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 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 3, 5, and 7-9 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.
Claims 3, 5, and 7 all reference “in a perpendicular direction perpendicular to the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall”. This appears to be saying that the perpendicular direction is perpendicular to the direction perpendicular to the peripheral wall – which would be in the same direction as the peripheral wall. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to claim something more along the lines of “in a [[perpendicular]] direction perpendicular to the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall”. For purposes of further consideration, claims 3, 5, and 7 have been interpreted as the Examiner believes the claims were intended to be written. Further clarification and/or correction is required.
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, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balderson (WO 93/19445) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1
Balderson teaches a container (below – Fig. 1) comprising: a container body (3) to accommodate an object; a cap (5) detachably attachable to the container body, the cap including a peripheral wall; and a shrink label (6) to cover at least the peripheral wall of the cap and including a one-dimensional barcode (2) displayed on the shrink label, wherein an expression below is satisfied, L/(2 x circular constant x R) < 0.45, where L is a display width of the one-dimensional barcode in a peripheral direction of the peripheral wall, and R is a radius of the peripheral wall, as can be seen in Fig. 1 below (Pg. 3, Ln. 15 – Pg. 4, Ln. 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Balderson teaches the one-dimensional barcode (2) includes multiple bars arranged in the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall, as can be seen in Fig. 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7
Balderson teaches the shrink label (6) includes at least one perforation (7) connecting one end and another end of the shrink label in a direction perpendicular to the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall, as can be seen in Fig. 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11
Balderson teaches the shrink label (6) covers a region other than the container body, as can be seen in Fig. 1 above.
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) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser (US 7596927) in view of Balderson (WO 93/19445) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1
Moser teaches a container (below – Fig. 2 and 4) comprising: a container body (13) to accommodate an object; a cap (15) detachably attachable to the container body, the cap including a peripheral wall (27); and a shrink label (10) to cover at least the peripheral wall of the cap and including wan image (shown at “Brand”) displayed on the shrink label, wherein an expression below is satisfied, L/(2 x circular constant x R) < 0.45, where L is a display width of the one-dimensional image in a peripheral direction of the peripheral wall, and R is a radius of the peripheral wall (Col. 3, Ln. 51 – Col. 5, Ln. 39).
PNG
media_image2.png
438
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
448
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Moser does not specifically teach the shrink label including a one-dimensional barcode displayed on the shrink label, wherein an expression below is satisfied, L / (2 x circular constant x R) < 0.45, where L is a display width of the one-dimensional barcode in a peripheral direction of the peripheral wall, and R is a radius of the peripheral wall.
Balderson teaches a container (Fig. 1) comprising: a container body (3) to accommodate an object; a cap (5) detachably attachable to the container body, the cap including a peripheral wall; and a shrink label (6) to cover at least the peripheral wall of the cap and including a one-dimensional barcode (2) displayed on the shrink label, wherein an expression below is satisfied, L/(2 x circular constant x R) < 0.45, where L is a display width of the one-dimensional barcode in a peripheral direction of the peripheral wall, and R is a radius of the peripheral wall, as can be seen in Fig. 1 above (Pg. 3, Ln. 15 – Pg. 4, Ln. 16).
Moser and Balderson are analogous inventions in the field of containers having shrink labels. Because both Moser and Balderson teach shrink labels with images on them, it would have appeared obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of filing, to substitute the images of the shrink label of Moser with the teachings of the one-dimensional barcode of Balderson to achieve the predictable result of creating a shrink label having a brand image on it. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 2
Moser in view of Balderson (hereinafter “modified Moser”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Balderson further teaches the one-dimensional barcode (2) includes multiple bars arranged in the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall, as can be seen in Fig. 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Moser further teaches each of the multiple bars may extend from one end to another end of the shrink label (10) in a direction perpendicular to the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall. [As can be seen in Fig. 4 above, the “Brand” imaging is able to extend the entire length of each of the shrink labels.]
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Moser further teaches the shrink label (10) includes a label top portion covering a part of a top of the cap, and the one-dimensional barcode is able to be displayed on the label top portion of the shrink label. [As can be seen in Fig. 4 above, the “Brand” imaging is able to extend the entire length of each of the shrink labels.]
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Moser further teaches the one-dimensional barcode is capable of including: a first one-dimensional barcode on a first position of the shrink label; a second one-dimensional barcode on a second position different from the first position in a direction perpendicular to the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall of the cap; and an interval between the first one-dimensional barcode and the second one-dimensional barcode in the perpendicular direction, and the interval is smaller than a height of the peripheral wall in the perpendicular direction. [As can be seen in Fig. 4 above, the “Brand” imaging is able to be repeated with a gap (or interval) between each recitation along length of each of the shrink labels.]
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Moser further teaches a first one-dimensional barcode is on a first position of the shrink label; and a second one-dimensional barcode is on a second position different from the first position in the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall. [As can be seen in Fig. 4 above, the “Brand” imaging is able to be repeated with a gap (or interval) between each recitation along a width of each of the shrink labels.]
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Moser further teaches the shrink label includes at least one perforation (33) connecting one end and another end of the shrink label in a direction perpendicular to the peripheral direction of the peripheral wall.
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Modified Moser further teaches the shrink label includes a label top portion covering a part of a top of the cap, and the one-dimensional barcode is displayed on the label top portion of the shrink label. [As can be seen in Fig. 4 above, the “Brand” imaging is able to extend the entire length of each of the shrink labels.]
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Modified Moser further teaches the perforation (33) is at a perforation region different from a barcode region, in which the one-dimensional barcode is displayed, of the shrink label, as can be seen in Fig. 4 above.
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Moser further the shrink label (10) covers a region other than the container body.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Moser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitcher et al. (US 2015/0096913) (hereinafter Kitcher).
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Moser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Moser further teaches the container body includes resin. However, modified Moser does not teach the container body includes a pattern forming portion including a concave portion or a convex portion on a surface of the container body.
Kitcher teaches a container (below – Fig. 1 and 2) comprising: a container body to accommodate an object, wherein the container body includes resin, and the container body includes a pattern forming portion (34) including a concave portion on a surface of the container body (Paragraphs [0024] – [0030]).
PNG
media_image4.png
631
231
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
384
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Moser and Kitcher are analogous inventions in the field of container bodies. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container body of modified Moser with the teachings of the pattern forming portion of Kitcher in order to allow the bottle to carry a brand logo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733