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 Status
Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending.
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) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Bouc et al. (US 6244459) (Bouc) (cited by applicant).
Bouc discloses an intermediate bulk container (IBC) system, comprising: a molded bottle and a pallet (see Fig. 2), the molded bottle including a bottom wall; a top wall 80 opposite the bottom wall; a plurality of columns 86 extending vertically from the bottom wall; and a plurality of sidewalls (front wall 64, rear wall 66, sidewalls 68, 70) extending vertically between the bottom wall and the top wall and horizontally between the plurality of columns, wherein the plurality of sidewalls comprises a front sidewall 64, a rear sidewall 66 opposite the front sidewall, a right sidewall 68 extending horizontally between front sidewall and the rear sidewall, and a left sidewall 70 opposite the right sidewall and extending horizontally between front sidewall and the rear sidewall, and wherein the left sidewall and the right sidewall each comprise a stiffening protrusion [lower part (labeled “C” in annotated Fig. 2) of sidewalls excluding columns 86 and vertical ribs 88, see annotated Fig. 2; parts labeled “B” and “A” in annotated Fig. 2 are not part of the stiffening protrusion] interposing first and second portions of the respective sidewall extending from a respective column 86 to the stiffening protrusion (the first and second portions are the vertical ribs 88 adjacent each side edge of part “C”, see annotated Fig. 2), the stiffening protrusion protruding beyond an exterior surface of the first and second portions (see top plan view of Fig. 5 which shows the stiffening protrusion extending radially outwardly beyond the exterior surface of the vertical ribs 88), the stiffening protrusion having an upper end (upper end of lower part labeled “C” in annotated Fig. 2) and extending vertically upward from the bottom wall to the upper end, the upper end being vertically below the top wall such that the stiffening protrusion terminates before the top wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
689
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 14, each respective column of the plurality of support columns includes a pallet stacking structure (82) defined at an upper end thereof, the pallet stacking structure interlocking with a corresponding geometry (recess 130) defined on a bottom surface of the pallet.
The stiffening protrusion does not include the vertical ribs 88. The stiffening protrusion has been labeled “C” in annotated Fig. 2.
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) 1-6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouc et al. (US 6244459) (Bouc) (cited by applicant) in view of Spann et al. (US 2021/0032016) (Spann) (cited by applicant).
Bouc discloses a molded bottle for an intermediate bulk container system, the molded bottle comprising: a bottom wall; a top wall 80 opposite the bottom wall; a plurality of columns 86 extending vertically from the bottom wall; and a plurality of sidewalls (front wall 64, rear wall 66, sidewalls 68, 70) extending vertically between the bottom wall and the top wall and horizontally between the plurality of columns, wherein the plurality of sidewalls comprises a front sidewall 64, a rear sidewall 66 opposite the front sidewall, a right sidewall 68 extending horizontally between front sidewall and the rear sidewall, and a left sidewall 70 opposite the right sidewall and extending horizontally between front sidewall and the rear sidewall, and wherein the left sidewall and the right sidewall each comprise a stiffening protrusion [lower part (labeled “C” in annotated Fig. 2) of sidewalls excluding columns 86 and vertical ribs 88, see annotated Fig. 2; parts labeled “B” and “A” in annotated Fig. 2 are not part of the stiffening protrusion] interposing first and second portions of the respective sidewall extending from a respective column 86 to the stiffening protrusion (the first and second portions are the vertical ribs 88 adjacent each side edge of part “C”, see annotated Fig. 2), the stiffening protrusion protruding beyond an exterior surface of the first and second portions (see top plan view of Fig. 5 which shows the stiffening protrusion extending radially outwardly beyond the exterior surface of the vertical ribs 88), the stiffening protrusion having an upper end (upper end of lower part labeled “C” in annotated Fig. 2) and extending vertically upward from the bottom wall to the upper end, the upper end being vertically below the top wall such that the stiffening protrusion terminates before the top wall. Bouc fails to disclose that each of the plurality of columns extending vertically further than the plurality of sidewalls.
Spann teaches each of the plurality of columns extending vertically further than the plurality of sidewalls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height of the columns to extend vertically further than the sidewalls to provide a clearance from the sidewalls so that most if not all of the vertical stacking load is supported by the columns.
The stiffening protrusion does not include the vertical ribs 88. The stiffening protrusion has been labeled “C” in annotated Fig. 2.
Re claim 2, each of the plurality of sidewalls of Bouc includes a sidewall width dimension measured between a pair of the plurality of columns bordering the sidewall, wherein the stiffening protrusion comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, the first and second edges extending vertically between the bottom wall and the upper end of the stiffening protrusion, the stiffening protrusion defining a stiffening protrusion width dimension measured between the first edge and the second edge, wherein the stiffening protrusion width dimension is less than the sidewall width dimension.
Re claim 3, a gap on the sidewall of Bouc is defined between the first edge of the stiffening protrusion and a first neighboring one of the plurality of columns and the gap is also defined on the sidewall between the second edge of the stiffening protrusion and a second neighboring one of the plurality of columns.
Re claim 4, Bouc fails to disclose a gusset. Spann teaches a gusset (buttress 42G) extending upward from the top wall (top wall 48 and central region 64, see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the gusset to reinforce the top wall as well as the top end of the corner columns.
Re claim 5, each respective column of the plurality of support columns of Bouc includes a pallet stacking structure (stacking guide 82) defined at an upper end thereof.
Re claims 6 and 8, Bouc fails to disclose a flat base surface for the pallet stacking structure. The pallet stacking structure taught by Spann comprises a flat base surface (flat surface of 78), an inner alignment plateau (inner first engagement protrusion 80A), and an outer alignment plateau (outer first engagement protrusion 80B), the inner alignment plateau and the outer alignment plateau being disposed on the flat base surface and extending vertically upward therefrom, the outer alignment plateau being further from the top wall than the inner alignment plateau, wherein the inner alignment plateau and the outer alignment plateau extend an equal distance (Fig. 3 teaches that both plateaus extend the same height above protrusion 82) from the flat base surface such that they have a common elevation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the pallet stacking features of Spann to provide greater stability through flat horizontal mating surfaces and prevention of tipping or sliding by increasing projecting vertical surfaces.
Re claim 10, Bouc fails to disclose the central trough. Slattery teaches that the bottom wall includes a central trough (flow recess 39) sloping downward to a discharge port defined in a front sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls, and a pair of generally flat inclined panels, a first of the generally flat inclined panels (Fig. 4 shows the inclined panels of the bottom wall 37 on either side of flow recess 39) sloping downward from the right sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls to the central trough and a second of the generally flat inclined panels sloping downward from the left sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls to the central trough. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the central trough and inclined panels to provide efficient and complete drainage of the fluid being discharged from Bouc’s discharge port.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouc in view of Spann.
Re claim 17, Bouc fails to disclose a flat base surface for the pallet stacking structure. The pallet stacking structure taught by Spann comprises a flat base surface (flat surface of 78), an inner alignment plateau (inner first engagement protrusion 80A), and an outer alignment plateau (outer first engagement protrusion 80B), the inner alignment plateau and the outer alignment plateau being disposed on the flat base surface and extending vertically upward therefrom, the outer alignment plateau being further from the top wall than the inner alignment plateau, wherein the inner alignment plateau and the outer alignment plateau extend an equal distance (Fig. 3 teaches that both plateaus extend the same height above protrusion 82) from the flat base surface such that they have a common elevation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the pallet stacking features of Spann to provide greater stability through flat horizontal mating surfaces and prevention of tipping or sliding by increasing projecting vertical surfaces.
Re claims 19-20, Bouc fails to disclose a gusset. Spann teaches a gusset (buttress 42G) extending upward from the top wall (top wall 48 and central region 64, see Fig. 1), an upper surface of the gusset is oriented below a bottom surface of the pallet when the pallet is provided on an upper end of the molded bottle, with a space being defined between the upper surface of the gusset and the bottom surface of the pallet. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the gusset to reinforce the top wall as well as the top end of the corner columns.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouc in view of Spann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meints et al. (US 2011/0315689) (Meints).
The combination fails to disclose the uniform wall thickness of the plurality of columns and the plurality of sidewalls. Meints teaches a uniform wall thickness for the outer shell 14 which has a plurality of columns and a plurality of sidewalls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the pallet stacking structure to modify the wall thickness to be uniform to provide equal strength and equal barrier properties for all areas of the molded bottle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claims 7, 9, 15-16 and 18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The stiffening protrusion does not include the vertical ribs 88. The stiffening protrusion has been labeled “C” in annotated Fig. 2.
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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 at 571-270-5055. 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights