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 of Species B (Figs. 2-6) in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 “foamed sleeve” recited in claims 17, 35, and 46 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 § 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.
Claims 1-46 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “the axial length” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “an axial length.”
Claim 11 recites “allow a user to hold the insulative container without feeling a high heat sensation from inside of the container” in lines 3-4. The term “high heat” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. Further, the “high heat sensation” may vary by user.
Claim 20 recites “the axial length” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “an axial length.”
Claim 28 recites “allow a user to hold the insulative container without feeling a high heat sensation from inside of the container” in lines 3-4. The term “high heat” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. Further, the “high heat sensation” may vary by user.
Claim 38 recites “the axial length” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “an axial length.”
Claim 42 recites “a user can hold the insulative container without feeling a high heat sensation from inside of the container” in lines 1-2. The term “high heat” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. Further, the “high heat sensation” may vary by user.
Claims 2-19, 21-37, and 39-46 are also rejected through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
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 1-12, 14, 16, 19-29, 31, 34, 37-42, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. 3,194,468 to Baron (hereinafter, “Baron”).
Regarding claim 1, Baron discloses an insulative container (cup A, Figs. 1-3), the insulative container (cup A) comprising: a base (base 11, Fig. 2); and at least one sidewall (sidewall 10, Figs. 1-3) which extends upwardly from the base (base 11) and terminates in a rim (annotated Fig. 1 below), the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) having an interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) and an exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) and a plurality of protrusions (ribs 14, Figs. 1, 3) integrally formed within the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1; see also Fig. 3) and the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1; see also Fig. 3) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) and extending along the axial length of the at least one sidewall (see Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of protrusions (ribs 14) define a series of thermally insulative gaps (spaces formed between ribs 14, see Fig. 3) formed between each of the plurality of protrusions (see Fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 1-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baron Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Baron further discloses the container (cup A) is configured to retain food therein (cup A is capable of retaining food therein, see col. 1, ll. 9-10).
Regarding claim 3, Baron further discloses each of the plurality of protrusions (ribs 14) include a face (annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Baron further discloses the face (annotated Fig. 1) of each of the plurality of protrusions (ribs 14) is square, rectangular, circular, ovular, triangular, or elliptical (face is triangular in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Baron further discloses the plurality of protrusions (ribs 14) are convex (see Fig. 3) on the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10).
Regarding claim 6, Baron further discloses the plurality of protrusions (ribs 14) protrude outwardly (see Fig. 3) from the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10).
Regarding claim 7, Baron further discloses the plurality of protrusions (ribs 14) are concave (ribs 14 form valleys 15 on interior, see Fig. 3) on the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10).
Regarding claim 8, Baron further discloses the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) is not smooth (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 9, Baron further discloses the plurality of protrusions (ribs 14) form a plurality of recesses (valleys 15, Fig. 3) on the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10).
Regarding claim 10, Baron further discloses the concave plurality of protrusions (ribs 14 forming valleys 15) on the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) allow heat radiating from food inside the container to remain within the container (protrusions are capable of allowing heat to remain within the container).
Regarding claim 11, Baron further discloses the convex plurality of protrusions (ribs 14) on the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10), along with the series of insulative gaps (spaces between ribs 14), allow a user to hold the insulative container without feeling a high heat sensation from inside of the container (col. 2, ll. 1-15).
Regarding claim 12, Baron further discloses the insulative container (cup A) is disposable (col. 1, ll. 9-10).
Regarding claim 14, Baron further discloses the insulative container (cup A) is arranged to be stackable with other at least one or more similar insulative containers (col. 2, ll. 45-52).
Regarding claim 16, Baron further discloses a portion of the at least one sidewall includes no protrusions (annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Baron further discloses the series of thermally insulative gaps (spaces formed between ribs 14) are uniformly spaced along the at least one sidewall (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 20, Baron discloses an insulative container (cup A, Figs. 1-3), the insulative container (cup A) comprising: a base (base 11, Fig. 2); and at least one sidewall (sidewall 10, Figs. 1-3) which extends upwardly from the base (base 11) and terminates in a rim (annotated Fig. 1 below), the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) having an interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) and an exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) and a plurality of ribs (ribs 14, Figs. 1, 3) integrally formed within the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1; see also Fig. 3) and the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1; see also Fig. 3) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) and extending along the axial length of the at least one sidewall (see Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of ribs (ribs 14) define a series of thermally insulative gaps (spaces formed between ribs 14, see Fig. 3) formed between each of the plurality of ribs (see Fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 1-15).
Regarding claim 21, Baron further discloses the container (cup A) is configured to retain food therein (cup A is capable of retaining food therein, see col. 1, ll. 9-10).
Regarding claim 22, Baron further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 14) are convex (see Fig. 3) on the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10).
Regarding claim 23, Baron further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 14) protrude outwardly (see Fig. 3) from the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10).
Regarding claim 24, Baron further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 14) are concave (ribs 14 form valleys 15 on interior, see Fig. 3) on the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10).
Regarding claim 25, Baron further discloses the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall is not smooth (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 26, Baron further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 14) form a plurality of channels (valleys 15, Fig. 3) on the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10).
Regarding claim 27, Baron further discloses the concave plurality of ribs (ribs 14 forming valleys 15) on the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) allow heat radiating from food inside the container to remain within the container (protrusions are capable of allowing heat to remain within the container).
Regarding claim 28, Baron further discloses the convex plurality of ribs (ribs 14) on the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10), along with the series of insulative gaps (spaces between ribs 14), allow a user to hold the insulative container without feeling a high heat sensation from inside of the container (col. 2, ll. 1-15).
Regarding claim 29, Baron further discloses the insulative container (cup A) is disposable (col. 1, ll. 9-10).
Regarding claim 31, Baron further discloses the insulative container (cup A) is arranged to be stackable with other at least one or more similar insulative containers (col. 2, ll. 45-52).
Regarding claim 34, Baron further discloses a portion of the at least one sidewall includes no ribs (annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 37, Baron further discloses the series of thermally insulative gaps (spaces formed between ribs 14) are uniformly spaced along the at least one sidewall (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 38, Baron discloses an insulative container (cup A, Figs. 1-3), the insulative container (cup A) comprising: a base (base 11, Fig. 2); at least one sidewall (sidewall 10, Figs. 1-3) which extends upwardly from the base (base 11) and terminates in a rim (annotated Fig. 1 above), the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) having an interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) and an exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1); a plurality of channels (channels formed by valleys 15, Fig. 3) integrally formed in the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10), and extending at least partially along the axial length of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10, see Figs. 1-3); and a plurality of ribs (ribs 14, Figs. 1-3) integrally formed in the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10), and extending at least partially along the axial length of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10, see Figs. 1-3), wherein the plurality of channels (channels formed by valleys 15) and ribs (ribs 14) define a series of thermally insulative gaps formed therebetween (spaces formed between ribs 14, see Fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 1-15).
Regarding claim 39, Baron further discloses the plurality of channels (channels formed by valleys 15) are aligned with the plurality of ribs (ribs 14, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 40, Baron further discloses the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 10) is not smooth (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 41, Baron further discloses the channels (channels formed by valleys 15) allow heat radiating from food inside the container to remain within the container (channels are capable of allowing heat to remain within the container).
Regarding claim 42, Baron further discloses a user can hold the insulative container without feeling a high heat sensation from inside of the container (col. 2, ll. 1-15).
Regarding claim 45, Baron further discloses a portion of the at least one sidewall includes no channels or ribs (annotated Fig. 1).
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 18 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by Baron or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baron in view of U.S. Pat. 6,554,154 to Chauhan et al. (hereinafter, “Chauhan”).
Regarding claim 18, Baron further discloses the insulative container (cup A) is made via a thermoforming process (this is a product-by-process limitation, and Baron discloses the claimed product, see MPEP 2113).
To the extent there is some structure implied by a thermoforming process that is not disclosed in Baron, this would be obvious in view of Chauhan.
Chauhan teaches a similar insulative container comprising a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Figs. 1-2). Chauhan teaches a plurality of protrusions integrally formed with the sidewall (ribs 20, Figs. 1-2). Chauhan teaches that the container is formed by a thermoforming process (col. 3, ll. 18-22). Chauhan teaches that thermoforming is a known in the art for forming thin-walled plastic containers that are durable and inexpensive (col. 1, ll. 12-59). Chauhan teaches that thermoformed plastic containers are more environmentally friendly than other types of containers because they are recyclable (col. 1, ll. 12-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Baron to form the container by thermoforming as taught by Chauhan for the purpose of forming a durable and inexpensive container, as recognized by Chauhan (col. 1, ll. 12-59), and because it is no more than a simple substitution of one known manufacturing method for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 36, Baron further discloses the insulative container (cup A) is made via a thermoforming process (this is a product-by-process limitation, and Baron discloses the claimed product, see MPEP 2113).
To the extent there is some structure implied by a thermoforming process that is not disclosed in Baron, this would be obvious in view of Chauhan.
Chauhan teaches a similar insulative container comprising a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Figs. 1-2). Chauhan teaches a plurality of protrusions integrally formed with the sidewall (ribs 20, Figs. 1-2). Chauhan teaches that the container is formed by a thermoforming process (col. 3, ll. 18-22). Chauhan teaches that thermoforming is a known in the art for forming thin-walled plastic containers that are durable and inexpensive (col. 1, ll. 12-59). Chauhan teaches that thermoformed plastic containers are more environmentally friendly than other types of containers because they are recyclable (col. 1, ll. 12-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Baron to form the container by thermoforming as taught by Chauhan for the purpose of forming a durable and inexpensive container, as recognized by Chauhan (col. 1, ll. 12-59), and because it is no more than a simple substitution of one known manufacturing method for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 32 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baron.
Regarding claim 32, Baron further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 14) include a face (annotated Fig. 1), and wherein the face of the plurality of ribs is curved (see Fig. 1).
However, to the extent it could be argued that Baron does not expressly disclose the face is curved, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ribs of Baron to have a curved face 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). Here, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed arrangement (see e.g., Specification at para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 43, Baron further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 14) include a face (annotated Fig. 1), and wherein the face of the plurality of ribs (annotated Fig. 1) is curved (see Fig. 1).
However, to the extent it could be argued that Baron does not expressly disclose the face is curved, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ribs of Baron to have a curved face 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). Here, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed arrangement (see e.g., Specification at para. [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13, 15, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron as applied to claims 1, 3, and 20 above, and in further view of U.S. Pat. 3,558,001 to Fritz et al. (hereinafter, “Fritz”).
Regarding claim 13, Baron further discloses the insulative container (cup A) is formed from a thin-walled plastic (col. 1, ll. 39-50).
Baron does not expressly disclose the insulative container is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, high density polyethylene, high impact polystyrene and a combination thereof.
Fritz teaches a similar insulative container having a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Fig. 1). Fritz teaches a plurality of protrusions that are ribs extending along an axial length of the sidewall (Figs. 1-2). Fritz teaches that the container may be formed from polypropylene or high density polyethylene (col. 3, ll. 52-67). Fritz further teaches that high density polyethylene is among “particularly preferred container forming materials” (col. 3, ll. 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Baron to form the cup of polypropylene or high density polyethylene as taught by Fritz because Fritz teaches these are suitable materials for a plastic cup having ribs and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, Baron does not expressly disclose the plurality of protrusions include a tapered distal end.
Fritz teaches a similar insulative container having a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Fig. 1). Fritz teaches a plurality of protrusions (columns 20, Fig. 1) that are ribs extending along an axial length of the sidewall (Figs. 1-2). Fritz teaches each of the plurality of protrusions has a face and a tapered distal end (triangular face formed at bottom end of column 20, see Fig. 1). Fritz further teaches that this protrusion arrangement improves the vertical strength characteristics of the container (col. 1, ll. 35-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Baron to form the protrusions with a tapered distal end as taught by Fritz for the purpose of improving the vertical strength characteristics of the container, and 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).
Regarding claim 30, Baron further discloses the insulative container (cup A) is formed from a thin-walled plastic (col. 1, ll. 39-50).
Baron does not expressly disclose the insulative container is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, high density polyethylene, high impact polystyrene and a combination thereof.
Fritz teaches a similar insulative container having a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Fig. 1). Fritz teaches a plurality of protrusions that are ribs extending along an axial length of the sidewall (Figs. 1-2). Fritz teaches that the container may be formed from polypropylene or high density polyethylene (col. 3, ll. 52-67). Fritz further teaches that high density polyethylene is among “particularly preferred container forming materials” (col. 3, ll. 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Baron to form the cup of polypropylene or high density polyethylene as taught by Fritz because Fritz teaches these are suitable materials for a plastic cup having ribs and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 17, 35, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron as applied to claims 1, 20, and 38 above, and in further view of U.S. Pat. 3,203,611 to Anderson et al. (hereinafter, “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 17, Baron does not expressly disclose the insulative container further includes a foamed sleeve disposed around the at least one sidewall.
Anderson teaches a similar insulative container comprising a base and a sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (see Fig. 1). Anderson teaches the container further includes a foamed sleeve disposed around the sidewall (outer wall portion 20, Figs. 3-4). Anderson further teaches that the foamed sleeve provides a gripping portion with increased insulation properties to enable a user to handle the container when it is filled with a hot beverage (col. 2, ll. 42-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Baron to add a foamed sleeve around the sidewall as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing a gripping portion with increased insulation properties, as recognized by Anderson (col. 2, ll. 42-55).
Regarding claim 35, Baron does not expressly disclose the insulative container further includes a foamed sleeve disposed around the at least one sidewall.
Anderson teaches a similar insulative container comprising a base and a sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (see Fig. 1). Anderson teaches the container further includes a foamed sleeve disposed around the sidewall (outer wall portion 20, Figs. 3-4). Anderson further teaches that the foamed sleeve provides a gripping portion with increased insulation properties to enable a user to handle the container when it is filled with a hot beverage (col. 2, ll. 42-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Baron to add a foamed sleeve around the sidewall as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing a gripping portion with increased insulation properties, as recognized by Anderson (col. 2, ll. 42-55).
Regarding claim 46, Baron does not expressly disclose the insulative container further includes a foamed sleeve disposed around the at least one sidewall.
Anderson teaches a similar insulative container comprising a base and a sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (see Fig. 1). Anderson teaches the container further includes a foamed sleeve disposed around the sidewall (outer wall portion 20, Figs. 3-4). Anderson further teaches that the foamed sleeve provides a gripping portion with increased insulation properties to enable a user to handle the container when it is filled with a hot beverage (col. 2, ll. 42-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Baron to add a foamed sleeve around the sidewall as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing a gripping portion with increased insulation properties, as recognized by Anderson (col. 2, ll. 42-55).
Claims 33 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron as applied to claims 32 and 43 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2007/0205128 to Davis (hereinafter, “Davis”).
Regarding claim 33, Baron does not expressly disclose the plurality of ribs include a tapered distal end.
Davis teaches a similar insulative container having a base, a sidewall, and a rim (see Figs. 1-3). Davis teaches a plurality of protrusions that are ribs extend along an axial length of the sidewall (vertical ribs 36, Figs. 1-3). Davis teaches that the plurality of ribs each include a tapered distal end (see Figs. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ribs of Baron to have a tapered distal end 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). Here, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed arrangement (see e.g., Specification at para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 44, Baron does not expressly disclose the plurality of ribs include a tapered distal end.
Davis teaches a similar insulative container having a base, a sidewall, and a rim (see Figs. 1-3). Davis teaches a plurality of protrusions that are ribs extend along an axial length of the sidewall (vertical ribs 36, Figs. 1-3). Davis teaches that the plurality of ribs each include a tapered distal end (see Figs. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ribs of Baron to have a tapered distal end 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). Here, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed arrangement (see e.g., Specification at para. [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pub. 2024/0294297 to Tomalia discloses an insulative container having a base and a sidewall and a plurality of protrusions that are ribs that extend along the axial length of the sidewall (see Figs. 7-10D).
U.S. Pub. 2023/0322430 to Brown et al. discloses a container having a base and a sidewall and a plurality of protrusions that are ribs that extend in an axial direction (see Figs. 1-6).
U.S. Pub. 2014/0263367 to Robertson et al. discloses a container having a base and a sidewall extending upwardly to a rim, and having a foamed sleeve (see Figs. 1-5).
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3733