As per claim 20, the Durivage-Zimmerman combination similarly discloses those limitations of claim 20 that are identically to that of claims 1-19, as set forth previously with regard to claims 1-19.
Durivage further discloses:
the container having a plurality of corners each corner of the plurality of corners being rounded (Fig. 1-5);
the side cutout being parallel to the back side of the peripheral wall (Fig. 2);
the side handle is perpendicular to the back side of the container (Fig. 5);
the top cutout front edge being positioned proximate to the front side of the peripheral wall (Fig. 1-2);
the top cutout back edge being positioned proximate to the back side of the peripheral wall, and being parallel to the top cutout front edge (Fig. 1-2, 6);
the spout being positioned on the second panel (Fig. 1), and, the spout being angled to extend upwardly from the second panel and outwardly from the container (Fig. 1).
The Durivage-Zimmerman combination does not disclose:
the top cutout having a surface area exceeding a surface area of the side cutout; a valve being coupled to the spout, the valve being movable between an open position and a closed position wherein the valve is configured to facilitate the fluid in being removed from and added to the interior space when the valve is in the open position and wherein the valve is configured to inhibit the fluid from being removed from and added to the interior space when the valve is in the closed position, the valve being rotatably coupled to the spout wherein rotation of the valve moves the valve between the open position and the closed position, the valve being positioned adjacent to the front side of the peripheral wall of the container; and, the peripheral wall having a height between 9 and 12 inches.
In regards to the limitation requiring the top cutout to have a surface area exceeding a surface area of the side cutout, Gundrum teaches a fluid storage container assembly comprising a top cutout (see Figure B, below) and a side cutout (see Figure B, below) wherein the top cutout has a surface area exceeding a surface area of the side cutout (Fig. 2, 5, 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the (Col. 6, ¶ 3; Fig. 4-5) according to the aforementioned teaches from Gundrum for reasons including to provide a desired container volume.
PNG
media_image2.png
523
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: US D589809, Fig 2 – annotated
In regards to the limitations requiring a valve being coupled to the spout, Strecker teaches a fluid storage container assembly (Fig. 4-5) comprising a valve (Fig. 23, 30) being coupled to the spout, the valve being movable between an open position and a closed position (Col. 6, ¶ 3; Fig. 4-5) wherein the valve is configured to facilitate the fluid in being removed from the interior space when the valve is in the open position and wherein the valve is configured to inhibit the fluid from being removed from the interior space when the valve is in the closed position (Col. 6, ¶ 3; Fig. 4-5), the valve being rotatably coupled to the spout wherein rotation of the valve moves the valve between the open position and the closed position (Col. 6, ¶ 3; Fig. 4-5), the valve being positioned adjacent to a front side of a peripheral wall of the container (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Durivage-Zimmerman-Gundrum combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Strecker to provide valved control of fluid flow between the interior and exterior of the container.
Strecker does not explicitly disclose the valve is configured to facilitate the fluid in being removed added to the interior space when the valve is in the open position, and wherein the valve is configured to inhibit the fluid from being added to the interior space when the valve is in the closed position. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II).
In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Durivage-Zimmerman-Gundrum-Strecker combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used as claimed, i.e. the valve is configured to facilitate the fluid in being removed added to the interior space when the valve is in the open position, and wherein the valve is configured to inhibit the fluid from being added to the interior space when the valve is in the closed position.
In regards to the limitation requiring the peripheral wall having a height between 9 and 12 inches. The Durivage-Zimmerman-Gundrum-Strecker combination set forth does not explicitly disclose a magnitude for the height of the peripheral wall. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have provided the height of the peripheral wall as between 9 and 12 inches since it has been generally held that where the structural limitations of a claim have been disclosed, the mere change in shape and/or size is considered to be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754