DETAILED ACTION
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
1. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 of record in the previous Action are withdrawn.
NEW REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 3 – 5, 7, 9 – 12, 14, 17 – 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meizanis et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0361196 A1) in view of Murase et al (WO 2023/047737 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Meizanis et al disclose a cup ‘100’ comprising a sidewall that is shown in Figure 1A (paragraph 0069) that is frustoconical as shown in Figure 1A comprising a coated bottom substrate ‘120’ and a coated side substrate ‘115.’ The coated side substrate comprises a first coating that forms the inner surface of the substrate and a second coating that forms the outer surface, therefore opposite, of the substrate (paragraph 0070). The first and second coatings are heat sealed, therefore heat bonded, to each other, at the ends of the coated side substrate, to form a second seam ‘141’ (paragraph 0070). The first coating and second coating comprise polymers (paragraph 0071). The first coating and second coating are therefore a first polymer layer and second polymer layer, and the inner surface is a first surface and the outer surface is a second surface. As shown in Figure 1A, the ends of the coated side substrate are perpendicular edges which are a first perpendicular edge and second perpendicular edge. The coated side substrate is aluminum foil (paragraph 0022). Meizanis et al fail to disclose the claimed thickness and the claimed angle.
Murase et al teach an aluminum cup having a thickness of 0.1 to 0.2 mm for the purpose of almost maintaining the thickness of the original aluminum plate (fifth page, lines 14 – 18; Figure 3) and a taper angle of 5 degrees (second page, lines 29 – 33; Figure 3) for the purpose of obtaining a gradual spread (fourth page, lines 16 – 20). Murase et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is cups as evidenced by fifth page, lines 14 – 18.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the cup disclosed by Meizanis et al to comprise a thickness of 0.1 to 0.2 mm in order to almost maintaining the thickness of the original aluminum plate and a taper angle of 5 degrees in order to obtain a gradual spread as taught by Murase et al. Although the disclosed range of thickness is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to Claim 3, as shown in Figure 1A of Meizanis et al the frustoconical shape comprises a constant taper.
With regard to Claim 4, the first polymer layer is therefore also disposed on a portion of the first surface adjacent to a first perpendicular edge.
With regard to Claim 5, the second polymer layer is therefore also disposed on a portion of the second surface adjacent to a second perpendicular edge.
With regard to Claim 7, the coated bottom substrate comprises also comprise a first coating on a first surface which is an inner surface and a second coating on a second surface which is an outer surface (paragraph 0069 of Meizanis et al) and at a first seam the coated bottom substrate and coated side substrate are bonded (paragraph 0069 of Meizanis et al) by heat sealing (paragraph 0070 of Meizanis et al), therefore heat bonded. A first polymer bottom layer is therefore bonded to the first polymer layer of the sidewall and a cup sidewall is bonded to the coated bottom substrate. The coated bottom substrate is therefore a cup bottom. The cup bottom is aluminum foil (paragraph 0022 of Meizanis et al).
With regard to Claim 9, the aluminum foil of the sidewall is therefore an aluminum foil sidewall and the first polymer layer is a first polymer wall layer.
With regard to Claim 10, the cup bottom has a circular profile as shown in Figure 1A. of Meizanis et al
With regard to Claims 11 – 12, 14 and 17, the second polymer layer is a second polymer wall layer.
With regard to Claim 18, the first polymer layer is therefore disposed on an inner portion of the frustoconical shape.
With regard to Claims 19 and 21, the second polymer layer is therefore disposed on an outer portion of the frustoconical shape.
4. Claim(s) 6, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meizanis et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0361196 A1) in view of Murase et al (WO 2023/047737 A1) and further in view of Scott (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0221936 A1).
Meizanis et al and Murase et al disclose a cup as discussed above. With regard to Claims 6, 16 and 20, Meizanis et al and Murase et al fail to disclose a rolled lip at an upper edge.
Scott teaches a cup (paragraph 0002) comprising a rolled lip (curling; Claim 7) at an upper edge (end; paragraph 0038) for the purpose of eliminating sharp edges and adding rigidity (paragraph 0036). Scott is in the same field of endeavor, which is cups as evidenced by paragraph 0002.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the cup disclosed by Meizanis et al to comprise a rolled lip at an upper edge in order to eliminate sharp edges and add rigidity as taught by Scott.
5. Claim(s) 8, 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meizanis et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0361196 A1) in view of Murase et al (WO 2023/047737 A1) and further in view of Lutz et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0199420 A1).
Meizanis et al and Murase et al disclose a cup as discussed above. With regard to Claims 8, 13 and 22, Meizanis et al and Murase et al fail to disclose the claimed thicknesses of the first polymer layer and second polymer layer.
Lutz et al teach a cup that is a capsule (paragraph 0061) comprising aluminum foil (paragraph 0106) and a heat seal layer that is a lacquer having a thickness of between 5 and 20 microns for the purpose of sealing a lid (paragraph 0071). Lutz et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is cups as evidenced by paragraph 0061.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the first polymer layer and second polymer layer to have a thickness of 5 – 20 microns in order to seal a lid as taught by Lutz et al.
6. Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Murase et al (WO 2023/047737 A1) in view of Scott (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0221936 A1) and Lutz et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0199420 A1).
Meizanis et al and Murase et al disclose a cup as discussed above. Meizanis et al and Murase et al fail to disclose a rolled lip at an upper edge and the claimed thicknesses of the aluminum foil, first polymer layer and second polymer layer. However, as discussed above it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the cup disclosed by Meizanis et al to comprise a rolled lip at an upper edge and the claimed thicknesses of the aluminum foil, first polymer layer and second polymer layer in view of Scott and Lutz et al.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
7. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the previous Action have been considered and have been found to be persuasive. The rejections are therefore withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are moot because of the new rejections above.
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC A PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1497. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC A PATTERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782