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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 11/7/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species election is unnecessary because both claims recite a wax container body. This is not found persuasive because species II requires a lid be placed on the body, this is not required in species I. A wax container as claimed in species I (without a lid) can include different search areas such as wax bowls that are not required for species II. Species II would require lidded containers which is not required for species I, additionally the lid is required to be formed of wax, which is not contemplated in species I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
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 6 and 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.
The term “stable” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How is "stability" measured? At higher temperatures, it can be understood that shape retention (melting point) is one form of stability. However, at lower temperatures, shape retention and stiffness remains. What is the measure for stability? Especially in regards to the lower temperature. The specification fails to elaborate on the metrics associated with the term stable. It is unclear how an item could be considered “unstable” at lower temperatures. What physically or chemically would qualify an item to be unstable at lower temperatures? There does not appear to be a recognized standard metric in this regard.
The term “crack resistant” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “crack” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What are the guidelines for crack resistant? The material is already said to be wax. There are no exact guidelines for crack resistance, nor is there a way to measure crack resistance. For example, a listed material in the specification, beeswax, can be known to crack especially with temperature alterations. It is unclear what qualification can make a material crack resistant versus not crack resistant. For the purposes of examination, the term shall be broadly interpreted.
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)(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) 1-2, 4-5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Bartolucci (US 20250122672 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Bartolucci discloses a wax container, comprising: a body (1), comprising: an open end (covered by lid), configured to engage with a lid; at least one sidewall (figure 7 below); and a closed end (figure 7 below) opposite the open end, wherein the body is formed of at least one natural wax (7 and page 24 claim 8 and page 8 [0080]).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Bartolucci discloses the wax container according to claim 1, further comprising a lid (14).
With respect to claim 4, Bartolucci discloses the wax container according to claim 2, wherein the lid (14) is configured to engage with an inner surface of the open end of the body (1).
With respect to claim 5, Bartolucci discloses the wax container according to claim 1, wherein the at least one natural wax is one wax (7 and page 24 claim 8 and page 8 [0080]).
Examiner Note: Technically the wax layer can be one wax.
With respect to claim 8, Bartolucci discloses the wax container according to claim 1, wherein the body is crack resistant (page 8 [0080]).
With respect to claim 9, Bartolucci discloses the wax container according to claim 1, wherein the body is UV-resistant. (page 19 [0190])
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Dinzinger (US 20220041319 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Dinzinger discloses a wax container, comprising: a body (figure 5), comprising: an open end (figure 5 below), configured to engage with a lid; at least one sidewall (figure 5 below); and a closed end (figure 5 below) opposite the open end, wherein the body is formed of at least one natural wax . (page 1 [0006], plant based wax is understood to be natural. Ingredients listed on page 2 [0018])
PNG
media_image2.png
408
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Dinzinger discloses the wax container according to claim 1, further comprising a lid (figure 5 above)
With respect to claim 3, Dinzinger discloses the wax container according to claim 2, wherein the lid is configured to be threadedly engaged with the open end of the body. (page 11 [0242])
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Helou (US 20090218347 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Helou discloses a wax container, comprising: a body, comprising: an open end (figure 6 below), configured to engage with a lid; at least one sidewall (figure 6 below); and a closed end (figure 6 below) opposite the open end, wherein the body is formed of at least one natural wax (page 4 [0049], specific waxes on page 5 [0058]).
PNG
media_image3.png
544
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Helou discloses the wax container according to claim 1, wherein the at least one natural wax is one wax (page 4 [0049], specific waxes on page 5 [0058]).
With respect to claim 7, Helou discloses the wax container according to claim 1, wherein the body further comprises at least one biodegradable fiber within the at least one natural wax. (page 4 [0049])
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Dag (US 20240270467 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Dag discloses a wax container, comprising: a body, comprising: an open end (7), configured to engage with a lid; at least one sidewall (4); and a closed end (bottom of figure 1) opposite the open end, wherein the body is formed of at least one natural wax (pages 2-3 [0039]).
PNG
media_image4.png
432
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Dag discloses the wax container according to claim 1, wherein the at least one natural wax is stable from about -40° F to about 131° F. However, Dag teaches of the use of carnauba wax with a melting point of 85-89°C (185-192°F). Thus, Dag reaches the criteria for the upper end of the range. With respect to the lower end of the range (-40°F), it is unclear the measure of stability, see 112b rejection above. Carnauba wax would remain in a solid phase and would inherently meet the claimed limitation under a broad interpretation.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20250122672-A1 OR US-20220041319-A1 OR US-20090218347-A1 OR US-20240270467-A1 OR US-20240253881-A1 OR US-20220259519-A1 OR US-20120315362-A OR US-6730137-B2 OR US-9410059-B2 OR US-8021443-B2 OR US-5404692-A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735