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 .
Applicants are respectfully reminded that they and other individuals, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.56, have a duty to bring to the attention of the Office any material prior art or other information cited or brought to their attention in any related foreign application. See MPEP 2001.06(a).
The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question. The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending in which similar subject matter but patentably indistinct claims are present that fact must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are “material to patentability” of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808. See MPEP 2001.06(b).
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9, 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/12/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of species F, figs 12a-12, claims 1-8, 10-12 in the reply filed on the above date is acknowledged.
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) 1-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (5894948) in view of Raymond (US 20050018305 A1).
Yeh discloses:
1. (Original) A container system (figs 1-8) comprising: an outer container defining a closed bottom and an open top (adjacent 12 with lower end and upper end), the outer container defining an at least partially transparent wall extending between an outer surface of the outer container and an inner surface of the outer container (abstract); a liner defining a visual characteristic (adjacent 14); and an inner container (16) for holding liquids (capable of performing the above intended use), the inner container closable by a lid (capable of performing the above intended use, such as being closed capable of closed by a lid; the Office notes that Applicant has not positively claimed the above), wherein the inner container defines an inner surface (as in fig 1) for holding liquids and an outer surface (capable of performing the above intended use), wherein insertion of the inner container within the outer container captures the liner between the inner surface of the outer container and the outer surface of the inner container, wherein movement of the container system causes a visual effect that can be seen from the outer surface of the outer container (capable of performing the above intended use);
With the exception of the following which is disclosed by Raymond: the outer container defining a lenticular lens on at least the outer surface of the outer container (lens in figs 1-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yeh in view of Raymond (by providing the above element to the outer area) in order to provide a desired aesthetic such as to improve sales and/or improve the experience of the user.
The Combined Reference discloses:
2. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the lenticular lens creates a textured surface on the outer surface of the outer container (As for example but not limited to figs 17, 18 of Raymond).
3. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein a majority of the outer surface of the outer container defines lenticular lenses. It is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional of the same elements for the reasons as already provided above in claim, such as a desired aesthetic, or additional gripping. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device because it has been held that the duplication of parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
4. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the visual characteristic of the liner is defined by a color (14 provides decoration of which would have color of Yeh).
5. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the visual characteristic of the liner is defined by an image (as in fig 1 of Yeh of which is an image).
6. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the inner container is friction-fit to the outer container to form the container system (as in the combination of fig 1 in Yeh).
7. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the outer container includes lenticular lenses that are oriented in at least two different directions (the elements occupy a three-dimensional space and orient in two different directions such as width and length of Raymond).
8. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the outer container includes a plurality of lenticular lenses that have a curved configuration (such as curve in fig 18 of Raymond).
10. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the outer container includes a plurality of lenticular lenses that are oriented parallel to each other (as in fig 1 of Raymond).
11. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the outer container includes a plurality of lenticular lenses, wherein a majority of the lenses extend from a top end of the outer container to a bottom end of the outer container. It is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the length of the elements for the reasons as already provided above in claim, such as a desired aesthetic, or additional gripping. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), 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.
12. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the liner is removable (fig 1 of Yeh).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 10527775 B2).
The Combined Reference discloses: 7. (Original) The container system of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the outer container includes lenticular lenses that are oriented in at least two different directions (the elements occupy a three-dimensional space and orient in two different directions such as width and length of Raymond). IF there is any question to the above, in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant the Office notes that Yang discloses wherein the outer surface of the outer container includes lenticular lenses that are oriented in at least two different directions (as in figs 1-39, the Office specifically notes figs 14d and 14e for example). 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 Yang (by providing the above) for the same reasons as already provided above in claim 7 and claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights