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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10, 13, 15, 16 and 18), Housing Species A1 (Figures 1-3) and Bottle Species B2 (Figures 11 and 14-15) in the reply filed on 4/13/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated that claims 1-10, 13, 15, 16 and 18 read on the elected species. However, upon further consideration of the claims, it appears that claim 7 (and claim 8 that depends therefrom) is directed toward non-elected Housing Species A5/A6 since it defines a housing handle coupled to the housing top portion (See [0086] in the specification which describes the housing handle 222, which is shown in Figures 7-8). Therefore, claims 7-8 are also withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-6, 9-10, 13, 15, 16 and 18 correspond to the elected species. Claims 7-8, 22-24, 27, 30 and 33 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhar et al. (US 9,637,302).
Regarding claim 1, Kuhar discloses an integrated liquid container system (shown in Fig. 6) including a housing (carton 195 in Fig. 6) and a liquid delivery container (container 100 in Fig. 1 – shown inside the housing in Fig. 6), comprising: the housing, the housing comprising: a housing top portion (top wall of the housing - See Fig. 6 labeled below) comprising a neck aperture (See Fig. 6 labeled below), a housing bottom portion (bottom wall of the housing - See Fig. 6 labeled below – also shown in Fig. 7) opposite the housing top portion, and a housing body portion (See Fig. 6 labeled below) extending between the housing top portion and the housing bottom portion and defining a housing inner cavity (cavity within 195, which accommodates the liquid delivery container 100), wherein the housing body portion comprises a first surface (left-most surface of the housing – See Fig. 6 labeled below) and at least one aperture (See Fig. 6 labeled below) extending through the first surface of the housing body portion; and the liquid delivery container comprising: a container top portion (top of 100 n Fig. 1) comprising a neck (at 160 in Fig. 1), a container bottom portion (at 120 in Fig. 1) opposite the container top portion, and a container body portion (at 130 in Fig. 1) extending between the container top portion and the container bottom portion to define a container inner cavity (cavity within 100) configured to store liquid, the liquid delivery container being configured to be received within the container inner cavity such that the neck aperture of the housing top portion circumferentially extends around the neck of the container top portion (as shown in Fig. 6), and the container top portion, the container bottom portion, and the container body portion each comprising a thermoplastic polymer (HDPE, as described in column 4, lines 36-41).
PNG
media_image1.png
966
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kuhar discloses the housing top portion, the housing bottom portion, and the housing body portion comprise corrugated cardboard.
Regarding claim 3, Kuhar discloses the neck comprises: a neck top portion (See Fig. 5 labeled below) comprising a support ring (See Fig. 5 labeled below) and a threaded portion (See Fig. 5 labeled below), and a neck bottom portion (See Fig. 5 labeled below) comprising a straight portion (See Fig. 5 labeled below) below the support ring; and the integrated liquid container system further comprises: a cap (as shown in Fig. 6) that is selectively attachable to and detachable from the neck top portion, wherein (i) when the cap is configured to be attached to the neck top portion by engagement with the threaded portion, the liquid delivery container is in a closed state, and(ii) when the cap is detached from the neck top portion, the liquid delivery container in an open state, and a container handle (at 170 in Fig. 1) proximate to the neck bottom portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
452
1141
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kuhar discloses the housing bottom portion (as shown in Fig. 7) comprises a pouring aperture (at 197) and the container bottom portion comprises a pouring indent (as shown in Fig. 4); and the pouring indent at least partially faces the pouring aperture.
Regarding claim 9, Kuhar discloses the neck is disposed along a center axis of the liquid delivery container (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Kuhar discloses the neck comprises a first surface (portion between the support ring and the threaded portion in Fig. 5 shown above) having a substantially constant circumference such that an outermost portion of the first surface of the neck is equidistant from a center axis of the neck; and the first surface of the neck is structured without protuberances extending circumferentially therefrom.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhar et al. (US 9,637,302) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Voelker (US 2012/0312813). As described above, Kuhar discloses the claimed invention except for the housing top portion having a first handle aperture. However, Voelker teaches an integrated liquid container system (See Fig. 21) comprising a housing (outer carton 302) and a liquid container (bottle 304), wherein the top portion (at 310 in Fig. 21) of the housing has a first handle aperture (at 372) for the purpose of helping the user grip the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the housing top portion of Kuhar with a first handle aperture as taught by Voelker in order to assist in grasping the housing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhar et al. (US 9,637,302) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sturdevent et al. (US 3,160,326). As described above, Kuhar discloses the claimed invention except for the second surface (right-most wall in Fig. 6) having a second handle aperture. However, Sturdevent teaches an integrated liquid container system (See Fig. 3) comprising a housing (outer carton 17) and a liquid container (bottle 10), wherein a side surface (top-facing surface of 17 in Fig. 3) of the housing has a second handle aperture (at 21 in Fig. 3) for the purpose of helping the user grasp the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second surface of Kuhar with a second handle aperture as taught by Sturdevent in order to assist in grasping the housing.
Claims 13, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhar et al. (US 9,637,302) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ferrari (US 2016/0207242).
Regarding claims 13, 15 and 18, Kuhar discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the thermoplastic polymer. However, Ferrari teaches it is well known to form a container from thermoplastic materials comprising bioplastics, co-polymers or combinations thereof (See table 1) having an intrinsic viscosity of about 0.70 dl/g to about 0.90 dl/g (See [0138] and [0160]), and a melting temperature in a range of about 230C to 270C (See [0139] and [0161]), for the purpose of providing durable and compatible material with the liquid being stored therein (See [0148]-[0178]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Kuhar to have the material properties of Ferrari in order to provide durable and compatible material with the liquid being stored therein.
Regarding claim 16, Kuhar discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the thermoplastic polymer. However, Ferrari teaches the thermoplastic polymer further comprises a b* value of a CIEL*a*b* color measurement of the thermoplastic polymer (see [0175]), but does not teach the express disclosure of a color measurement of the thermoplastic polymer of about -3.5 to about 2.5. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a color measurement of the thermoplastic polymer of about -3.5 to about 2.5, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights