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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, last two lines, state “wherein the upper region edge of each gradient upper region is concave relative to the brim.” This statement is not present in the text of the originally filed claims, abstract or written specification. Also, it is not shown in the drawings or readily apparent from the drawings to which relative plane of the brim or relative curved surface of the brim upon which concavity is based. The brim has upper and lower horizontal planes to which the upper region edge might be considered concave and the brim has inner and outer curved surfaces to which the upper region edge might be considered concave.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 12-13 are 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, last two lines state “concave relative to the brim.” However, it is not understood to which surface, a horizontal plane surface of the brim or a vertical curved surface of the brim, the concavity is relative.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper region edge of each gradient upper region" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The upper region edge 110 is the upper region edge of the valley region as clearly stated in lines 14-15 of claim 1, “an upper region edge coupled to a top end of each valley” and the lower edge of the gradient upper region (GUR). The metes and bounds of the claim can’t be accurately determined. Did applicant mean “an upper edge of each gradient upper region” or “an upper edge of the valley region?” Note that this is similar to the rejection made in the last Office action directed to claim 5. Applicant canceled claim 5 and though that the rejection is moot. However, applicant is placing claim 5 language into claim 1 and doesn’t address the rejection.
Claim 6, lines 6-7 state, “the exterior surface and inner surface each having a constant sidewall radius of curvature with a center at the central axis.” Then states, starting in line 8 that the container has a plurality of scalloped segments with ridges and valleys. How can the radius of curvature of the exterior surface and inner surface be constant with ridges and valleys present? Claim 6 is indefinite.
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) 6-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Navarro (US 2011/0256492).
Navarro discloses a container, comprising: a brim (upper rim), a floor, and a sidewall coupled to the floor and the brim and arranged to extend about a central axis, the sidewall having an exterior surface facing away from the central axis and an inner surface facing toward the central axis, the exterior surface and inner surface each having a constant sidewall radius of curvature with a center at the central axis because there are no ridges and no valleys in either the exterior or inner surface and because the wall is vertical and not tapered.
The Office doesn’t understand why applicant is claiming a plurality of scalloped segments when the sidewall surfaces have a constant radius of curvature.
Claim(s) 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Liming et al. (US 2022/0041318) (Liming).
Liming discloses a container, comprising: a brim, a floor, and a sidewall coupled to the floor and the brim and arranged to extend about a central axis, and a plurality of ridges (interior peaks 38) coupled to an inner surface of the sidewall, wherein each of the ridges included in the plurality of ridges is spaced a first distance from the central axis and the sidewall (remainder of sidewall at valley) is spaced a second distance from central axis, the first distance being less than the second distance wherein the sidewall further includes a plurality of valleys (interior valleys 40), each valley included in the plurality of valleys being located between two adjacent ridges included in the plurality of ridges, and wherein each of the ridges has an uppermost end spaced a first height from the floor and each of the valleys has an uppermost end, along a centerline of each respective valley, spaced a second height from the floor less than the first height. See annotated Fig. 1 wherein the arrows point to the upper ends of the valleys 40 and ridges 38.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 17, each of the valleys has a radius of curvature between two adjacent ridges as best shown in Fig. 2B and 3B which shows a much smaller radius of curvature than the curvature of the sidewall or rim. Re claim 18, the center or vertex of the radius of curvature is offset from the center axis and close to the sidewall. Note that radius of curvature is a dimension often schematically represented by a ray or vector that has a vertex.
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, 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liming in view of Selina et al. (US 2015/0203238) (Selina).
Re claim 1, Liming discloses a container, comprising: a sidewall extending axially from a brim to a floor; the sidewall and floor defining a storage region; wherein the sidewall has a first radius of curvature (e.g., radius of curvature of brim greatest at outer circumference of brim); wherein an inner surface of the sidewall has a plurality of scallops (interior valleys 40) configured to be scrapable; wherein each scallop of the plurality of scallops is arcuate in shape with a second radius of curvature (inner radius of curvature much less that radius of curvature of brim) and extends circumferentially between adjacent ridges; wherein each ridge of the adjacent ridges has a ridge thickness; a valley located in the scallop and interposed between the adjacent ridges, the valley having a valley thickness; and wherein the second radius of curvature is less than the first radius of curvature, wherein the container further includes at least one gradient upper region interposed axially between the brim and each valley and having an upper region edge coupled to a top end of each valley, and wherein the upper region edge of each gradient upper region is concave relative to the brim (the upper region edge is arcuate insofar as this limitation is understood). Re claims 1 and 16, Liming fails to disclose that valley thickness is less than ridge thickness. Selina teaches a similarly constructed container with inner scallops (concavities 28) alternating with inner ridges, the relative thickness of the scallop (part a in Fig. 5) is less than that of the ridge (part b in Fig. 5). Each ridge of the adjacent ridges has a ridge thickness (see Fig. 5 for maximum ridge thickness); a valley located in the scallop and interposed between the adjacent ridges, the valley having a valley thickness (see Fig. 5 for minimum valley thickness at approximate vertical centerline through concavity which is less than maximum ridge thickness) that is less than the ridge thickness. It would have been obvious to modify the thickness of the valley to be less than the ridge thickness as a convenient manner of making valleys by removing material or thinning the wall by various methods and to conserve of materials because the thinner wall with reinforcing ridges is deemed of sufficient strength.
Re claim 2, Selina fails to teach the radius of curvature (ROC) ratio. A shallower scallop provides more material and a stronger container and a ROC ratio closer to 1.0, while a deeper scallop provides less material and a greater savings in weight and cost savings in that less material is used and a ROC ratio closer to 0.10. 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 ROC ratio to be between about 0.6 and about 1.0 to provide an ROC ratio that will make the scallops and ridges stronger as an optimization of strength and savings in weight and cost of material.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liming in view of Selina as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Claydon (GB 2250972).
The combination fails to disclose the change or increase in gradient thickness. Claydon teaches a similarly constructed container with scallops wherein the gradient upper region (GUR)(that portion between the brim and each valley of each scallop) has a gradient thickness that decreases from the brim to the upper edge region (edge between valley and gradient upper region (GUR)) as best shown in Fig. 1-4 (especially thickness graph of Fig. 4). 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 gradient thickness of the GUR such that the gradient thickness decreases from the brim to the upper edge region to conserve materials with a thinner wall portion that is still structurally strong due to the presence of reinforcing scallops, valleys and ridges.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liming in view of Claydon.
Liming fails to disclose the change or increase in gradient thickness. Claydon teaches a similarly constructed container with scallops wherein the gradient upper region (GUR)(that portion between the brim and each valley of each scallop) has a gradient thickness that decreases from the brim to the upper edge region (edge between valley and gradient upper region (GUR)). 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 gradient thickness of the GUR such that the gradient thickness decreases from the brim to the upper edge region to conserve materials with a thinner wall portion that is still structurally strong due to the presence of reinforcing scallops, valleys and ridges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have 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