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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 3-5 be found allowable, claims 7-10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
There is no difference between the structure of claim 1 and claim 7, whether the parts are assembled or not is intended use. Because the structure is identical, claims 1 and 7 are duplicates.
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 7, and 11, reciting “a cylindrical shape” followed by “a curved surface” is redundant, a cylindrical shape inherently has curved surfaces.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of examination, claims 1, 7, and 11 are not interpreted as positively claiming a lid, however The positive recitation of the lid being screwed onto the threads in claim 2 and claim 12 is interpreted as positively claiming the lid; claims 5 and 10 are interpreted as positively claiming the lid of claim 1.
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 1-12 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 1, 7, and 11 recite the limitation "the inner part" in lines 4 for claims 1 and 7, lines 5-6 in claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While it may be understood that a cylindrical shell has an inner part, it could also be understood that a cylindrical shell has a first end, yet applicant introduces “a first end” but does not introduce “an inner part.”
Further regarding claims 1, 7 and 11, because applicant uses the conditional “when” in “when a lid is screwed onto the threads, the first end of the flexible inner bladder forms a gasket” the condition should be clarified that the gasket is formed “between the lid and the inner part of the stiff outer shell.” Otherwise, applicant could recite that the first end of the flexible inner bladder forms a gasket without the conditional phrase. Does the lip always form a gasket? Alternatively, applicant could clarify that the first end of the bladder forms a seal between the lid and the shell.
Claims 5 and 10 recite the limitation "the inner surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the inner surface the same structure as the inner part introduced in claim 1? Consistent claim terminology should be used if the inner surface or the inner part has both threads and a shelf.
Claims 5 and 10 introduce “a lid” yet a lid is already introduced in claim 1. Is there a second lid or should “a lid” be “the lid” in claim 5? For the purposes of examination, “a lid” in claim 5 is interpreted as “the lid.”
Claims 5 and 10, recite “a gasket” yet “a gasket” has already been introduced in claim 1. The language “the lip and shelf form a gasket,” does not make sense because the lip forms the gasket between the lid and the lip to form a seal. How does the shelf form part of the gasket? What compresses the shelf? It seems that the lid is compressed against the shelf and the lip of the bladder is the gasket.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. And if claims 7-10 were no longer duplicate claims.
The closest available prior art is:
Beniacar (US 5299700), fig. 1 and 2 shows an inner container that is flexible at 10 and an outer shell 12 where a portion of the flexible inner container protrudes through cutouts at 16 on opposite sides of the shell.
Wahl (US 2012/0247998) fig. 4 and 5, teaches an inner shell 34 and an outer shell 36, a lip of the inner shell forms a seal at 52, [0021] compressed by lid to form seal. The inner and outer containers are intended to form an insulated air gap, fig. 5, [0016]. With this in mind, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer shell to have openings as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
