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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, 11 and 12, drawn to a product of a bottle, classified in B65D 81/3841.
II. Claims 9-10, drawn to a method of making a bottle, classified in B29C 45/14008.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product can be made by a different method wherein the inner and outer cup are secured together by mechanical means, such as threads or a fastener rather than being welded as required by method claim 9.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
There is a serious search burden as exemplified by the separate and distinct search areas: B65D 81/3841 for the product and B29C 45/14008 for the method.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mark Crockett on 6 March 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8, 11 and 12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-10 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Allen (US 2023/0363586).
Allen discloses a double-layer bottle made by an in-mold lamination process, the double-layer bottle comprising: an inner cup (inner wall 18, see Fig. 4); an outer cup (outer wall 20) connected to an outer surface of the inner cup (see Fig. 4); an interlayer gap (gap where insulator 30 is situated) disposed between the inner cup and the outer cup; and a first insulation layer (insulator 30 of foamed elastomer as indicated in paragraph [19]) disposed in the interlayer gap and on an outer peripheral surface of the inner cup, wherein the first insulation layer is integrally formed with the inner cup by the in-mold lamination process (the structure of the layers are consistent with a container made by an in-mold lamination process).
Re claim 2, the first insulation layer 30 comprises an elastomer made by a foaming process.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. (US 2009/0269530) (Schmidt).
Schmidt discloses a double-layer bottle (see “jerrican” in paragraph [2] which is a bottle) made by an in-mold lamination process, the double-layer bottle comprising: an inner cup (inner layer 12, see Fig. 3); an outer cup (third layer 16) connected to an outer surface of the inner cup (see Fig. 3); an interlayer gap (gap where thin layer 14 is situated) disposed between the inner cup and the outer cup; and a first insulation layer (thin layer 14) disposed in the interlayer gap and on an outer peripheral surface of the inner cup, wherein the first insulation layer is integrally formed with the inner cup by the in-mold lamination process (the structure of the layers are consistent with a container made by an in-mold lamination process).
Re claim 3, a thickness of the first insulation layer 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Freedman (US 2643021).
Freedman discloses a double-layer bottle (see Fig. 1) made by an in-mold lamination process, the double-layer bottle comprising: an inner cup ( layer 36, see Fig. 2); an outer cup (layer 34) connected to an outer surface of the inner cup (see Fig. 1); an interlayer gap (gap 30) disposed between the inner cup and the outer cup; and a first insulation layer (outer layer 22 of metal which is reflective and insulative) disposed in the interlayer gap and on an outer peripheral surface of the inner cup, wherein the first insulation layer is integrally formed with the inner cup by the in-mold lamination process (the structure of the layers are consistent with a container made by an in-mold lamination process).
Re claim 8, the interlayer gap comprises a first interlayer gap located between the inner cup and the outer cup (see Fig. 1), and a bottom interlayer gap disposed between a bottom of the inner cup and a bottom of the outer cup (see Fig. 1), and wherein the first insulation layer is disposed in at least the first interlayer gap.
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, 4-7, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2017/0081108) (Li) in view of Kakemura et al. (US 5968616) (Kakemura).
Li discloses a double-layer container made by an in-mold lamination process (process limitation in a product claim, the container is of such structure that it could be made by an in-mold lamination process), the double-layer container comprising: an inner cup (layer 11); an outer cup (substrate layer 22) connected to an outer surface of the inner cup; an interlayer gap (gap between layers 11 and 22 which is filled with layer 21) disposed between the inner cup and the outer cup; and a first insulation layer (foam substrate layer 21) disposed in the interlayer gap and on an outer peripheral surface of the inner cup, wherein the first insulation layer is integrally formed with the inner cup by the in-mold lamination process (the structure of the layers are consistent with a container made by an in-mold lamination process). Li fail to disclose the form of a bottle. Kakemura teaches a bottle (see Fig. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the container to be a bottle to enclose and seal the contents to prevent spills and to provide secure, uncontaminated storage of contents.
Re claim 4, Fig. 1 discloses the cross section of the multiple layers of the container. The foam substrate layer 21 as shown in Fig. 21 has a first, inner, constant thickness portion and a second, outer, raised portions extending outwardly from the first portion. The foam of the first, inner, constant thickness portion is the first insulation layer and the foam of the second, outer raised portions forms a first pattern layer disposed on an outer surface of the first insulation layer.
Re claim 5, further comprising a second insulation layer (reflection layer 23, reflective layers insulate insofar as heat is reflected) disposed on an outer peripheral surface of the outer cup (22), wherein the second insulation layer is attached to the outer peripheral surface of the outer cup by in-mold lamination (the structure of the layers are consistent with a container made by an in-mold lamination process).
Re claim 6, further comprising a second pattern layer (printed layer 24) disposed on an outer surface of the second insulation layer (23).
Re claim 7, Li fails to disclose a second insulation layer of thermoplastic elastomer, ethylene-vinyl acetate, polyurethane, or rubber. Kakemura teaches a layer of adhesive resin mainly comprising an ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer was printed on a back face thereof as a thin film (see column 29, lines 63-67). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an EVA layer as an adhesive layer which insulates to define the second insulation layer to provide the benefit of added insulation and good adhesion.
Re claims 11 and 12, the structure of the first and second pattern layers is consistent with many different printing processes including a 3D texture process, a digital printing process, a screen printing process, and a thermal transfer process. The product-by-process limitations are met.
Conclusion
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