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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper spelling “whereina filling element…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper grammar “behind a edge…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 recites the limitation "the vertical lattice rods" at lines 7-8, and “traverse rod” at line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “pallet-type understructure”. The phrase renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the web". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear which of the “at least one web” is being referenced.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction of the traverse rod” and “the transverse direction of the travers rod". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the components". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear which components of the “at least two components” are being referenced.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first component” and “the second component” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the upper ends”, “one connective section”, and “the ends of the traverse rod". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the term “deforming the hollow profile” in line 6-7 of the claim. It is unclear which hollow profile of claim 1 is being referenced. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the hollow profile of the traverse rod.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "means of traverse rod”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 2024/0140675 (Bischoff et al. hereinafter) in view of US Patent No. 7,210,594 (Schutz hereinafter) and US PG Pub No. 2018/0093732 (Matsuo et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-11, Bischoff et al. discloses: A transport and storage container (10) for liquids having a pallet-type understructure (16) for a plastic inner container (12) having four lateral walls (see Fig. 1), a lower and an upper bottom (upper bottom at 38 above lower bottom forming container 12), and a lattice jacket (14) having horizontal and vertical metal lattice struts (18, 20) for receiving the inner container, ends of the vertical lattice rods formed from a hollow profile being welded to a lower and an upper circumferential edge profile (uppermost 18, shown in Figs. 2, 7, and 8) of the lattice jacket, at least two vertical lattice rods (20) disposed on opposite lateral walls or sections of the upper edge profile extending opposite each other being connected (see Figs. 1 and 2) by means of traverse rod (22) made of a hollow profile (see fig. 5) and extending across the upper bottom (38) of the inner container (12), at least one web (40) extending vertically and having a through opening (see fig. 2) formed therein being molded (i.e. shaped thereon) on the upper bottom, the traverse rod being disposed so as to extend through the through opening.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e the inner container/web, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
714
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bischoff et al. implies but does not specifically disclose a closeable filling nozzle molded on the upper bottom and a discharge nozzle molded on a lower section of a lateral wall and having a tap fitting.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Schutz discloses a closeable filling nozzle (9) molded on the upper bottom and a discharge nozzle (11) molded on a lower section of a lateral wall and having a tap fitting (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a filling nozzle and discharge nozzle as disclosed by Schutz for the predictable purposes of facilitating filling and emptying of the contents of the container (see Schutz, Field of the Invention).
Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz fails to disclose wherein a filling element is inserted in a movement-free space formed between the through opening and the traverse rod.
However, with reference to Figs. 2, 4A, and 4B below, Matsuo et al. discloses a liquid reservoir (28) mounted to a frame (16), wherein a filling element (60) is inserted in a movement-free space formed between an opening (44b) of the container and a traverse rod (40) of the frame.
PNG
media_image3.png
539
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
628
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a filling element within the opening and around the traverse rod of Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz as taught by Matsuo et al. for the purposes of preventing excessive relative movement between the container and the frame during transportation of the container and frame (Matsuo et al. paragraphs 0049- 0050).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the filling element fills the movement-free space in such a manner that the traverse rod is fixated in a form-fit manner at the through opening (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the web at least partially forms a ring or an eyelet (see Bischoff et al. Fig. 2 above).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention except wherein the through opening has an oval opening cross section.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the shape of the opening as an oval, circle, or other suitable shape, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, page 4, lines 106-113, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. the oval shape).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein two filling elements (60/62) which abut against opposite lateral sections of the traverse rod (e.g. laterally extending widths at end 46 and end 35 of rod 40) are inserted in the movement-free space formed between the through opening and the traverse rod.
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the filling element has an abutment surface (shown below at lower surface of 51 abutting upper surface of 43) of which at least sections are flat and which abuts against the upper bottom (at 43).
PNG
media_image5.png
290
293
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein a circumferential groove (shown above occupied by 43a), into which an inner web (43a) of the through opening engages, is formed at least in sections of the filling element.
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein a groove extending in the longitudinal direction (54a, 64a) of the traverse rod into which an outer lateral section of the traverse rod (40) engages is/are formed at least on sections of the filling element.
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the filling element is designed as a one-piece filling body (considerd as one piece, as collar/grommet of Matsuo et al. are designed to facilitate handling the grommet and collar “integrally” (paragraph 0082).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the filling body is wedge-shaped or cone-shaped on at least one longitudinal end of the filling body (see Fig. 4B below).
[AltContent: textbox (Lead-in serves as wedge/cone)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
326
384
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the filling element is made of at least two components (61, 62), the components having at least one latch connection which connects the components in a form-fit manner (flanges 65 and 66 “latch” the grommet 61 in place).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein a first component has a latch nose, which engages behind a edge web formed on a second component, the latch nose being molded on a spring-loaded loop on the first component (“spring loaded loop” as annular shape of latch nose has elasticity to allow for movement/vibration isolation as in re claim 1 above).
[AltContent: textbox (Edge Web)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Latch Nose)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
326
384
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e the latch nose, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the upper ends of the vertical lattice rods (20) have a connective section, which has a bevel formed from the hollow profile via deformation (“flattened”, paragraph 0043), for the connection to the upper edge profile (18 in Fig. 10), one connective section of a vertical lattice rod being connected to one connective section (30), which is formed on the ends of the traverse rod (22) by deforming the hollow profile as a bevel (bend @36), via a screw connection (44/48), the connective section of the traverse rod being bent upward (at 36, see Figs. 4 and 6) in relation to a longitudinal section (42) extending across the upper bottom of the inner container and extending towards the connective sections of the vertical lattice rods and the connective sections of the traverse rod having a fastening opening (at 32) having a bulge for producing a thread engagement having a connective screw (48) guided through a through opening of the connective section of the vertical lattice rod.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bulge)][AltContent: textbox (Bevel)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
310
349
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose: A method for modifying a transport and storage container for liquids, the transport and storage container having a pallet-type understructure for a plastic inner container having four lateral walls, a lower and an upper bottom, a closeable filling nozzle molded on the upper bottom and a discharge nozzle formed on a lower section of a lateral wall and having a tap fitting and a lattice jacket having horizontal and vertical metal lattice rods for receiving the inner container, ends of the vertical lattice rods made of a hollow profile being welded to a lower and an upper circumferential edge profile of the lattice jacket, at least two vertical lattice rods disposed on opposite lateral walls or opposite sections of the upper edge profile being connected by means of traverse rod made of a hollow profile and extending across the upper bottom of the inner container, at least one web extending vertically and having a through opening formed therein being molded on the upper bottom, the traverse rod being disposed so as to extend through the through opening, the method comprising inserting a filling element in a movement-free space formed between the through opening and the traverse rod (as in re claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al.as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,068,945 (Hart et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention except wherein the first component and the second component are identical.
However, with reference to Figs. 7 and 8, Hart et al. discloses a grommet (80) for facilitating the pass-through of an element (88) through a through hole of another element (92), wherein the grommet is formed of two identical halves attached together (column 4, line 11-29).
PNG
media_image8.png
264
606
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the filling element/grommet of Bischoff et al. in view of Shultz and Matsuo et al. to have been formed of separate symmetrical halves attached together, such as is taught by Hart et al., since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, V, C. Please note that in the instant application, page 11, lines 292-299, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 3,231,300 (Moroney hereinafter).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. disclose the claimed invention except wherein the filling element is made of plastic.
However, Moroney discloses a connecting device (11) for facilitating a tight fit of a cylindrical member (27) through a web (19), wherein the device is formed of resilient plastic (column 1, lines 65-69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the filling member of Bischoff et al. in view of Schutz and Matsuo et al. of elastic yet resilient plastic as taught by Moroney, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, page 7, lines 189-192, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights