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 Objections
Claim 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, ln. 1, the phrase, “…the sealing plat…” should read “…the sealing plate…” to correct the typographical error.
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 5-9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 5, ln. 5-7, the phrases, “…each pair of two the support plates…”, “…the support plates…” and “the support plate…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed withs such language. Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
In claim 6, ln. 1-3, the phrase in each instance, “…the support plate…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed withs such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 9, ln. 5-7, the phrases, “…each pair of two the support plates…” “…the support plates…” and “the support plate…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed withs such language. Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
As for claims 6-8, due to their dependencies from claim 5, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlin et al. (US 20180022505 A1; hereinafter Herlin) in view of Bourrec (US 20230080132 A1; hereinafter Bourrec).
Regarding claim 1, Herlin teaches a bucket body for a bucket (1), comprising:
a bucket wall (2), a platform plate (i.e. the combination of frame structure (30) AND upper reinforcing rim (15)), and a bottom plate (9); the bucket wall is in a closed ring shape, and the bucket wall defines a top opening (i.e. in the form of container body opening (6) adjacent the container body opening edge (5); as shown in Fig. 3) and a bottom opening (i.e. the portion of the container body opening (6) adjacent the container body bottom edge (4); as shown in Fig. 3);
an outer contour of the platform plate is matched to a shape of the top opening, and the platform plate is arranged in the top opening, for sealing and fitting an edge of the platform plate to an inner wall of the top opening;
the platform plate is configured to seal and fit with a bucket cover (14-14b and 31; as shown in Figs. 1 and 3);
an outer contour of the bottom plate is matched to a shape of the bottom opening, and the bottom plate is arranged in the bottom opening, for sealing and fitting an edge of the bottom plate to an inner wall of the bottom opening;
a food storage cavity is defined between the platform plate and the bottom plate, and the platform plate defines an opening to serve as an inlet of the food storage cavity (Herlin [0064-0096] and Figs. 1-5c).
However Herlin fails to teach the bucket wall, the platform plate and the bottom plate being made from stainless-steel.
Bourrec is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a vacuum container (i.e. bucket). Bourrec teaches a vacuum container embodiment (40; as shown in Figs. 1-3) having a bucket body, the vacuum container comprising: a stainless-steel bucket wall (i.e. in the form of base or container (60)); and a stainless-steel bucket cover (i.e. in the form of lid (80)); and a food storage cavity is define between the stainless-steel bucket wall and the stainless-steel bucket cover (Bourrec [0029-0067]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bucket wall, the platform plate and the bottom plate (of Herlin) out of a similar stainless-steel material (as taught by Bourrec) to make overall structure (of Herlin) more durable and impact resistant. 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. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 2, modified Herlin as above further teaches wherein the edge of the stainless-steel platform plate extends upward to form a sealing plate, which is sealed and fitted to the inner wall of the top opening (see Herlin Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Herlin as above further teaches wherein the sealing plate is in a closed ring shape (see Herlin Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Herlin as above further teaches wherein a top of the sealing plate is welded to the inner wall of the top opening, and a bottom of the sealing plate is welded to the inner wall of the top opening (Herlin [0071-0072]).
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…is welded….” is directed to product-by-process limitation(s), to which no patentable weight is given by the examiner for the following reason(s): Applicant is reminded of the following regarding product-by-process limitation: Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP §2113
Regarding claim 10, Herlin teaches a bucket (1), comprising:
a bucket cover (14-14b and 31; as shown in Figs. 1 and 3) and a bucket body;
wherein the bucket body comprises:
a bucket wall (2), a platform plate (i.e. the combination of frame structure (30) AND upper reinforcing rim (15)), and a bottom plate (9);
the bucket wall is in a closed ring shape, and the bucket wall defines a top opening (i.e. in the form of container body opening (6) adjacent the container body opening edge (5); as shown in Fig. 3) and a bottom opening (i.e. the portion of the container body opening (6) adjacent the container body bottom edge (4); as shown in Fig. 3);
an outer contour of the platform plate is matched to a shape of the top opening, and the platform plate is arranged in the top opening, for sealing and fitting an edge of the platform plate to an inner wall of the top opening;
the platform plate is configured to seal and fit with a bucket cover;
an outer contour of the bottom plate is matched to a shape of the bottom opening, and the bottom plate is arranged in the bottom opening, for sealing and fitting an edge of the bottom plate to an inner wall of the bottom opening (as shown in Herlin Fig. 4);
a food storage cavity is defined between the platform plate and the bottom plate, and the platform plate defines an opening to serve as an inlet of the food storage cavity (Herlin [0064-0096] and Figs. 1-5c).
However, Herlin fails to teach the bucket wall, the platform plate and the bottom plate being made from stainless-steel, and wherein a bottom of the bucket cover is arranged with a sealing pad, and the bucket cover is sealed and fitted to a top of the platform plate with the sealing pad, for sealing and covering the bucket cover onto the inlet of the food storage cavity; the bucket cover is arranged with a vacuum extraction assembly for vacuum extraction of the food storage cavity.
Bourrec is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a vacuum container (i.e. bucket). Bourrec teaches a vacuum container embodiment (340; as shown in Fig. 5) having a bucket body, the vacuum container comprising: a stainless-steel bucket wall (i.e. in the form of base or container (60)); and a stainless-steel bucket cover (i.e. in the form of lid (80));
a food storage cavity is define between the stainless-steel bucket wall and the stainless-steel bucket cover; and
wherein a bottom (i.e. edge (84)) of the bucket cover is arranged with a sealing pad (i.e. in the form of a sealing component (86)), and the bucket cover is sealed and fitted to a top of the stainless-steel bucket wall with the sealing pad, for sealing and covering the bucket cover onto the inlet of the food storage cavity; and the bucket cover is arranged with a vacuum extraction assembly (96, 328, 328A-328B, 376-377) for vacuum extraction of the food storage cavity (Bourrec [0079-0084]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bucket wall, the platform plate and the bottom plate (of Herlin) out of a similar stainless-steel material (as taught by Bourrec) to make overall structure (of Herlin) more durable and impact resistant. 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. See MPEP §2144.07
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bucket cover (of Herlin) to have a similar sealing pad and vacuum extraction assembly (as taught by Bourrec) to enhance the overall sealing capabilities of the overall bucket (of Herlin), which allows for preserving the content stored within the food storage cavity for a pro-longed period of time.
Regarding claim 11, modified Herlin as above further teaches wherein the vacuum bucket further comprises a rotational connection member arranged on the platform plate, and the bucket cover is hinged to the rotational connection member (i.e. in the form of hinge (29); see Herlin Figs. 1-4).
Claim 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of Shaffer et al. (US 20250026554 A1; hereinafter Shaffer).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Herlin as above further teaches all the structural limitations of claims 1 and 4 (respectively), except for wherein the edge of the bottom plate comprises at least two extended edges and at least two non-extended edges; the at least two extended edges and the at least two non-extended edges are alternately arranged along the edge of the bottom plate; each extended edge extends downward to form a support plate, and each pair of two the support plates that are adjacent to each other is separated by a corresponding non-extended edge, causing all the support plates to be arranged in a discontinuous ring shape; the support plate is sealed and fitted to the inner wall of the bottom opening.
Shaffer is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a support or bottom plate (or tray). Shaffer teaches a support or bottom plate (i.e. on the form of a drainage shelf (405); as shown in Figs. 6a-6b) comprising an edge (i.e. in the form of side shelf surface (635)), wherein the edge of the support or bottom plate comprises at least two extended edges (658) and at least two non-extended edges (see annotated Shaffer Fig. 6b below); the at least two extended edges and the at least two non-extended edges are alternately arranged along the edge of the support or bottom plate; each extended edge extends downward to form a support plate (i.e. corner), and each pair of two the support plates that are adjacent to each other is separated by a corresponding non-extended edge, causing all the support plates to be arranged in a discontinuous ring shape; the support plate is sealed and fitted to the inner wall of the bottom opening (Shaffer [0050-0060] and see annotated Shaffer Fig. 6b below).
PNG
media_image1.png
915
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom plate (of Herlin) to have at least two extended edges, at least two non-extended edges and support plate(s) (as taught by Shaffer) because the resultant structure(s) will work equally well. Since, it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B)
Lastly, it is noted that nowhere in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality of the claimed extended edges, the claimed non-extended edges and the claimed support plate(s); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 6, modified Herlin as above further teaches wherein a top of the support plate is welded to the inner wall of the bottom opening, a bottom of the support plate is welded to the inner wall of the bottom opening, and a side of the support plate is welded to the inner wall of the bottom opening (Herlin [0071-0072]).
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…is welded….” is directed to product-by-process limitation(s), to which no patentable weight is given by the examiner for the following reason(s): Applicant is reminded of the following regarding product-by-process limitation: Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP §2113
Regarding claim 7, modified Herlin as above further teaches wherein a top of the non-extended edge is welded to the inner wall of the bottom opening, and a bottom of the non-extended edge is welded to the inner wall of the bottom opening (Herlin [0071-0072]).
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…is welded….” is directed to product-by-process limitation(s), to which no patentable weight is given by the examiner for the following reason(s): Applicant is reminded of the following regarding product-by-process limitation: Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP §2113
Regarding claim 8, modified Herlin as above further teaches wherein the at least two extended edges are two extended edges, and the least two non-extended edges are two non-extended edges (see annotated Shaffer Fig. 6b above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights