DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the receptacle opening and lid structure cannot be rectangular because they are already peanut-shaped by the parent claim. In other words, at least partially rounded is included, but rectangular as a standalone term does not indicate curves to a POSITA, and a peanut is especially not rectangular due to having a pinched middle (see Applicant Figs 18 and 22). Note that similar claims 5-6 limit to curved shapes that are a peanut-shaped subset so do not conflict the same way.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220106102 by Chiu et al. (hereinafter “Chiu”) in view of FR 3109374 issued to Denis et al. (hereinafter “Denis”).
Regarding claim 1, Chiu teaches an insulating food storage container (Fig 15, [0109], 1000) comprising:
a receptacle that comprises (i) an inner receptacle (1520), (ii) a rounded outer receptacle (1510 shown rounded, Figs 10-15), and (iii) a first gasket (1530), wherein the rounded outer receptacle has a cross-sectional area (from a top view cross-section from viewer perspective, an area surrounded by the outer circumferential profile of the rounded outer receptacle), wherein the first gasket is configured to form a first seal between the inner receptacle and the rounded outer receptacle ([0112] “gasket 1530 that is positioned between a lower surface of lip portion 1525 and an upper edge surface of outer receptacle portion 1510 to form the receptacle”), wherein a first independent compartment, a second independent compartment, and a third independent compartment are formed in the inner receptacle (three independent compartments are shown in 1520), wherein the first independent compartment, the second independent compartment, and the third independent compartment are configured to each store food items having varying temperatures (the three compartments are each necessarily capable of storing a variety of temperatures of food), wherein an area of the first compartment (Fig 15, the larger compartment to the right from viewer perspective; Fig 10 [0105] “larger compartment… B in width”) is approximately equivalent to a combined area of the second independent compartment and the third independent compartment (the two smaller compartments are shown approximately equal in area from a top view from viewer perspective to the first), and wherein a vacuum cavity is formed between an outer wall of the inner receptacle and an inner wall of the rounded outer receptacle ([0112] “Upon forming the receptacle with outer receptacle portion 1510, inner receptacle portion 1520, and gasket 1530, a vacuum cavity can be formed between an outer wall of inner receptacle portion 1520 and an inner wall of outer receptacle portion 1510”);
a lid structure ([0115] “lid that can be removably attached to the receptacle can include inner lid portion 1540 and outer lid portion 1550”) that comprises an inner lid portion (1540), a rounded outer lid portion (1550 shown rounded, Figs 10-15), and a second gasket configured to form a second seal between the inner lid portion and the rounded outer lid portion ([0117] “lid can include a gasket 1560 that is positioned between a lower edge surface of outer lid portion 1550 and a lip portion 1542 of inner lid portion 1540”), wherein a cavity is formed between an outer wall of the inner lid portion and an inner wall of the rounded outer lid portion ([0118] “cavity formed between an inner wall of outer lid portion 1550 and an outer wall of inner lid portion 1540”), wherein a bottom surface of the inner lid portion includes a plurality of protrusions that correspond with each of the first independent compartment, the second independent compartment, and the third independent compartment (Fig 15, corresponding portions of 1540 to each of three compartments show a bottom surface of 1540 having those portions as protrusions downward at least from the topmost surface of 1540), and wherein a cross-sectional area of the rounded outer lid portion is (from a top view cross-section from viewer perspective, an area surrounded by the outer circumferential profile of the rounded outer lid portion); and
a plurality of latches (latches 1580) that are each connected to (Fig 10 shows 1580 connected) a protrusion on the lid structure (Fig 15, to a protrusion 1582 on the outer lid portion of the lid structure), wherein each of the plurality of latches connected the lid structure to the receptacle (Fig 10).
But Chiu does not teach that the cross-sectional area of the rounded outer lid portion is peanut-shaped, nor the rounded outer receptacle has a peanut-shaped cross-sectional area.
Denis, however, discloses a cross-sectional area of a rounded lid and of a rounded receptacle that are also peanut-shaped (Figs 3 & 8 lid 27 and receptacle 26 both of box 25 are each peanut shaped; page 7 line 5 from last, “box 25 in the shape of a peanut, the edges 20 extend tangentially from an apex of a respective convex flank”; page 7 para 3 from last, “The concave flanks of the additional tank 26 are interconnected by two opposite convex flanks smaller than the concave flanks. The horizontal section of the additional reservoir 26 thus has a general "peanut" shape”; page 7 para 2 from last, “cover 27 has for example the same general shape as the opening of the additional tank 26”; meaning also the lid has a peanut shaped periphery and edge portion; also the lid has a tubular indentation shown along a longitudinal axis that is just a circumferential indentation).
Therefore, 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 the cross-sectional area shapes of Chiu outer lid portion and outer receptacle to be peanut shaped as taught by Denis in order to advantageously increase ease of grasping the container assembly for more stable carrying via the outer lid or outer receptacle across the middle given the smaller middle portion size versus the wider middle portion of the bulkier shape of Chiu.
Regarding claim 2, Chiu further teaches the inner receptacle and the rounded outer receptacle of the receptacle are composed of a co-polyester material ([0025] “the inner receptacle and the outer receptacle of the receptacle are composed of a co-polyester material”).
Regarding claim 3, Chiu further teaches the inner lid portion and the rounded outer lid portion of the lid structure are composed of a co-polyester material ([0026] “the inner lid portion and the outer lid portion… are composed of a co-polyester material”).
Regarding claim 4, Chiu/Denis does not explicitly teach that an opening of the receptacle is a rectangular-shaped opening and wherein the lid structure is a rectangular shape (because the lid and receptacle are peanut shaped from the parent claim).
Denis, however, discloses a receptacle and corresponding lid having a rectangular structure, thereby an opening of the receptacle and the lid have a rectangular shape (page 5 para 2, “four sides 6 for a box 1 of substantially parallelepipedic general shape, that is to say two identical opposite sides 6 or four identical sides 6, and a bottom 7”; and/or page 5 para 3, “The horizontal section of the first reservoir 2 and of the second reservoir 4 thus have a generally substantially rectangular or square shape with rounded corners”, which proves what is shown rectangular lid (Fig 7) and receptacle (Fig 4) opening, Fig 1).
Therefore, 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 the shape of the lid structure and receptacle opening of Chiu/Denis to be rectangular shaped as taught by Denis, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (i.e. the instant application has many shapes for the same element). MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Chiu/Denis does not explicitly teach that an opening of the receptacle is a rounded rectangular-shaped opening and wherein the lid structure is a rounded rectangular shape (because the lid and receptacle are peanut shaped from the parent claim).
Denis, however, discloses a receptacle and corresponding lid having a rounded rectangular structure, thereby an opening of the receptacle and the lid have a rounded rectangular shape (page 5 para 2, “four sides 6 for a box 1 of substantially parallelepipedic general shape, that is to say two identical opposite sides 6 or four identical sides 6, and a bottom 7”; and/or page 5 para 3, “The horizontal section of the first reservoir 2 and of the second reservoir 4 thus have a generally substantially rectangular or square shape with rounded corners”, which proves what is shown rectangular lid (Fig 7) and receptacle (Fig 4) opening, Fig 1).
Therefore, 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 the shape of the lid structure and receptacle opening of Chiu/Denis to be rounded rectangular shaped as taught by Denis, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (i.e. the instant application has many shapes for the same element). MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Chiu further teaches the inner receptacle includes a lip portion (Fig 15, 1525) that provides a surface for receiving the lid structure (Fig 10).
Regarding claim 8, Chiu further teaches the lid structure includes a third gasket that conforms with each of the first independent compartment, the second independent compartment, and the third independent compartment, wherein the third gasket seals each of the first independent compartment, the second independent compartment, and the third independent compartment when the lid structure is secureably attached to the receptacle ([0120] “lid is positioned over the receptacle, gasket 1570 can be used to create an airtight seal of the items in each of the multiple compartments” and “in FIG. 15, gasket 1570 can form a border around each compartment in the receptacle”).
Regarding claim 9, Chiu further teaches each of the plurality of latches (1580) is formed on a side of the outer lid portion (1550) of the lid structure (Fig 15 shows each side of 1550 has a 1580).
Regarding claim 10, Chiu further teaches each of the plurality of latches includes a protrusion that, when a latch is in a closed position, protrudes beneath and contacts a lip portion of the inner receptacle of the receptacle (Fig 16 shows a latch protrusion 1620 for each latch that, in the closed position (Fig 10; [0056] “FIG. 16 shows a detailed view of a latch… of FIG. 10”), protrudes beneath and contacts an inner receptacle lip portion 1630; [0123] “latch can include a protrusion 1620 that protrudes into and connects with the bottom lip 1630 of the inner receptacle portion”).
Regarding claim 11, Chiu further teaches each of the plurality of latches includes an upper latch portion positioned above the protrusion (1620) that is aligned with an exterior surface of the lip portion of the inner receptacle of the receptacle ([0123] each latch has “an upper latch portion 1640 that aligns with an outer surface of bottom lip 1630”; Figs 10 & 16, 1640 is shown above 1620).
Regarding claim 12, Chiu further teaches each of the plurality of latches includes a lower latch portion positioned below the protrusion (1620) that is aligned with an exterior surface of the outer receptacle of the receptacle ([0123] each latch has “a lower latch portion 1650 that aligns with an outer surface of outer receptacle portion”; Figs 10 & 16, 1650 is shown below 1620).
Regarding claim 13, Chiu further teaches each of the plurality of latches (1580) includes a protrusion that is connected using a pin (Fig 15, a protrusion of 1580 surrounds a pin 1584 for each 1580) to a latch post formed on an exterior surface of the outer lid portion of the lid structure (another 1582 for each 1580 is a “latch post 1582”).
Regarding claim 14, Chiu further teaches each of the plurality of latches and the latch post are composed of a co-polyester material and wherein the pin is composed of a stainless steel material ([0125] “latch can be formed from a co-polyester material” and “pin can be composed of a stainless steel material”, [0037] “latches and the latch post are composed of a co-polyester material”).
Regarding claim 15, Chiu further teaches each of the plurality of latches is a lever that separates the lid structure from the receptacle when a latch is moved from a closed position to an open position ([0038] “each of the plurality of latches is a lever that separates… lid structure from the receptacle when a latch is moved from a closed position to an open position”).
Regarding claim 17, Chiu/Denis further teaches the rounded outer lid has a longitudinal axis and wherein the rounded outer lid has a tubular indentation along the longitudinal axis (Denis, the lid has the tubular indentation shown along the longitudinal axis that is just the circumferential indentation). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 18, Chiu/Denis further teaches the rounded outer lid has a peanut-shaped periphery (Chiu, Fig 15, a periphery of the rounded outer lid has a periphery) and wherein an edge portion of the rounded outer lid is formed along (Chiu, Fig 15, an edge portion of the rounded lid is also shown along the periphery) the peanut-shaped periphery (Denis’s peanut shaped periphery modifies the shape of Chiu’s rounded outer lid and its periphery). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 19, Chiu further teaches the cavity (Fig 15, [0118] lid cavity) includes a vacuum environment formed between the outer wall of the inner lid portion and the inner wall of the rounded outer lid portion ([0117] “lid with inner lid portion 1540, outer lid portion 1550, and gasket 1560, a vacuum cavity can be formed between an inner wall of outer lid portion 1550 and an outer wall of inner lid portion 1540”).
Regarding claim 20, Chiu further teaches the cavity (Fig 15, [0118] lid cavity) includes an environment formed between the outer wall of the inner lid portion and the inner wall of the rounded outer lid portion ([0118] “cavity formed between an inner wall of outer lid portion 1550 and an outer wall of inner lid portion 1540”, wherein the cavity necessarily defines an environment).
But Chiu embodiment Fig 15 does not explicitly teach air in the cavity.
Chiu, however, discloses air in a lid cavity ([0089] “the recessed area in the inner lid portion… can be filled with air, a neutral gas, a partial vacuum, an insulating material, and/or any other suitable substance”).
Therefore, 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 the lid cavity of Chiu to have air in it as taught by another embodiment of Chiu in order to advantageously insulate in a wider variety of ways to provide the desired effect for a wider set of applications.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220106102 by Chiu et al. (hereinafter “Chiu”) in view of FR 3109374 issued to Denis et al. (hereinafter “Denis”) in view of US Pub 202000039690 by Dziaba et al. (hereinafter “Dziaba”)
Regarding claim 5, Chiu/Denis does not explicitly teach that an opening of the receptacle is an oval-shaped opening and wherein the lid structure is an oval shape (because the lid and receptacle are peanut shaped from the parent claim).
Dziaba, however, discloses a receptacle and corresponding lid having an oval structure, thereby an opening of the receptacle and the lid have an oval shape ([0006] “the lid and base have a generally oval configuration in a horizontal plane”).
Therefore, 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 the shape of the lid structure and receptacle opening of Chiu/Denis to be oval shaped as taught by Dziaba, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (i.e. the instant application has many shapes for the same element). MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Chiu/Denis does not explicitly teach that the rounded outer receptacle has a longitudinal axis and wherein the rounded outer receptacle has a tubular indentation along the longitudinal axis.
Dziaba, however, discloses a receptacle having a tubular indentation along a longitudinal axis (Fig 9, a recess 81 is a tubular indentation which is just a central indentation, and it’s along a longitudinal axis (e.g. axis of cross section that Figure 9 is); wherein [0037] “The recessed portion 81 is configured to accommodate expansion of the container base 20 as a result of heat and weight from the hot-filled contents”).
Therefore, 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 the outer receptacle of Chiu/Denis with a longitudinal tubular indentation as taught by Dziaba in order to advantageously accommodate expansion of the receptacle base as a result of heat and weight hot-filled contents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
CN 210783245 & JP 2000231352 & KR 101458458 – peanut-shaped lid and receptacle
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights