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 Interpretation
MPEP:
PNG
media_image1.png
136
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is base (20)d on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection base (20)d on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-base (20)d eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over issued claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,771. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because an initial review did not find any patentable distinguishing language in the claims. The claimed structure is basically the same, slightly different functional language.
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 1,2,8-14,17,18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US Pub No 2003/0178429) in view of Branyon (US Pub No 2017/0283136) .
Williams discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
With respect to claim 1, Williams shows a container comprising: a base (20); at least one sidewall (14) extending upwardly from the base (20) and terminating in a top edge, wherein the at least one sidewall (14) is paper based (paragraph 2);, wherein; and a liner ply (30) adhered to an interior surface of the sidewall (14) with a releasable adhesive (paragraph 8 discloses -adhesive- at the ends of the liner), wherein the liner ply (30) is configured to at least partially release from the sidewall (14) upon a first pressure differential between the pressure within the container and an external pressure (paragraph 8, disclosed a vacuum).
However Williams does not disclose a removable flexible membrane adhered to the top edge the membrane comprises a one-way valve, claim 12, wherein the one-way valve is integrally formed with the top membrane, Claim 13, wherein the one-way valve is externally applied to the top membrane.
Branyon teaches a removable flexible membrane adhered to the top edge the membrane comprises a one-way valve (title), claim 12, wherein the one-way valve is integrally formed with the top membrane (fig. 2), Claim 13, wherein the one-way valve is externally applied to the top membrane (fig. 5), in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of pressure control of the internal pressure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the membrane with a one way valve as taught by Branyon to the container of Willliams in order to have a pressure control to avoiding bursting.
With respect to claim 2, Williams further shows wherein the first pressure differential comprises an internal pressure within the container which is less than atmospheric pressure (this is the definition of the disclosed -vacuum-).
With respect to claim 8, Williams further shows the adhesive maintains its adhesion along the container sidewall (14) nearest the base (20) and top edge, regardless of pressure differential. (see fig. 2 and fig. 4 both show adhesion at top and bottom under different pressure)
With respect to claim 9, Williams further shows the adhesive is corn starch-base (20)d, dextrin- base (20)d, or is a pressure sensitive adhesive. (paragraph 8)
With respect to claim 10, Williams further shows wherein the container is rigid. (see figs)
With respect to claim 11, Williams further shows wherein the liner ply (30) comprises a polymeric material having barrier properties. (materials list in paragraph 8)
With respect to claim 14, Williams further shows a base (20); at least one sidewall (14) extending upwardly from the base (20) and terminating in a top edge, wherein the at least one sidewall (14) is paper based (shown in layers of paper); and a liner ply (30) attached to the base (20) and a top edge of the sidewall (14), wherein the liner ply (30) is at least partially adhered (at top and bottom of sidewall) to an interior surface of the sidewall (14) with a releasable adhesive (paragraph 8), wherein the liner ply (30) is configured to at least partially release from the sidewall (14) between the base (20) and the top edge, upon a pressure differential (vacuum) between the pressure within the container and an external pressure, and wherein the adhesive maintains its adhesion along the container sidewall (14) nearest the base (20) and top edge, regardless of pressure differential (see fig. 2 and fig.4).
With respect to claim 17, Williams further shows wherein the adhesive is corn starch-based, dextrin- based (paragraph 8) or is a pressure sensitive adhesive.
With respect to claim 18, Williams further shows a base (20); at least one sidewall (14) extending upwardly from the base (20) and terminating in a top edge, wherein the at least one sidewall (14) is paper based (paragraph 2); and a liner ply (30) attached to an interior surface of the sidewall (14), wherein the liner ply (30) is at least partially adhered an interior surface of the sidewall (14) with a releasable adhesive (paragraph 8), wherein the liner ply (30) is configured to at least partially release from a midsection of the interior surface between the base (20) and the top edge, upon a pressure differential between the pressure within the container and an external pressure.(fig. 2 and fig. 4)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7,15,16,19,20 are 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.
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