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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 May 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states that the interlayer gap is disposed between the first insulation layer and the outer cup. Claim 8, lines 1-2 state that the interlayer gap “comprises a first interlayer gap located between the inner cup and the outer cup.” This redefines the boundary of the interlayer gap to now include the first insulation layer when claim 1 precludes the interlayer gap from being where the first insulation layer is located. This contradicts claim 1. The metes and bounds of claim 8 can’t be accurately determined. Claim 8 is indefinite. Claim 8, lines 2-3, similarly place a bottom interlayer gap between the cups. Claim 8 is additionally indefinite.
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(s) 1, 6, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedman (US 2643021) in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0081108) (Li).
Freedman discloses a multi-layer bottle made by one or more in-mold lamination processes (the structure of Freedman’s bottle is structurally consistent with a bottle made by one or more in-mold lamination processes), the multi-layer bottle comprising: an inner cup (fourth layer 38 of polyethylene, see column 3, lines 56-57) made of plastic and having an inner cup outer surface; an outer cup (first layer 24 of polyethylene, see column 3, line 29-31) made of plastic and having an outer cup outer surface; a first insulation layer (second layer 28 of polyethylene, see column 3, lines 37-39) formed on the inner cup outer surface by at least one of the one or more in-mold lamination processes; an interlayer gap 30 disposed between the first insulation layer and the outer cup; and a second insulation layer (third layer 36 of polyethylene, see column 3, lines 56-57) formed on the outer cup outer surface by at least one of the one or more in-mold lamination processes. Freedman fails to disclose a first pattern layer. Li teaches a pattern layer (substrate layer 22) on the insulation layer (foam substrate layer 21) as shown in Fig. 1, the pattern is an uneven pattern 25 as shown in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add a first pattern layer disposed on an outer surface of the first insulation layer to provide a decorative and gripping pattern to enhance the decorative appeal of the bottle and to assist in enhancing a firm grip on the bottle to prevent inadvertent spills or slippage.
Re claim 6, Freedman fails to disclose a second pattern layer. Li teaches a pattern layer (substrate layer 22) on the insulation layer (foam substrate layer 21) as shown in Fig. 1, the pattern is an uneven pattern 25 as shown in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add a second pattern layer disposed on an outer surface of the second insulation layer to provide a decorative and gripping pattern to enhance the decorative appeal of the bottle and to assist in enhancing a firm grip on the bottle to prevent inadvertent spills or slippage.
Re claim 8, the interlayer gap of Freedman has a first portion between sidewalls and a second portion between bottom walls.
Re claim 11, the first pattern layer is applied to the outer surface of the first insulation layer by a 3D texture process, a digital printing process, a screen printing process, or a thermal transfer process. Claim 11 includes a product-by-process limitation, the pattern layer is structurally consistent with being formed by one of the processes.
Re claim 12, the second pattern layer is applied to the outer surface of the second insulation layer by a 3D texture process, a digital printing process, a screen printing process, or a thermal transfer process. Claim 12 includes a product-by-process limitation, the pattern layer is structurally consistent with being formed by one of the processes.
Re claim 13, the interlayer gap (evacuated, as stated in Freedman, column 3, line 44) comprises a space between the outer surface of the first insulation layer and the outer cup, and wherein the space is filled with air or a vacuum.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedman in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (US 2017/0318993).
The combination fails to disclose the insulation material is an elastomer for both insulation layers. Young teaches insulation jacket 37b of an elastomer [thermoplastic elastomer (TPE)] in paragraph [62], lines 7-9. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the insulation material of both insulation layers to be an elastomer as a durable, easily moldable, insulative material that makes production and use effective.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedman and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US 2009/0269530).
The combination fails to disclose the thickness of the first insulation layer. Schmidt teaches a thickness of the first insulation layer 14 ranges from 0.1 mm to 3 mm. See paragraph [36], lines 4-7, “the average total wall thickness is about 3.5 mm to 4.5 mm and paragraph [38], lines 7-9, “a layer thickness of less than 5% of the total wall thickness” for thin layer 14. Five percent of 4.5 mm is 0.225 mm and within the range from 0.1 mm to 3 mm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify any thickness that achieves the invention’s directives, noting that, thinner layers are more economical and add less weight, while thicker layers add a higher insulative value, more durability. Modification to the specific thickness of from 0.1 mm to 3 mm is taught within Schmidt to meet an optimal thickness that balances an economical use of the insulation layer with providing adequate insulation for the bottle’s intended purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have 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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights