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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: fig.1 element number 120 is not referenced in specifications. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "a side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has already claimed “a side” in claim 1 so it is unclear what other side there is since the body a cylindrical body and can have just one side. Claim also recites “a longitudinal axis” in lines 2-3 which has insufficient antecedent basis because applicant has already claimed “a longitudinal axis” in claim 1. For purpose of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as “the side” and “the longitudinal axis.”
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US7431526B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an aluminum trim coil dispensing device comprising (see annotated fig.1F below for the dispensing device):
an oblong hollow container body with a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see annotated fig.1F below for a oblong hollow container body with a first end and second end that is opposite of the first end ) and a side of the container body extend between the first and second ends, wherein the first end has an opening configured for the insertion and removal of an aluminum trim coil (see annotated fig.1F below for a side of the container body extending between the first and second ends and the first end having an opening capable for insertion and removable of an aluminum trim coil; it is noted that aluminum trim coil is not positively claimed);
a slot that extends parallel to a longitudinal axis of the container body, the slot configured to allow a continuous feed through of the aluminum trim coil (see annotated fig.1F below for a slot that extends parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body and the slot is capable of allowing a continuous feed through the of the coil).
Annotated fig.1F of Lin
PNG
media_image1.png
664
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on 112 issue above, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin further teaches a handle attached to the side of the container body, the handle extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the container body (see annotated fig.1F above for a handle attached to the side of the body and the handle extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin further teaches a cover for the opening (see annotated fig.1F above for the cover for the opening).
Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin further teaches wherein the cover is threaded and configured to screw onto the opening (fig.1F above the cover is threaded since it is a screw cap).
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin further teaches wherein the cover is configured for a snap-on or interference fit with the opening (see annotated fig.1F above for the cover being capable of being a snap on or interference fit with the opening).
Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin further teaches a handle attached to the cover (see annotated fig.1F above for the handle attached to the cover).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Honeyghan (US8672164B2).
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin does not teach one or more non-skid strips attached to a side surface of the container body.
Honeyghan does teach one or more non-skid strips attached to a side surface of the container body (fig.1 shows the protrusion 216 on side of the container body used as a non-skid strip). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side surface of the body disclosed by Lin by adding the teaching of the protrusion on side of the body as disclosed by Honeyghan in order to help a user better grip or otherwise hold the vessel. “In order to help a user better grip or otherwise hold the drinking vessel 10, the outer surface of the container body 200 is ergonomically shaped. As perhaps best illustrated in FIG. 11, the upstanding side wall 204 of the container body 200 has an outer surface that includes a bottom portion 210, gripping portion 212 and top portion 214. The gripping portion 212 includes a plurality of protrusions 216 which extend longitudinally along at least the gripping portion 212 and preferably almost along the entire outer surface.” (Col.4 lines 25-33, Honeyghan)
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin does not teach wherein the container body has a textured side surface configured to prevent sliding of the container body.
Honeyghan does teach wherein the container body has a textured side surface configured to prevent sliding of the container body (fig.1 shows the protrusion 216 on side of the container body used as a non-skid strip). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side surface of the body disclosed by Lin by adding the teaching of the protrusion on side of the body as disclosed by Honeyghan in order to help a user better grip or otherwise hold the vessel. “In order to help a user better grip or otherwise hold the drinking vessel 10, the outer surface of the container body 200 is ergonomically shaped. As perhaps best illustrated in FIG. 11, the upstanding side wall 204 of the container body 200 has an outer surface that includes a bottom portion 210, gripping portion 212 and top portion 214. The gripping portion 212 includes a plurality of protrusions 216 which extend longitudinally along at least the gripping portion 212 and preferably almost along the entire outer surface.” (Col.4 lines 25-33, Honeyghan)
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US7431526B2).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin does teach wherein a width of the slot (see annotated fig.1F shows the slot having a width). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified width of the slot of Lin to be in the range of one eighth of an inch to one half of an inch in order to have a specific/desired width of coil sheet to be dispensed. To modify the size of the package and retainer into the claimed cap would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin as modified in claim 9 further teaches wherein the width of the slot is one quarter of an inch (see annotated fig.1F above the width of the slot can be one quarter of the an inch).
Regarding claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin does teach wherein a length of the slot (see annotated fig.1F above where the slot has an length). ranges from 24 inches to 26 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified length of the slot of Lin to be in the range of 24 inches to 26 inches in order to have a specific/desired length of coil sheet to be dispensed. To modify the size of the package and retainer into the claimed cap would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, the references as applied to claim 11 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin as modified in claim 11 further teaches wherein the length of the slot is 24.5 inches (see annotated fig.1F the length of the slot can be 24.5 inches).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gillam (US20110089072A1).
Regarding claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin does not teach a felt or felt-like material attached to an interior surface of the container body.
Gillam does teach a felt or felt-like material attached to an interior surface of the container body (fig.1 shows the container 10 that can have a felt or felt-like material attached to an interior surface of the container body). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interior surface of the body disclosed by Lin by adding the teaching of felt or felt like material on interior surface of the body as disclosed by Gillam in order to provide a soft, cushioned surface. “As an alternative to the paint or stain coating, a process known as flocking can be used. In this process, the hardened material may be coated with an adhesive, and a felt material or felt-like material may be applied to the surface in order to provide a soft, cushioned surface.” (0019, Gilliam)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hagmann (US5067611A).
Regarding claim 14, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lin does not teach a felt or felt-like material attached to a perimeter of the slot.
Hagmann does teach a felt or felt-like material attached to a perimeter (fig.4 shows the felt like material 40 attached to a perimeter). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter slot disclosed by Lin by adding the teaching of felt or felt like material as disclosed by Hagmann in order to provide frictional engagement on the surface. “Still further, the section 27 is formed with a groove 53 which is parallel to the weakened portions 17, 17' and receives an elastically deformable insert 40 (e.g., a strip made of felt or a like material) which serves to frictionally engage the adjacent median portions of the articles 32 in the respective pockets 33 in order to prevent uncontrolled axial and/or angular movements of the articles.” (Col.8 lines 65-68)
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for the prior art made of record 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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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 on (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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735