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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated June 16, 2026, claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the double patenting rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of the claims over Guy have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “The parent application remained pending when the present application was filed on November 26, 2024. The Final Office Action in Application No. 17/167,013 was mailed May 28, 2024. The statutory period for reply under 35 U.S.C. § 133 did not expire until November 28, 2024” (Remarks at p. 5), the examiner disagrees. The cited statute states “Upon failure of the applicant to prosecute the application within six months after any action therein, of which notice has been given or mailed to the applicant, or within such shorter time, not less than thirty days, as fixed by the Director in such action, the application shall be regarded as abandoned by the parties thereto” (35 U.S.C. § 133, emphasis added). The Final Office Action in Application No. 17/167,013 sets the “shortened statutory period for reply” as “3 months from the mailing date of this communication” (May 28, 2024 Office Action in Application No. 17/167,013 at pp. 1 and 11). Applicant did not extend the statutory period for reply. Thus, Application No. 17/167,013 was abandoned as of August 28, 2024 (see MPEP 711.04(a)). Because the present case was not copending with Application No. 17/167,013, it is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of the claims over Key have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “From Applicant’s review of the Key reference, the reference appears to teach a cylindrical container 102 about which a shell 116 can be positioned via a first rotation force 113… In contrast, Applicant’s claim 1 requires that the labeling region is selectively positionable in a plurality of discrete positions corresponding to the plurality of exterior sides to expose a selected one of the plurality of labels” (Remarks at pp. 8-9), the examiner disagrees. Key expressly teaches that it is not limited to cylindrical containers, and the invention of Key “may also be embodied on flat surfaced containers and packages” (Key at col. 7, ll. 45-54). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a container with flat surfaces and a labeling region that can be “selectively moved” as taught by Key (Key at col. 7, ll. 45-54) would have a plurality of discrete positions as claimed.
Priority
This application is claiming the benefit of prior-filed application No. 17/167,013 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Copendency between the current application and the prior application is required. Since the applications are not copending, the benefit claim to the prior-filed application is improper. The parent application expired on August 28, 2024 (see MPEP 711.04(a)), while the present application was filed November 26, 2024. Applicant is required to delete the claim to the benefit of the prior-filed application, unless applicant can establish copendency between the applications.
Applicant states that this application is a divisional application of the prior-filed application. If Applicant can establish copendency between the applications, Applicant is required to change the relationship to continuation because this application does not claim an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of exterior sides” and “each label of the plurality of labels is disposed on a respective exterior side of the container” and “the labeling region is selectively positionable in a plurality of discrete positions corresponding to the plurality of exterior sides to expose a selected one of the plurality of labels” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note – every illustrated embodiment in the present application shows a cylindrical container with all of the labels on the circular side (see Figs. 1-13). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2022/0242615 to Guy et al. (hereinafter, “Guy”).
Regarding claim 1, Guy discloses an apparatus (system 100, Figs. 1, 7) comprising: a container (container 102, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of labels (labels 103, Figs. 1, 7) indicative of respective container content types (para. [0038]); and a cover (cover 104, Fig. 1) at least partially surrounding the container (container 102, see para. [0038]), the cover (cover 102) including a labeling region (labeling region 104a, Fig. 1) selectively positionable to expose a label of the plurality of labels (para. [0038]), wherein the container (container 102) comprises a plurality of exterior sides (para. [0039]), each label of the plurality of labels (labels 103) is disposed on a respective exterior side of the container (paras. [0038]-[0039]), and the labeling region (labeling region 104a) is selectively positionable in a plurality of discrete positions (see para. [0039]) corresponding to the plurality of exterior sides (see para. [0039]) to expose a selected one of the plurality of labels (labels 103; paras. [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Guy further discloses the cover (cover 104) comprises a sleeve (paras. [0006], [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Guy further discloses the cover (cover 104) comprises silicone (paras. [0006], [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Guy further discloses the labeling region (labeling region 104a) does not include the silicone (paras. [0006], [0014]).
Regarding claim 5, Guy further discloses the labeling region (labeling region 104a) is a negative space (paras. [0006], [0015]).
Regarding claim 6, Guy further discloses a transparent material (para. [0006]) is disposed within the negative space (para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 7, Guy further discloses a color filter (para. [0006]) is disposed within the negative space (para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Guy further discloses the labeling region (labeling region 104a) has a first color (para. [0006]) that is different from a second color (para. [0006]) of the cover (cover 104).
Regarding claim 9, Guy further discloses a segment (paras. [0007], [0067]) of the cover (cover 104) surrounding a bottom portion of the container (paras. [0007], [0067]) includes a cutout (cutout 604b, see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Guy further discloses the cover (cover 104) is configured to be detachable (para. [0007]) from the container (container 102).
Regarding claim 11, Guy further discloses the cover (cover 104) surrounding the container (container 102) is rotatable (paras. [0007], [0045]) relative to the container (container 102) such that the labeling region (labeling region 104a) is selectively positioned to expose a second label (see Fig. 7; para. [0045]) of the plurality of labels (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Guy further discloses a container content type (see para. [0041]) is of a first content type (para. [0041]) and the second label (para. [0041]) is indicative of a second container content type (para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Guy further discloses the labeling region (labeling region 104a) is rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the container (para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, Guy further discloses the plurality of labels (labels 103) are oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of the container (Figs. 1-2, 7).
Regarding claim 15, Guy further discloses the plurality of labels (labels 103) are oriented at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the container (Figs. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 16, Guy further discloses the labeling region (labeling region 104a) is translatable along a longitudinal axis (para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 17, Guy further discloses the plurality of labels (labels 103) are oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 18, Guy further discloses the plurality of labels (labels 103) are oriented at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 19, Guy further discloses one or more labels (labels 103) in the plurality of labels (labels 103) are indicative of a type of cleaner solution (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 20, Guy further discloses the plurality of labels (labels 103) are on a surface of the container (see Fig. 2; para. [0010]).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. 5,809,674 to Key (hereinafter, “Key”).
Regarding claim 1, Key discloses an apparatus (embodiment 600, Fig. 6) comprising: a container (container 602, Fig. 6) comprising a plurality of labels (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606, Fig. 6) indicative of respective container content types (see e.g., col. 3, ll. 1-20); and a cover (shell 616, Fig. 6) at least partially surrounding the container (see Fig. 6), the cover (shell 616) including a labeling region (window 112, Fig. 6) selectively positionable to expose a label (see col. 5, ll. 42-67) of the plurality of labels (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606), wherein the exposed label is indicative of a container content type (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606 provide information such as “ingredients” that indicate a container content type, col. 5, ll. 54-67; col. 6, ll. 1-13), the container (container 602) comprises a plurality of exterior sides (col. 7, ll. 45-54), each label of the plurality of labels (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606) is disposed on a respective exterior side of the container (col. 7, ll. 45-54), and the labeling region (window 112) is selectively positionable in a plurality of discrete positions (col. 7, ll. 45-54) corresponding to the plurality of exterior sides to expose a selected one of the plurality of labels (col. 7, ll. 45-54).
Regarding claim 2, Key further discloses the cover (shell 616) comprises a sleeve (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Key further discloses the labeling region (window 112) is a negative space (col. 3, ll. 66-67; col. 4, ll. 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Key further discloses a transparent material (col. 3, l. 57) is disposed within the negative space (window 112).
Regarding claim 9, Key further discloses a segment (lower half of shell 616, see annotated Fig. 6 below) of the cover (shell 616) surrounding a bottom portion (lower half of container 602, see annotated Fig. 6) of the container includes a cutout (bottom edge of shell 616 or alternatively, window 112, see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Key Annotated Figure 6
Regarding claim 10, Key further discloses the cover (shell 616) is configured to be detachable from the container (shell 616 is capable of being detached from container 602, see e.g., Figs. 3, 8).
Regarding claim 11, Key further discloses the cover (shell 616) surrounding the container (container 602) is rotatable relative to the container (shell 616 rotates about the y axis in response to a rotational force 114, see Fig. 6; col. 5, ll. 57-66) such that the labeling region (window 112) is selectively positioned to expose a second label of the plurality of labels (see col. 5, ll. 54-67; col. 6, ll. 1-13).
Regarding claim 12, Key further discloses a container content type (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606) is of a first content type (information field 108 contains “other product information,” see Fig. 6; col. 5, ll. 64-66) and the second label (information field 110) is indicative of a second container content type (information field 110 contains “ingredients,” which is a different content type than information field 108, see Fig. 6; col. 6, ll. 2-4).
Regarding claim 13, Key further discloses the labeling region (window 112) is rotatable (shell 616 rotates about the y axis in response to a rotational force 114, see Fig. 6; col. 5, ll. 57-66) around a longitudinal axis of the container (axis along y-direction through center of container).
Regarding claim 14, Key further discloses the plurality of labels (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606) are oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of the container (information fields 108, 604 are oriented next to one another in a direction parallel to the y-axis, see annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Key further discloses the labeling region (window 112) is translatable (shell 616 translates along the y axis in response to a translation force 302, see Fig. 6; col. 5, ll. 57-66) along a longitudinal axis (axis along y-direction through center of container).
Regarding claim 17, Key further discloses the plurality of labels (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606) are oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (information fields 108, 110 are oriented next to one another in a direction perpendicular to the y-axis, see annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Key further discloses the plurality of labels (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606) are on a surface of the container (see Figs. 6, 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Key, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Key in view of U.S. Pub. 2009/0019741 to Schwartz et al. (hereinafter, “Schwartz”) and design choice.
Regarding claim 15, Key further discloses the plurality of labels (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606) are oriented at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the container (fields 108, 604 are oriented at an angle of 0° and fields 108, 110 are oriented at an angle of 90° relative to the y-axis, see annotated Fig. 6 above).
Thus, claim 15 is anticipated. However, to the extent that the angles of 0° and 90° are not construed to be “at an angle” as claimed, arranging the labels at different angle would be obvious in view of Schwartz and design choice.
Schwartz teaches a container for consumer products having a plurality of labels (see Abstract, Fig. 3). Schwartz teaches that the labels may be oriented at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the container (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Key to have the plurality of labels arranged at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis as taught by Schwartz because it has been held that changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), citing In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47) and aesthetic design choices relating to ornamentation only cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(I), citing In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431).
Regarding claim 18, Key further discloses the plurality of labels (information fields 108, 110, 604, 606) are oriented at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis (fields 108, 604 are oriented at an angle of 0° and fields 108, 110 are oriented at an angle of 90° relative to the y-axis, see annotated Fig. 6 above).
Thus, claim 18 is anticipated. However, to the extent that the angles of 0° and 90° are not construed to be “at an angle” as claimed, arranging the labels at different angle would be obvious in view of Schwartz and design choice.
Schwartz teaches a container for consumer products having a plurality of labels (see Abstract, Fig. 3). Schwartz teaches that the labels may be oriented at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the container (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Key to have the plurality of labels arranged at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis as taught by Schwartz because it has been held that changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), citing In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47) and aesthetic design choices relating to ornamentation only cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(I), citing In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Key in view of NPL “Savvy Planet Empty Clear Glass 2oz Small Spray Bottles,” retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/SAVVY-PLANET-Bottles-Silicone-Protection/dp/B08TWF3S9V, hereinafter “Savvy Planet.”
Regarding claim 3, Key does not expressly disclose the cover comprises silicone.
Savvy Planet teaches a container and a cover having a labeling region that is a negative space (see Fig. on p. 1). Savvy Planet teaches that the container may be used for cleaner solutions (p. 1) and may include a dispenser (p. 1). Savvy Planet teaches that the cover is formed from silicone. Savvy Planet teaches that forming the cover from silicone provides protection to the container and prevents it from breaking on hard surfaces (p. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Key to from the cover from silicone as taught by Savvy Planet for the purpose of providing protection to the container, as recognized by Savvy Planet (p. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Key as modified by Savvy Planet already includes the labeling region (Key, window 112) does not include the silicone (Savvy Planet, p. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Key in view of U.S. Pub. 5,953,170 to Glancy (hereinafter, “Glancy”).
Regarding claim 7, Key does not expressly disclose a color filter is disposed within the negative space.
Glancy teaches an apparatus comprising a container and a cover at least partially surrounding the container (see Fig. 1). Glancy teaches the cover includes a labeling region (windows 4, 5, Figs. 2-3). Glancy teaches that the labeling region includes a color filter (col. 4, ll. 40-43). Glancy further teaches that the labeling region with the color filter visually conveys information to a user (col. 3, ll. 6-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Key to add a color filter to the labeling region as taught by Glancy for the purpose of visually conveying information to a user, as recognized by Glancy (col. 3, ll. 6-19). Additionally, and in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Key to add a color filter to the labeling region as an obvious matter of design choice because aesthetic design choices relating to ornamentation only cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(I), citing In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Key in view of design choice.
Regarding claim 8, Key does not expressly disclose the labeling region has a first color that is different from a second color of the cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Key to select a first color of the labeling region to differ from a second color of the cover as an obvious matter of design choice because aesthetic design choices relating to ornamentation only cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(I), citing In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431). Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed features.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Key in view of U.S. Pub. 2013/0037569 to Kelly et al. (hereinafter, “Kelly”).
Regarding claim 19, Key further discloses one or more labels in the plurality of labels are indicative of a type of consumer product, and include information such as “ingredients” “product information,” and “warnings.”
Key does not expressly disclose that the plurality of labels are indicative of a type of cleaner solution.
Kelly teaches a container for a cleaner solution (see Fig. 6). Kelly teaches that the container may be used to hold different types of cleaner solutions (para. [0008]). Kelly teaches that the container includes a label to indicate the type of cleaner solution (para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Key to have the plurality of labels indicate a type of cleaner solution as taught by Kelly for the purpose of using the container for cleaning solution and indicating the relevant information to the user, as recognized by Kelly, and because the container of Key is suitable for the purpose of holding cleaner solution (see e.g., MPEP 2144.06-07).
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 LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights