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 § 102
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) 14-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van De Merwe (WO 2008/050306) Copy provided in file.
With respect to claim 14, Van De Merwe shows a barrel (10) comprising: one or more barrel staves (14) comprising recycled barrel staves (14) that were previously removed from a salvaged barrel (10); and one or more barrel bands (20) that hold the one or more barrel staves (14) around a circumference of the barrel, and wherein the recycled barrel staves (14) are reversed such that their inner side faces an outside of the salvaged barrel (“staves to be reversed for operative use of both its faces” Abstract line 3).
With respect to claim 15, Van De Merwe shows wherein the barrel staves (14) comprise a top end, a bottom end, two groze grooves (38,40), and two new groze grooves (40,42).
With respect to claim 16, Van De Merwe shows the two groze grooves comprise an inside upper groze groove (38) near a top end of the barrel staves (14) and an inside lower groze groove (40) near a bottom end of the barrel staves (14), and wherein the two new groze grooves comprise an outside upper groze groove (42) near a second top end of the barrel staves (14) and an outside lower groze groove (44) near a second bottom end of the barrel staves (14).
With respect to claim 17, Van De Merwe shows, wherein the inside upper groze groove (38) of each of the recycled barrel staves (14) is positioned further from the top end than the outside upper groze groove (42) that is on the outside, and wherein the inside lower groze groove of each of the recycled barrel staves (14) is positioned further from the bottom end than an outside lower groze groove (44) that is on the outside. (see fig. 4)
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 18, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van De Merwe.
Van De Merwe discloses the invention substantially as claimed. But, the reference is silent on the sizes. The sizes shown in the drawing look very similar.
However Van De Merwe does not disclose the inside upper groze groove of each of the recycled barrel staves is between about 25mm to about 30 mm further from the top end than the outside upper groze groove, and wherein the inside lower groze groove of each of the recycled barrel staves is between about 25mm to about 30 mm further from the bottom end than the outside lower groze groove.
It is well known in the prior art to size the edges of a barrel to be strong enough to be handled and rolled around in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of safely storing the contents of the barrel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the claimed range in size in order to have a barrel strong enough to be move around and handled without breaking or collapsing. 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note, no critical reason disclosed for the claimed size range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13,20 are allowed.
Claims 19, is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Stave recycling is quite common if you look at all of the cited art. Coopers always reused staves, mostly cutting them shorter and making smaller barrels. Reusing the white oak is of environmental and financial importance. The main reference applied to the PCT Warren (USPN 6,898,834) pulls the staves, presses them flat and uses them inside a barrel to mature the spirits. Some of the key differences is that the current application. Not just flattens the staves but “reversing an arc” of the stave and reshaping to make a sealed barrel with the previous outside being turning into the inside. The applied, Van De Merwe reference, teaches reversing the inside to the outside for reuse, but no bending is involved.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN M BRADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Orlando E Aviles-Bosques 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.
/SHAWN M BRADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736