DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, from which the remaining claims depend, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear if “an opening” (second-to-last line of the claim) is the same opening as the top opening.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0045323 (Kroiss).
Regarding claim 1, Kroiss teaches a barrel body of a vacuum barrel, comprising:
a melamine barrel wall (150; entire container taught to be formed of melamine in para. [0014]);
a melamine shell flange (110); and
a melamine bottom board (140);
wherein the melamine barrel wall is disposed in a closed ring shape (see e.g. Fig. 3C), the melamine barrel wall defines a top opening (defined by rim 110) and a bottom opening (Examiner notes the term “bottom opening” appears to be the container interior, noting instant Fig. 3 that element 12 points to the interior region, and not to any kind of opening), and a shape of an outer contour of the melamine shell flange is matched with a shape of the top opening (see Fig. 3C showing rounded bottom and rounded top);
wherein the melamine shell flange is disposed at the top opening (see 110 in Fig. 1), and an edge of the melamine shell flange is sealed with the top opening (rim 110 defines the opening), and the melamine shell flange is configured for sealing and mounting with a barrel cover (160);
wherein a shape of the outer contour of the melamine bottom board is matched with a shape of the bottom opening (rounded bottom matches the shape of a rounded interior space), the melamine bottom board is disposed at the bottom opening (see bottom wall 140 in Fig. 1), and an edge of the melamine bottom board is sealed with the bottom opening (bottom wall 140 closes off the bottom of the interior space);
wherein a food storage cavity is enclosed by the melamine shell flange, melamine barrel wall, and the melamine bottom board (interior is capable of use as a food storage cavity), and an opening is defined in the melamine shell flange to serve as an inlet of the food storage cavity (top opening allows access to container interior).
Regarding claim 7, the melamine bottom board is integrally formed with an inner wall of the bottom opening (container body is formed as one piece).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0045323 (Kroiss) as applied above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding claim 8, Kroiss as applied above fails to teach handle portions are disposed at a bottom portion of the melamine bottom board.
Examiner takes Official Notice it would have been obvious to provide handles or any other suitable corrugation as is well-known in the art, motivated by the benefit of handling and/or reinforcing of the container body, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result.
8. Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0116572 (Klock) in view of US 4,674,650 (Hamilton).
Regarding claim 1, Klock teaches a barrel body of a vacuum barrel, comprising:
a barrel wall (12);
a shell flange (52); and
a bottom board (30);
wherein the barrel wall is disposed in a closed ring shape (not read as circular but circumferentially continuous), the barrel wall defines a top opening (defined by rim 40) and a bottom opening (Examiner notes the term “bottom opening” appears to be the container interior, noting instant Fig. 3 that element 12 points to the interior region, and not to any kind of opening), and a shape of an outer contour of the shell flange is matched with a shape of the top opening (see Fig. 4);
wherein the shell flange is disposed at the top opening (see location of 52 in Fig. 4), and an edge of the shell flange is sealed with the top opening (52 is part of an integral container structure), and the shell flange is configured for sealing and mounting with a barrel cover (14);
wherein a shape of the outer contour of the bottom board is matched with a shape of the bottom opening (bottom wall matches contour of bottom interior space), the bottom board is disposed at the bottom opening (see 30 in Fig. 4), and an edge of the bottom board is sealed with the bottom opening (bottom wall 30 closes off the bottom of the interior space);
wherein a food storage cavity is enclosed by the shell flange, barrel wall, and the bottom board (interior is capable of use as a food storage cavity), and an opening is defined in the shell flange to serve as an inlet of the food storage cavity (top opening allows access to container interior).
Klock fails to teach the container formed of melamine. Examiner notes the reference teaches it is known to form container bodies of plastics (see para. [0002]).
Hamilton, analogous to containers, teaches it is known to mold container components of melamine as an alternative to thermoplasics (col. 4, lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify [A], providing [B] as taught by [C], motivated by the benefit of [D], having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 2, Klock in view of Hamilton as applied above fails to teach an inner wall of the top opening defines a mounting platform, and a bottom portion of the edge of the melamine shell flange is bonded and sealed with the mounting platform.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Klock, forming the shell flange as a separate element and bonding it to the mounting platform, motivated by forming the prior art in separate components, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. See also MPEP 2144.04(V)(C): In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
Regarding claim 3, Klock in view of Hamilton as applied above fails to teach a groove is defined in the bottom portion of the edge of the melamine shell flange, an adhesive is filled in the groove, and the adhesive is configured to bond and seal the bottom portion of the edge of the melamine shell flange with the mounting platform.
Examiner takes Official Notice it would have been obvious to secure a separately formed ledge like that of Klock as a separate component, and bond it with adhesive to the container body, including providing a space to receive the adhesive, motivated by the use of a suitable method of joining separate components.
Regarding clam 6, the mounting platform is stepped, and the bottom portion of the edge of the melamine shell flange is bonded and sealed with a stepped surface of the mounting platform (see 52 in Figs. 4 and 5).
9. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0116572 (Klock) in view of US 4,674,650 (Hamilton) as applied above to claim 3, and further in view of US 2009/0283526 (Pierce).
Regarding claim 4, Klock in view of Hamilton as applied above fails to teach the melamine shell flange comprises a guide board extending from a bottom portion of the melamine shell flange, and the guide board is inserted into the top opening.
Pierce, analogous to containers, teaches a guide board (38) inserted into the top opening of the container, in order to provide a ledge analogous to the instant shell flange.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Klock in view of Hamilton, providing a guide board as taught by Pierce, motivated by the benefit of facilitating insertion of a separately formed melamine shell flange into the container during assembly, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 5, the guide board is attached to an inner wall of the top opening (see attachment of 36 to container wall 22 in Pierce Fig. 5; the same attachment would be present in Klock after modification).
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0116572 (Klock) in view of US 4,674,650 (Hamilton) as applied above to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Klock in view of Hamilton as applied above fails to teach handle portions are disposed at a bottom portion of the melamine bottom board.
Examiner takes Official Notice it would have been obvious to provide handles or any other suitable corrugation as is well-known in the art, motivated by the benefit of handling and/or reinforcing of the container body, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result.
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0116572 (Klock) in view of US 4,674,650 (Hamilton) as applied above, and further in view of US 6,644,489 (Chang).
Regarding claim 9, Klock in view of Hamilton teaches a vacuum barrel, comprising:
the barrel body according to claim 1; and
the barrel cover; wherein a sealing gasket (Klock 76) is disposed at the bottom of the barrel cover, the barrel cover seals a top portion of the melamine shell flange through the sealing gasket, the barrel cover seals and covers the inlet of the food storage cavity, but fails to teach a vacuum pumping assembly is disposed on the barrel cover, and the vacuum pumping assembly is configured to vacuum the food storage cavity.
Chang teaches it is known to incorporate a vacuum pumping assembly to a closure in order to store contents under a vacuum.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Klock in view of Hamilton, providing a vacuum pumping assembly like that of Chang, motivated by the benefit of storing food under vacuum conditions, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0116572 (Klock) in view of US 4,674,650 (Hamilton) and in view of US 6,644,489 (Chang) as applied above to claim 9, and further in view of US 11,117,722 (Warner).
Regarding claim 10, Klock in view of Hamilton and Chang as applied above fails to teach the vacuum barrel further comprises a rotating connector, the rotating connector is disposed on the melamine shell flange, and the barrel cover is hinged to the rotating connector.
Warner, analogous to containers with internal sealing, teaches it is known to connect a cover (30) to the container body (12) by way of a hinge (32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Klock in view of Hamilton and Chang, providing a hinged connection as taught by Warner, motivated by the benefit of preventing separation of the cover and container, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
