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 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 16-30 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.
In claim 16, Applicant has selected the language “in particular by” of which Applicant has failed to make clear as to Applicant’s intent of whether or not the process is required or not. Claims 17-30 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the top view”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 17-30 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19-21 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "that casing side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19-21 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the shortest distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19-21 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the cam”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (as Applicant has previously provided the shape of a cam). Claim 21 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the greatest width”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the center”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the intersection point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 30, Applicant provides “a screw cap having an internal thread”. Applicant has already provided the above feature in claim 16 and therefore Applicant has failed to make Applicant’s intent clear.
In addition to the above, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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) 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US D477783 S) in view of Giblin (US 6431401 B1).
The Office notes the 112 rejections above. Nevertheless, Gilmore discloses:
The claims are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with produced from a plastic material, in particular by extrusion blow molding and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
16. A container (figs 1-12) comprising: a body having a first end and a second end which is substantially opposite the first end (See figure below), and a casing located therebetween (See figure below), a bottom formed at the second end and having a base (See figure below), an opening formed at the first end (see figure below), a neck surrounding and defining the opening which neck is integral with the container (see figure below), and an external thread formed on the neck (see figure below), a screw cap (see figure below), wherein the neck is located off-center within the perimeter of the bottom in the top view (as in fig 6, 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
801
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to wherein an internal thread which can interact with the external thread when the screw cap has been put on, the Office notes that the above reference is to a design patent and does not clearly show the internal threads of the cap that likely exist. In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that Giblin discloses similar are with threads on both the neck and cap (adjacent 50, 74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Gilmore in view of Giblin (by ensuring threads on within the cap) in order to securely hold the cap in desired position to further protect contents.
In order to further expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that containers in the oil and gasoline industry are commonly made by blow molded plastic, such as recycled HDPE. The above material is known to provide strength, durability, and economical advantages. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material (such as to a blow molded plastic, such as recycle HDPE) because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. If there is any question to the above, Giblin also further discloses bow molded recycle HDPE plastics (col. 10: 22-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Giblin (by providing the above material) in order to provide a known material with desired strength characteristics as well as environmental benefits.
17. The container according to claim 16, wherein the container has a plane of symmetry, and the neck is located off-center in the plane of symmetry (As shown in the below figure of Gilmore).
PNG
media_image2.png
425
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
18. The container according to claim 16, wherein the container has a cross-sectional shape such that the user intuitively grips the container by that casing side, which casing side is at the shortest distance from the neck (capable of performing the above intended use, such as being gripping at shortest distance from the neck).
19. The container according to claim 18, wherein the container has the shape of a cam in cross section (as shown in fig 12; the Office notes that “cams” have different shapes including the elliptical type shape shown of Gilmore).
20. The container according to claim 19, wherein the cam has a longitudinal axis which lies in the plane of symmetry and has a width axis which extends through the greatest width of the cam (As shown in the above figure for claim 17).
21. The container according to claim 20, wherein the center of the opening coincides with the intersection point of the longitudinal and width axes (as shown in the above figure for claim 17).
22. The container according to claim 16, wherein the container has a wall thickness of 0.2-0.4 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range (such as the above thickness range) because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
23. The container according to claim 16, wherein the container serves for refilling a further container with filling material, collapses as the filling material is decanted into the further container, and can be folded to a filling volume close to zero after being emptied (capable of performing the above intended use, such as used to refill another container).
24. The container according to claim 16, wherein a first and a second shoulder adjoin the neck (as shown in the above figure with claim 1).
25. The container according to claim 24, wherein the first and second shoulders transition into the casing of the container (as shown in the above figure with claim 1).
26. The container according to claim 24, wherein the first shoulder has a convex shape proceeding from the neck (AS shown in the above figure with claim 1).
27. The container according to claim 24, wherein the second shoulder has a concave shape proceeding from the neck and runs with a convex shape into the casing (AS shown in the above figure with claim 1).
28. The container according to claim 16, wherein the neck is blow molded together with the container (as already provided in claim 1; the Office notes that the above is also a product by process).
29. The container according to claim 16, wherein the container is produced from HDPE, wherein the proportion of recycled HDPE is between 10 and 100% by weight (Giblin col. 10: 22-40). If there is any question to the above range, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of King (US 20120037589 A1)
The Combined Reference discloses the claimed invention above (including and a screw cap having an internal thread, which screw cap can be attached to the neck having an external thread, can be unscrewed therefrom, already provided above in claim 1) with the exception of the following which is disclosed by King: inner side a sealing element which, in the attached state, projects into the opening (52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of King (by providing the above element internally to the cap) in order to provide more secure attachment of which further protects the contents).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
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 at (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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735