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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhouse; Peter Joseph (US 20070228054 A1) in view of Akins; R. W. (US 6446827 B1), in view of KANG SEON YOUNG (KR 20230022668 A); (see attached translation).
Regarding claims 1-4, 12, 15, and 17 Woodhouse discloses an open top vase lid (Fig. 1; 1); [0021], comprising: a top surface configured to cover at least a portion of an open end of a vase (2), said vase having an interior (7) with a width, wherein the top surface includes a center (6) and a periphery (5), a sidewall (3) located at the periphery of the top surface; wherein the sidewall is configured to secure the lid to the open end of the vase [0027], and a stem support (4) having a height located towards the center of the top surface [0024], wherein the stem support extends vertically downward into the vase and defines a cavity having a width configured to receive one or more flowers [0024]; wherein the width of the cavity is between 10% to 90% of the width of the interior of the vase (shown in Fig. 2); the stem support comprises a continuous imperforate sidewall that defines the cavity (Fig. 2).
Woodhouse does not disclose at least a portion of said sidewall extends vertically downward along the outside of the vase; wherein the stem support extends vertically downward into the vase at least one inch.
Akins teaches at least a portion of said sidewall (Fig. 2; 22); (Col. 4, lines 19-20) extends vertically downward along the outside of the vase; wherein the stem support extends vertically downward into the vase at least one inch (Col. 2, lines 50-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as an obvious substitution of functional equivalent, to substitute the sidewall having an upwardly extending sidewall for a frictional fit with the inside of the vase, as taught by Woodhouse, wherein at least a portion of said sidewall extends vertically downward along the outside of the vase; wherein the stem support extends vertically downward into the vase at least one inch, as taught by Akins, in order to provide a tighter fitting lid (Col. 2, lines 55-60), and for support, and since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results.
Woodhouse in view of Akins appears to disclose the height of the stem support is 1.5 to 3.5 times longer than the height of the sidewall of the lid (based on the dimensions of the paintbrush when compared to the support and sidewall of the lid of Akins). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stem support and sidewall of the lid of Woodhouse and Akins wherein the height of the stem support is 1.5 to 3.5 times longer than the height of the sidewall of the lid, in order to provide the advantages of optimal stem support based on the needs of the user, and since 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Woodhouse in view of Akins does not disclose wherein the width of the cavity exceeds the height of the stem support. Kang teaches wherein the width of the cavity exceeds the height of the stem support (Fig. 8; 22); (corresponding to the perforation line, shown in the figure above with a dashed line for emphasis, which can be sized according to the number of stems within the stem support. Thus, the width of the cavity would exceed the height (L2) of the stem support); “the cap 20 is cut at a predetermined height along any one perforation line 22 among the plurality of perforation lines 22. As it is separated, the size of the opening 21 can be increased”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the cavity of Woodhouse and Akins wherein the width of the cavity exceeds the height of the stem support, as taught by Kang, in order to allow for the insertion of more flowers.
Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang does not disclose the width of the cavity is at least two times the height of the stem support. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the cavity of Woodhouse, Akins, and Kang, wherein the width of the cavity is at least two times the height of the stem support in order to provide the advantages of optimal stem support based on the needs of the user, and since 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.
Regarding claim 5 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodhouse further discloses wherein the top surface, sidewall, and stem support are all made of one piece of material (Fig. 1); [0037].
Regarding claims 7 and 13 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang further discloses a retainer (Akins; Fig. 1; 24) configured to secure the lid to a lip of the vase.
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 19 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 17. Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang further discloses wherein the lid includes an interior sidewall configured to provide friction to secure the lid to a vase without a lip (Akins; Fig. 1; 23).
Regarding claim 9 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodhouse further discloses the top surface covers a majority of the open end of the vase such that the cavity is the only opening through the lid into the interior of the vase (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang further appears to disclose the stem support extends vertically downward into the vase at least two inches (Akins; based on the ½” size diameter of the paintbrush in relation to the dimension of the support wall).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stem support of Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang to extend vertically downward into the vase at least two inches, in order to provide the advantages of optimal support based on the needs of the user, and since 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, and since applicant has not disclosed criticality to the dimensions of the stem support.
Regarding claims 11, 16, and 20 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 20. Woodhouse further discloses wherein the stem support tapers inward as it extends downward into the interior of the vase (Fig. 2); [0024].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhouse; Peter Joseph (US 20070228054 A1) in view of Akins; R. W. (US 6446827 B1), in view of KANG SEON YOUNG (KR 20230022668 A); (see attached translation), further in view of Bortman; Mark (US 20060112624 A1).
Regarding claim 6 Woodhouse, in view of Kang and Akins, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodhouse further discloses wherein the lid is made of plastic [0037], but does not disclose flexible plastic.
Bortman teaches wherein the lid is made of a flexible plastic material [0024]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid to be a flexible plastic, as taught by Bortman, in order to conform more easily to the shape of the container, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dimensions of Woodhouse not explicitly disclosing the stem support extending into the vase at least one inch, wherein the height of the stem support is 1.5 to 3.5 times longer than the height of the sidewall of the lid, are persuasive. However, Akins discloses that the diameter of a paintbrush is approximately ½”. Thus, when considering the support of Akins, the support would be approximately four paintbrush widths high, or two inches. The rejection is therefore maintained as being disclosed by Woodhouse in view of Akins.
In regards to applicant’s argument that modifying Woodhouse to satisfy the claimed geometry would defeat Woodhouses’s intended purpose, this is not found persuasive. Even with modifying the tubular part so that the cavity is wider than it is tall, the device would still function as intended. The spillage prevention is described in [0029] with reference 43 preventing spillage (shown in Fig. 4b). Furthermore, a reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In response to applicant’s argument that, “Kang does not state that the resulting diameter exceeds the resulting height”, this is not found persuasive because as the device is shortened (see annotated drawing above) the width is increased the height is decreased. This is shown between Figs. 7-8, as D2 is increased, L2 is decreased. Thus the resulting diameter exceeds the resulting height.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
