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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the limitation of, “according to claim 11” is an error for –according to claim 10--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lepoitevin (US D591,602),which in figures 1-5 disclose the following claimed limitations:
In re claim 25: A container for automotive or other fluids (FIG.1) comprising: a hollow body, the hollow body having an elongated rectangular cross-sectional shape (FIG.4 or 5) with two side walls, two end walls, and four corners, each of the four corners being defined by two sub-corners and an intermediate wall (FIG.4 or 5 below); a spout (spout with cap, FIG.1-3) defining an opening into the container; a transition section (section directly below the spout FIG.1-3) located between and connecting the body to the spout; and a base (bottom of the container FIG.1-3 and 5) closing one end of the body opposite of the spout; and wherein when measured in transverse cross-section the end walls have an overall width that is substantially the same as an overall width of the intermediate walls (see FIG.4 or 5 below).
In re claim 26: the container is formed by an extrusion blow molding process.
The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). It should be noted that the process of extrusion blow molding is a very common process in the art which can be seen throughout the prior art of record.
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) 1-4, 6-9, 12-15, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yourist (US 2011/0174829). Yourist discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations:
In re claim 1: A container 10 for automotive or other fluids comprising: a hollow body 20, the hollow body 20 having an octo-rectangular cross-sectional shape (see Figs. 6 or 7), the octo-rectangular cross-sectional shape of the hollow body 20 is defined by the hollow body 209 having an elongated rectangular cross-sectional shape with four side walls 25/27/45/27 and four corners 21(x4), each of the four corners 21 being defined by two rounded sub-corners and an intermediate wall 21 (see Figs. 6 or 7); a spout 8 defining an opening into the container 10; a transition section 15 located between and connecting the body 20 to the spout 8; and a base 30 closing one end of the body 20 opposite of the spout 8; and the four side walls 25/27/45/27 include two major side walls 25/45 and two minor side walls 27/27, when measured in transverse cross-section the major side walls 25/45 having an overall width substantially greater than an overall width of the minor side walls 27/27 as measured in transverse cross-section (see Figs.1-7 of Yourist).
Yourist discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations:
when measured in transverse cross-section the minor side walls having an overall width that substantially the same as an overall width of the intermediate walls as measured in transverse cross-section.
To modify Yourist with the minor side walls having an overall width that substantially the same as an overall width of the intermediate walls as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the walls and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device (liquid container), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices (liquid containers) in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. For evidence, see figures 5-4 below of Lepoitevin (US D591,602) for a fluid container with this notoriously well-known shape
PNG
media_image1.png
369
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2: the intermediate walls 21 and the four side walls are substantially planar 25/27/45/27 (see Figs. 6-7 of Yourist).
In re claim 4: the four side walls 25/27/45/27 include two major side walls 25/45 and two minor side walls 27/27, when measured in transverse cross-section the major side walls 25/45 having an overall width that is fifty percent greater than an overall width of the minor side walls 27/27 as measured in transverse cross-section (see Figs. 6-7 of Yourist).
In re claim 6: the transition section 15 has an octo-rectangular cross-sectional shape (see Fig. 6), the octo-rectangular cross-sectional shape of the transition section 15 being defined as having an elongated rectangular cross-sectional shape with four side walls 13/17/33/17 and four corners 19(x4), each of the four corners 19 of the transition section 15 being defined by two rounded sub-corners and an intermediate wall (see Figs.1-7 of Yourist).
In re claim 7: the two rounded sub-corners and intermediate wall of the transition section 15 are extensions of the two rounded sub-corners and intermediate wall of the hollow body 20 (see Figs.1-7 of Yourist).
In re claim 8: the four side walls 13/17/33/17 of the transition section 15 include major side walls 13/33 and minor side walls 17/17, the minor side walls 17/17and intermediate walls 19(x4) of the transition section 15 decreasing in width as measured in transverse cross-section when proceeding from the hollow body 20 toward the spout 8 (see Fig. 6 of Yourist).
In re claim 9: Yourist discloses the four side walls 13/17/33/17 of the transition section include major side walls 13/33 and minor side walls 17/17 (see Fig. 6 of Yourist).
Yourist discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations:
the minor side walls of the transition section having an overall width measured in transverse cross-section that is less than an overall width measured in transverse cross-section of the intermediate walls of the transition section.
To modify Yourist with the minor side wall widths and intermediate wall widths as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the walls and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Yourist discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations:
In re claim 12: the container is a container having a one quart/one liter nominal volume.
In re claim 13: in a 1Qt/1L volume container configuration the container has a surface area of less than 107 sq. in..
In re claim 14: in a ten liter volume container configuration the container has a surface area of less than 465 sq. in..
In re claim 15: in a twenty liter volume container configuration the container has a surface area of less than 823 sq. in..
To modify the container of Yourist into the claimed one quart/one liter nominal volume, ten liter volume, twenty liter volume or 2.5 gallon/10 liter nominal volume and its surface area, would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). 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). In this case, it was notoriously well-known in the art to have different size containers depending on the desired needs of the liquids being held.
Yourist discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations:
In re claim 22: the container is a container having a 2.5 gallon/10 liter nominal volume, a weight of less 360 grams and a top load capability of greater than 90 lbf.
In re claim 23 (original 24): the container is a container having a 2.5 gallon/10 liter nominal volume, a weight of less 300 grams and a top load capability of greater than 120 lbf.
Yourist discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of a weight range and a top load capacity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have different weight ranges for different size container, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It was notoriously well known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to meet a certain top load capacity of said container depending on the desired stacking of or to prevent puncturing depending on the liquids being held within. As an example, Gaydosh et al. (US 6,016,932) teaches increasing top load capacity within a container by shoulder thickness or added ribs for increased rigidity.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yourist (US 2011/0174829) in view of Nakamaki (US 5,735,420). Yourist discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations:
In re claim 10: the four side walls include two major side walls and two minor side walls, an average wall thickness ratio of the thickness of the intermediate walls to the thickness of the major sides of the container being greater than 0.63
In re claim 11: the average wall thickness ratio is in the range of 0.63 to 0.77.
In re claim 19: the average wall thickness ratio defines a variance of less than 23% from a uniform wall thickness ratio.
In re claim 20: the average wall thickness ratio defines a variance of less than 13% from a uniform wall thickness ratio.
Nakamaki teaches the provision of different wall thickness ratios in a similar container and modifying the thickness ratios to produce a desired result with thickness numbers that fall into the claimed ranges.
Yourist in view of Nakamaki teaches the claimed invention except for specific variances. Wall thickness of different parts of the container are results effective variable with the results being the desired strength of the container parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to produce a container that meets the desired strength with the least amount of materials, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 21: the container is a container having a 2.5 gallon/10 liter nominal volume.
To modify the container of Yourist into the claimed 2.5 gallon/10 liter nominal volume, would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). 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). In this case, It was notoriously well-known in the art to have different size containers depending on the desired needs of the liquids being held.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16,17 and 18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the arguments regarding the claimed geometry, the Examiner disagrees because this geometry is not a new discovery as it appears to be argued and claimed, 8-sided containers were notoriously well-known in the art well before the effective filing date of the invention, as evidence see at least Lepoitevin (US D591,602). In regards to the claimed thickness. Nakamaki teaches the provision of different wall thickness ratios in a similar container and modifying the thickness ratios to produce a desired result with thickness numbers that fall into the claimed ranges. Having thicker walls defiantly would increase the strength of the container and also reducing the thickness of the walls while adding ribs can result in similar strength, this is well-known in the art. Furthermore, this is the exact way the invention is able to achieve the lowest weight by incorporating ribs within the intermediate sides of the container. Claiming the thickness ratios, container volume and weight may not be obvious when combined. However this is not being claimed.
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 ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735