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 .
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.
Claims 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ioku (JP 2000116541A).
Regarding claim 12, Ioku teaches a container 1 for holding a liquid (figure 1), the container comprising an inner wall 1A that includes a first surface and a second surface (inner wall 1A with first surface facing inwards and second surface facing outwards; figure 1), the first surface defining a first cavity in which a liquid may be held (inner surface of 1A defines a cavity which can hold a liquid), an outer wall 1B, connected to the inner wall, that includes a third surface and a fourth surface (outer wall 1B, with third surface facing inwards and fourth surface facing outwards; figure 1), the outer wall 1B positioned relative to the inner wall such that the outer wall's third surface surrounds the inner wall's second surface (inner surface of 1B surrounds outer surface of 1A) and, together, the third and second surfaces define a second cavity 4 that is sealed from the ambient environment outside the inner wall's first surface and the outer wall's fourth surface (figure 1) and has a pressure that is less than the pressure of the outside ambient environment (“vacuum double container”), and an enamel coating 20 disposed on at least one of the inner wall's first surface (inner surface of 1A) and the outer wall's fourth surface (figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, the first cavity has a cylindrical shape (wall 1A is cylindrical and defines the cavity; figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, the inner wall 1A has a region that defines an opening (at lead line 8; figure 1) to the first cavity.
Regarding claim 16, the outer wall 1B extends from a region of the inner wall that defines an opening to the first cavity (see lead line 1C; figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, the outer wall 1B is configured such that the inner wall 1A nests within the outer wall (figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, the distance between the inner wall's second surface (outer surface of 1A) and the outer wall's third surface (inner surface of 1B) is substantially constant throughout the second cavity (figures 1 and 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioku (JP 2000116541A) in view of Cheng et al. (EP 1,935,299A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ioku discloses the claimed invention except for the inner and outer walls being formed from a single continuous piece of material. Cheng et al. teaches that it is known to form the inner and outer wall of a single continuous pies of the material (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Ioku with the inner and outer walls being formed from a single continuous piece of material, as taught by Cheng et al., in order to simplify the construction.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioku (JP 2000116541A) in view of Dunlap (U.S. 1,165,952).
Regarding claim 19, Ioku does not teach that the enamel coating is disposed on the outer wall's fourth surface. Dunlap teaches a metal double walled container having an enamel coating on the fourth surface defined as the outer surface of the outer wall of (see page 1, Iines75-85). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Ioku with the enamel coating being disposed on the outer wall fourth surface, as taught by Dunlap, in order to provide a product with a smooth enameled outer surface.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioku (JP 2000116541A) in view of Choltco-Devlin et al. (U.S. 2017/0325607).
Regarding claim 20, Ioku teaches the claimed invention except for the handle. Choltco-Devlin et al. teaches that it is known to provide a double wall container with a handle (see figures 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Ioku with a handle, as taught by Choltco-Devlin et al., in order to allow a user to easily hold a container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the double wall structure and enamel coating.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736