DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 10, the scope of the claims is unclear with the recitation of “the following order: a region P1, a region Q1, a region P2, …., a region Pn-1, a region Qn-1, a region Pn, wherein N>= 3 because it does not define the metes and bounds of the claim limitation. Regarding claim 6, the scope of the claims is unclear as to whether applicant is claiming the combination of the metal cups or the subcombination of a metal cup capable of functioning with a second metal cup.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,971,471 to Ludder in view of US 2,412,178 to Seigh.
Regarding claim 1, 5, 10, Ludder discoses a stackable cup (Fig 1) comprising a body portion (11) having a hollow shape with an open upper portion (11aa) and having a shape in which an inner diameter or an outer diameter is reduced toward a lower side (11d) such that an upper end inner diameter is larger than a lower end outer diameter (Fig 1), a bottom portion (12) including a grounding portion (12a), the grounding portion (12a) being continuous with a lower end of the body portion via a curvature portion (12b), wherein, when the metal cup is stacked in a plurality, a region P (11c) in which an angle of the body portion with respect to a horizontal plane ranges from 85 to 90 degrees and a region Q (11e) in which an angle of the body portion with respect to the horizontal plane is smaller than the angle in the region P are alternately continuous in a height direction such that a clearance t of 0.5 mm or more is formed between an inner diameter of a body portion of a lower cup and an outer diameter of the body portion of an upper cup since it has the structure as recited. Ludder further discloses a boundary portion between region P and Q being rounded (Fig 1). In particular, since the metal cup has the structure as recited, then it can function in a stack as recited depending on the structure of other objects in the stack. Ludder does not teach the stackable cup to be metal. However, Seigh discloses stackable metal cups were known in the art (Fig 1) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to manufacture the Ludder cup out of metal material in order to have a strong and durable container since it has been held that selection of a known material to make a container of a type made of material prior to the invention was held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the instance that the region P (11c) is not 85-90 degrees from the horizontal, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the region P of the sidewall at the recited angle range from the horizontal as recited in order to facilitate support of the container since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, 7, 12, the modified Ludder teaches the cup of claim 1, 5, 10 but does not teach the recited angle of region Q to be that as recited. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the region Q of the sidewall at the recited angle range from the horizontal as recited in order to facilitate support of the container since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, 8, 13, as best understood, Ludder further discloses region P at lowermost part extends upward from curvature portion such that it can form a stack width when in stacked state as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 4, 9, 14, as best understood, Ludder further discloses a stacked structure (Fig 1, C1, C2) of the metal cup, the stacked structure comprising a lower one (C1) of the metal cups and upper one (C2) of the two cups, a region in which a horizontal space (A, Fig 1 below) is between the inner diameter of the body portion of the lower one of the metal cups and the outer diameter of the body portion of the upper of the metal cups, but does not teach the recited dimensions. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the dimensions of the space to the range as recited in order to facilitate stacking since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, 11, the modified Ludder further teaches the cup capable of having a contact part as recited since the cup has the structure as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initally, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a region P and region Q alternately continuous in the height direction. This is not persuasive because the Ludder teaches a region P (11c) that is alternately continuous with region Q (11e) in the height direction. Applicant further argues that the prior art does not teach line contact portion and clearance as recited. However, the claims are directed to a stackable metal cup and so long as prior art teaches the structure of the metal cup as recited, then it would be capable of having a contact portion and clearance when functioning with a second cup as recited.
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735