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 § 102
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) 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,382,730 (Tauer hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Fig. 5, Tauer discloses: A container (10), comprising: at least one wall (16) defining an interior reservoir (18); and a plurality of surface features (46) provided on an outer surface of the at least one wall, wherein each of the surface features is axially spaced apart from one another (See Fig. 5 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Surface Feature B Thickness)][AltContent: textbox (Surface Feature A Thickness)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
356
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the surface features is formed with interruptions to be discontinuous (i.e. spaces between graduation lines and numbers/letters of markings 46).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the surface features is a groove formed in the outer surface of the at least one wall (when formed by etching, marking 46 is a groove, column 4, lines 47-50).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the surface features is a void in a coating treatment in a specific area and/or pattern (i.e. when printed, the center of the “0” in a marking 46 is a void surrounded by printed material in specific area).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the surface features is spaced apart from another one of the surface features by a substantially equal distance (a horizontal graduation of upper marking 46 is spaced equally from a horizontal marking of middle/lower 46 in a circumferential direction).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein a spacing between two or more of the surface features varies (i.e. spacing from a horizontal graduation of upper 46 to a horizontal graduation of middle 46 is different from a spacing from a number “1100” in upper 46 to a number “900” in middle 46, see Fig. 5 above).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein a thickness of two or more of the surface features varies from one another (since Applicant has not defined a frame of reference for directions of height, length, width, or thickness, the thicknesses shown above in Fig. 5 are vary from one surface feature to another).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein a thickness of at least one of the surface features varies around a circumference of the container (as in re claim 9 and Fig. 5 above).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses A method of producing a container, comprising: forming at least one wall (16) to define an interior reservoir; and providing a plurality of surface features (46) on an outer surface of the at least one wall, wherein each of the surface features is axially spaced apart from one another (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the surface features is formed by a subtractive manufacturing process (etching, column 4, lines 47-50).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the surface features is formed during a coating process of the container (i.e. when 46 are formed by printing/molding, column 4, lines 47-50).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauer.
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention except wherein the plurality of surface features comprises a first surface feature axially spaced from a closed end of the container by about 60 mm, a second surface feature is spaced from the closed end of the container by about 48 mm, and/or a third surface feature is spaced from the closed end of the container by about 36 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the volume of the container such that the heights of the markings 46 lie at certain spacings from a closed end of the container (i.e. a slightly smaller or larger total volume would see the graduations located upward or downward respectively along the wall), since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0071 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. the spacings are arbitrary and only refer to an arbitrary grid system for applying the surface features, and could be located elsewhere upon the surface and serve the same functional purpose).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of surface features comprises a first surface feature having a thickness of about 0.3 mm, a second surface feature having a thickness of about 1.1 mm, and/or a third surface feature has a thickness of about 1.9 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the thickness of the markings 46 for any reasonable purpose, such as to be more legible to a user, since it has been held that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0071 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. the thickness dimensions claimed are not disclosed as having any particular purpose and only taught as examples, and “may have any desired thickness”, paragraph 0071).
In re claims 16 and 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention except for two or more of the surface features are independently formed from one another, or two or more of the surface features are formed substantially simultaneously in the container.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the order in which the markings are applied/formed, since it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions [In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed a group of markings simultaneously by, for example, a large printing head, or to have formed individual markings in a desired order by a smaller printing head. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0070 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. the order in which the surface features are formed).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 4,966,780 (Hargraves et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention except for at least one of the surface features continuously extends around a circumference of the container.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Hargraves et al. teaches graduated surface features (230, 232, 234) on a container (200), wherein the features extend to provide a measuring mark around the entire perimeter (column 10, lines 44-48).
PNG
media_image2.png
656
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have extended the surface features of Tauer around the entire perimeter of the wall as taught by Hargraves et al. in order to enhance the viewability of the mark for more accurate measuring.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,092,473 (Lin et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention except for one of the surface features is disposed at a bottom of the container and is a damper/friction member.
However, Lin et al. discloses a cup having measurement indicators wherein etching is used to increase friction between a user’s hand and the cup (column 5, lines 53-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided etching to the surfaces of the container of Tauer upon which a user may handle the container (e.g. the sides, the bottom, etc.) as taught by Lin et al. for the purposes of preventing slippage during handling/storage of the container.
Claim(s) 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauer as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,731,827 (Mantell et al. hereinafter).
In re claims 18, 19, and 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tauer discloses the claimed invention including printing of surface features (as in re claims 5 and 15 above), but not using a grid system for alignment of at least one of the surface features, the grid system employs a uniform square grid, and wherein the grid system is relative to a closed end of the container.
However, Mantell et al. discloses a method for printing wherein a square grid system is utilized for depositing ink for marking of a surface (column 5, lines 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized a square grid system as taught by Mantell et al. for the printing of markings 46 of Tauer for the purposes of ensuring uniform pixel placement during the printing process to result in clearly legible indicia.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub No. 2005/0077296 to Hogan teaches a container having grooved surface features (664) spaced evenly about a circumference of the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733