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 § 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) 16-21, 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US D477783 S) in view of Giblin (US 6431401 B1) and Fandeux (US 5632397 A).
Gilmore discloses:
The claims are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with a single extrusion blow molded plastic) 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 having a substantially contagious curved surface (See figure below, with curved exterior), a bottom formed at the second end and having a base where a circumference of the base has a non-angular cross-section (See figure below, where circumference is also curved), an opening formed at the first end (see figure below), a neck surrounding and defining the opening which neck being integral with the container and having a substantially contiguous non-angular curved surface (see figure below, with curved surfaces, such as along portions of exterior), and an external thread formed on the neck (see figure below), a screw cap (see figure below), wherein the neck is disposed off-center within a perimeter of the bottom in a top
PNG
media_image1.png
801
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
view (as in fig 6, 12), wherein the container is configured to operably store filling material therein (capable of performing the above intended use).
With respect to wherein an internal thread which operably couples the external thread formed on the neck, 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.
With respect to collapses as the filling material is decanted from the container, and is collapsable to a substantially zero filling volume after having at least substantially all the filling material decanted therefrom, and wherein the container has a wall thickness of about 0.2-0.4 mm, the Office notes that Fandeux discloses similar art and also discloses the above (“crushed completely” as in col. 1: 60-65, col. 3: 1-10). 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 Fandeux (by providing the above thickness and corresponding ability to collapse) in order to permit the device to occupy less space
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 and a casing side is at a 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 shape 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 shape (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 about 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 the screw cap having an internal thread, which screw cap can be attached / is operably selectably screwable and unscrewable 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and a new rejection has been made.
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 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
Prosecution Insights