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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 is unreadable . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim currently states “each of the inclination angle differences defining the inflection point portions formed in the intermediate region is 10 degrees or less.” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “each of the inclination angle differences defining the inflection point portions formed in the intermediate region [[is]] are 10 degrees or less.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 currently references “an upper portion” and “upper end”. Based on the claim language, it appears as though these are two different areas. However, based on what is shown in the figures and how these portions are described, they appear to be the same thing. For purposes of further consideration, these are being interpreted as being the same thing.
Claim 1 currently references “a lower end” and “a lower portion”. Similar to above, these all appear to be the same thing, but they are claimed using a variety of language. For purposes of further consideration, these are being interpreted as being the same thing.
Claim 1 currently states “a height from the grounding portion to the upper end is 100%” and “an upper region having a height of 70% to 100%”. This is confusing and appears to be a series of incomplete thoughts. The height from the grounding portion to the upper end is 100% of what? The upper region having a height of 70% to 100% of what? For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as if the claim states something along the lines of “a height of the cup extends from the grounding portion to the upper end [[is 100%]]” and “an upper region having a height of 70% to 100% of the height of the cup”.
Claim 2 currently states “the at least one inflection point portion at which the inclination angle of the body portion changes is formed in a lower region”. This claim limitation appear to directly contradict clam 1, which states “an upper region… includes at least one inflection point portion”. Because claim 2 references “the at least one inflection point portion”, it appears to be referencing the same inflection point portion(s) as referenced in claim 1. However, claim 1 states that the inflection point portion(s) are located in the upper region, and does not reference any inflection point portion(s) being located in any sort of lower portion. For the purposes of further consideration, claim 2 is being interpreted as stating “[[the]] at least one inflection point portion at which the inclination angle of the body portion changes is formed in a lower region”
Claim 2 currently references “a lower region having a height of 40% or less.” Again, this is confusing and appears to be incomplete. For the purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as stating “a lower region having a height of 40% or less of the height of the cup.”
Claim 3 currently references “the inflection point portion”. However, claim 3 depends from claim 1 which references “at least one inflection point portion”. It is unclear which of the at least one inflection point portion(s) it is references. For the purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as referencing “the at least one inflection point portion”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lower region " in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as reciting “a [[the]] lower region”.
Claim 4 currently states “…at least four of the inflection point portions at which the inclination angle of the body portion changes are formed in an intermediate region between the upper region and the lower region.” Similar to claim 2 above, this appears to directly contradict claim 1. For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as stating “at least four [[of the]] inflection point portions at which the inclination angle of the body portion changes are formed in an intermediate region between the upper region and [[the]] a lower region.” Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 4 and include similar issues.
Claim 5 currently references “the inflection point portion”. However, claim 5 depends from claim 1 which references “at least one inflection point portion”. It is unclear which of the at least one inflection point portion(s) it is references. For the purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as referencing “[[the]] at least one inflection point portion”.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Holstine et al. (US 2023/0047517) (hereinafter Holstine).
Regarding Claim 1
Holstine teaches a stackable metal cup (below – Fig. 2- 4) comprising: a body portion (12) having a hollow shape with an open upper end (shown at 18) and having a shape inclined from the upper end toward a lower end (34) such that an upper end inner diameter (D2) is larger than a lower end outer diameter (D3); and a bottom portion (16) including a grounding portion (38), the grounding portion being continuous with the lower end of the body portion via a curvature portion, wherein when a height of the cup (H1) extends from the grounding portion to the upper end, and an upper region having a height of 70% to 100% of the height of the cup includes at least one inflection point portion (46) at which an inclination angle of the body portion, with respect to a vertical plane, changes, as can be seen in the figures below (Paragraphs [0016]-[0031]).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
619
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
692
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Holstine teaches at least one inflection point portion (50) at which the inclination angle of the body portion changes is formed in a lower region having a height of 40% or less of the height of the cup.
Regarding Claim 3
Holstine teaches an inclination angle difference defining the at least one inflection point portion is 25 degrees or less (e.g. roughly 12-15 degrees, per the measurements in at least Paragraphs [0022] and [0028]-[0031]).
Regarding Claim 4
Holstine teaches at least four inflection point portions at which the inclination angle of the body portion changes are formed in an intermediate region between the upper region and a lower region (Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5
Holstine teaches at least one inflection point portion (46) is an intersection between a reference vertical wall (24) having an inclination angle (A2) of 2 degrees or less with respect to a vertical plane and an inclined wall (54) having an inclination angle difference with respect to the reference vertical wall (Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 8
Holstine teaches the height from the grounding portion to the upper end is in a range of 90 to 150 mm (e.g. 115mm), and the upper end inner diameter of the opening is in a range of 65 to 95 mm (e.g. 81mm) (Paragraphs [0022] and [0026]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holstine as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 6
Holstine teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Holstine further teaches the diameters and heights of the various sections of the cup are able to be within a range of dimensions. At the “specific embodiment”, based on the “specific embodiment” dimensions, the inclination angle differences are roughly 15 degrees. However, at the ends of the dimension ranges, the inclination angle may be roughly 12 degrees. As such, it would appear as though Holstine is more than capable of teaching inclination angle differences defining the inflection point portions formed in the intermediate region are all smaller than inclination angle differences defining inflection point portions existing in the upper region and the lower region.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have inclination angle differences defining the inflection point portions formed in the intermediate region all being smaller than inclination angle differences defining inflection point portions existing in the upper region and the lower region, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of inclination angle differences defining the inflection point portions formed in the intermediate region all being smaller than inclination angle differences defining inflection point portions existing in the upper region and the lower region does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Holstine teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. As stated above Holstine teaches the diameters and heights of the various sections of the cup are able to be within a range of dimensions, and at the ends of the dimension ranges, the inclination angle may be roughly 12 degrees.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have each of the inclination angle differences defining the inflection point portions formed in the intermediate region being 10 degrees or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of each of the inclination angle differences defining the inflection point portions formed in the intermediate region being 10 degrees or less does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights