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 § 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 40, 43-46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (WO 2020/136541) in view of Bouic (US 2003/0209573) or Joseph (CN 105163865).
Claims 40, 44 and 45
Joseph discloses a liner (30) for receiving a liquid, such as a paint mixture, wherein the liner has the shape of a cup and is configured to be arranged in a cup; wherein the liner has a bottom/base, an upright side wall (31) and a peripheral flange (32) (see page 17 lines 25-26, page 18 lines 1-7 and figure 3), which peripheral flange protrudes outward from the upright side wall and is intended to extend over an edge of the cup; wherein the liner is manufactured from high density polyethylene material (see page 3 lines 9-11); wherein the upright wall has a wall thickness lying between 40 and 150 micrometres, i.e. 100 micrometres (see page 5 lines 11-12). Joseph does not specifically disclose the liner made of polyethylene terephthalate material. Joseph does not disclose a ratio of the weight of the liner and the volume which can be received in the liner. However, regarding the material of the liner, Bouic discloses a liner (13) disposed within a cup (12), the liner and the cup to be used with a spray gun, and wherein the liner is known to be made from polyethylene terephthalate material (see [0090]). Joseph ‘865 discloses a liquid supply assembly (100) comprising outer (104) and inner bag/liner (106) attached to a lid (108), wherein the inner bag is made from polyethylene terephthalate material (see page 4). It is known that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material has an elastic modulus between 290,000psi-580,000psi (1,999.48MPa – 3,998.96 MPa). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joseph having the liner made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material, in view of the teachings of Bouic or Joseph ‘865, that shows that PET liners are well-known and common in the art for containers for paint, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144307). After the liner of Joseph is modified by Bouic or Joseph ‘865, being made from PET material, the liner would have the elastic modulus required. Regarding the limitation of the weight and volume of the liner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joseph having the liner having the required weight and volume ratio capabilities, i.e. between 2.5 g/l and 16 g/l, depending of the desired thickness and/or strength of the liner, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed int eh prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Claim 43
Joseph further discloses the liner is transparent (see page 5 lines 14-15). Joseph ‘865 further discloses the inner bag/liner is transparent (see page 4). Joseph does not explicitly disclose the degree of transparency for the liner. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joseph with the required transparency, i.e. between 80 and 100%, of the liner to have complete visual access to the interior of the liner.
Claim 46
Joseph further discloses the upright side wall is provided with a bend (defined by bend form by second plane L2) at a distance of the peripheral flange (32) (see figures 1 and 2), all this such that when the liner is placed in a second, identical liner, the bend is supported on an upper end of the second liner. Joseph further discloses the liner is self-supporting which is defined by a structure that does not collapse (see page 3). Joseph further discloses the liners may stood upside down on a tope edge or flange without deforming (see page 4).
Claim 48
Joseph discloses an assembly (1) comprising a liner (30), a cup (10) in which the liner is receivable (see figure 1), and a lid (20) with a passage (29) for liquid (see page 19 lines 24-25), wherein the cup is formed with a bottom/base and an upright wall (16) extending from the bottom (see figure 1 and page 19 lines 3-4), and wherein the liner is configured for receiving a liquid (see abstract), wherein the liner has the shape of a cup and is configured to be arranged in a cup (see figure 1); wherein the liner has a bottom/base, an upright side wall (31) and a peripheral flange (32) (see page 17 lines 25-26, page 18 lines 1-7 and figure 3), which peripheral flange protrudes outward from the upright side wall and is intended to extend over an edge of the cup; wherein the liner is manufactured from high density polyethylene material (see page 3 lines 9-11); wherein the upright wall has a wall thickness lying between 10 and 250 micrometres (see page 5 lines 11-12). Joseph further discloses the lid is configured to be removably couplable to the cup, all this such that in a coupled state of the lid on the cup an upper end of the liner is clamped between the lid and the cup (see figures 1, 5, page 8 lines 12-16, page 21 lines 22-29, page 22 lines 1-6, and page 23 lines 16-22). Joseph does not specifically disclose the liner made of polyethylene terephthalate material. Joseph does not disclose a ratio of the weight of the liner and the volume which can be received in the liner. However, regarding the material of the liner, Bouic discloses a liner (13) disposed within a cup (12), the liner and the cup to be used with a spray gun, and wherein the liner is known to be made from polyethylene terephthalate material (see [0090]). Joseph ‘865 discloses a liquid supply assembly (100) comprising outer (104) and inner bag/liner (106) attached to a lid (108), wherein the inner bag is made from polyethylene terephthalate material (see page 4). It is known that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material has an elastic modulus between 290,000psi-580,000psi (1,999.48MPa – 3,998.96 MPa). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joseph having the liner made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material, in view of the teachings of Bouic or Joseph ‘865, that shows that PET liners are well-known and common in the art for containers for paint, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144307). After the liner of Joseph is modified by Bouic or Joseph ‘865, being made from PET material, the liner would have the elastic modulus required. Regarding the limitation of the weight and volume of the liner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joseph having the liner having the required weight and volume ratio capabilities, i.e. between 2.5 g/l and 16 g/l, depending of the desired thickness and/or strength of the liner, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed int eh prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Claim 49
Joseph further discloses the cup is manufactured from a polypropylene material (see page 8 line 20).
Claim 51
Joseph further discloses the shaped and dimensions of the liner are similar to the shape and dimensions of the cup (see figure 1). Joseph further discloses the cup supports at least the base of the and sidewall of the liner (see page 7 lines 20-23 and page 9 lines 3-6). Joseph does not specifically disclose the percentage which the bottom of the liner is supported by the bottom of the cup. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cup of Joseph providing complete support to the base of the liner to prevent deformation and possible tear/breakage of the liner when filled with liquid.
Claim 54
Joseph further discloses the lid has a conical or spherical part (defined by portion of lid pointed by reference numeral 20 in figure 1) which lies adjacently of the passage (29) (see figure 2).
Claim 55
Joseph further discloses the lid is provided with an inner peripheral wall (19) which is configured to extend at least partially into the cup, wherein the inner peripheral wall has an outer surface (defined by surface of 19 that engages with liner 30) lying opposite an inner surface of the cup; wherein the outer surface of the inner peripheral wall and/or the inner surface of the cup is provided with at least one seal (18), such that the upper end of the liner is clamped sealingly between the cup and the inner peripheral wall of the lid (see figures 1, 2 and page 19 lines 18-23).
Claim 58
Joseph further discloses a filter for filtering liquid flowing from the liner to the passage, wherein the filter is arranged against an underside of the lid (see page 9 lines 28-29 and page 10 lines 1-2).
Claims 42 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (WO 2020/136541) in view of Bouic (US 2003/0209573) or Joseph (CN 105163865) as applied to claim 40 or 48 above, and further in view of Shultz (US 9,174,231).
Claim 42
Joseph does not disclose dimensions for the liner. However, Shultz discloses a liner (70) for a sprayer fluid/paint, the liner comprising a heigh between 17.07 cm to 17.17 cm and a diameter (Dmi) between 10.37cm and 10.39 cm (see column 4 lines 64-67 and column 5 lines 1.5), wherein a ratio of the height and the diameter of the liner is 1.65 (smaller than 1.7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the liner of Joseph with the required dimensions as taught by Shultz because liners used for paint sprayers with such dimensions are known and common in the art.
Claim 52
Joseph does not disclose the bottom of the cup including one or more openings, as required. However, Shultz discloses a sprayer fluid supply comprising a cup (40) for receiving a liner (42), wherein a bottom of the cup provided is provided with a hole (41) to allow access to the liner (see column 2 lines 58-59). Shultz also discloses the cup could be provided with multiple cutouts (see column 6 lines 51-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cup of Joseph including one or multiple cutouts as taught by Shultz to provide physical access to the liner.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (WO 2020/136541) in view of Bouic (US 2003/0209573) or Joseph (CN 105163865) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Kosmyna (US 8,196,770).
Joseph does not disclose the liner is provided with measurement indications and/or mixing indications. However, Kosmyna discloses a fluid supply assembly comprising a cup (90) and a liner (55) provided with indicia (230) used to measure paint components (see column 6 lines 3-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Joseph including indicia as taught by Komyna for providing measurement indications of the liner.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (WO 2020/136541) in view of Bouic (US 2003/0209573) or Joseph (CN 105163865) as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of Escoto, Jr. (US 8,490,892).
Joseph discloses the cup being rigid (see page 7 lines 22-23). Joseph does not disclose the thickness for the upright sidewall. However, Escoto, Jr. discloses a liquid supply assembly comprising a cup (12) having a sidewall with a thickness of at least 3.0mm (3000 micrometer) to provide sufficient structural strength to the system (see column 7 lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cup of having the upright sidewall having a thickness as taught by Escoto, Jr. to provide sufficient structural strength to the cup.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (WO 2020/136541) in view of Bouic (US 2003/0209573) or Joseph (CN 105163865) as applied to claim 54 above, and further in view of Erickson (WO 2021094927).
Joseph does not disclose a stopper or a cap configured to be removably arrangeable on or in the passage in the lid in order to close the passage, as required. However, Erickson discloses a reservoir for use with a spray gun, the reservoir comprising a vent assembly (220) comprising a post (240) closed with a closure member (230) provided with a cylindrical part (231) that is sealingly inserted into the post, and an upper flange (232) which protrudes outward relative to the cylindrical part (see figure 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the passage including closure member as taught by Erickson for sealing purposes of the passage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 53, 56 and 57 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.
Claims 60-62 are allowed. No prior art discloses an assembly comprising a cup including an upright wall with a step comprising first and second peripheral walls lying at the required angle with respect to the other, as recited in claim 60.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that the material used by Joseph ‘865 is low density polyethylene, the examiner disagrees. Joseph ‘865 discloses polyethylene, which low density polyethylene could be an alternative material, but in the rejection the examiner relies on a disclosed polyethylene terephthalate material which is the same material used by the applicant. It is known that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material has an elastic modulus between 290,000psi-580,000psi (1,999.48MPa – 3,998.96 MPa), therefore the elastic modulus in the polyethylene terephthalate of the applicant is the same elastic modulus in the teaching of Joseph, by the fact that both uses the same material. Regarding applicant argument of the teaching of Bouic, the examiner points out that the only modification based on the teachings of Bouic is for the material of the liner, and nothing has to do with the lid and/or cup. Again, Bouic similar to Joseph ‘865 discloses the same material used in applicant’s invention for the liner, therefore the elastic modulus in applicant’s invention must be the same as the elastic modulus in any of Joseph ‘865 and Bouic. Regarding applicant’s argument of the rejection for claim 46, the examiner points out that the “bend” in Joseph is defined by bend form by second plane L2 which is spaced from peripheral flange (32) (see figures 1 and 2).
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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights