DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 and 18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 102(a)(2) and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on December 19, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the objection to claim 1 (reproduced below) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on December 19, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising:” in line 2 should read “the container comprising:”.
“section;” in line 6 should read “section,”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising:” in line 2 should read “the method comprising:”.
“a section” in line 3 should read “a lower section” (because this section is the lower section recited in line 4 of claim 15).
“a lower section” in line 4 should read “the lower section” (because this lower section is the section recited in line 3 of claim 15).
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising:” in line 1 should read “the container comprising:”.
“section;” in line 3 should read “section,”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 recites the limitation “a vertical line along a length of a lower section of the container intersects the wavy groove at least three times” in lines 4-5. However, it is not disclosed in any part of the instant application that the vertical line intersects the wavy groove more than three times (which is an option included in “at least three”). Instead, Paragraph 0021 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application only discloses that the vertical line intersects the wavy groove exactly three times. Thus, the limitation constitutes new matter. The examiner suggests changing “at least three” in line 5 of the claim to “three” in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 recites the limitation “a vertical line along a length of the lower section intersects the wavy groove at least three times” in lines 6-7. However, it is not disclosed in any part of the instant application that the vertical line intersects the wavy groove more than three times (which is an option included in “at least three”). Instead, Paragraph 0021 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application only discloses that the vertical line intersects the wavy groove exactly three times. Thus, the limitation constitutes new matter. The examiner suggests changing “at least three” in line 7 of the claim to “three” in order to overcome this rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kinmont et al. (US 8,186,529), hereinafter Kinmont.
Regarding claim 1, Kinmont discloses a container (400 in Figure 5, which looks similar to bottle 100 in Figure 1), comprising:
a finish (shown bubbled in an annotated version of Figure 1 of Kinmont, hereinafter Figure 1x, below) with threads (apparent from Figure 1x below, Col. 3 lines 32-34);
a dome (shown bubbled in Figure 1x below) below the finish (apparent from Figure 1x below);
an upper section (140 in Figure 1; or the section shown bubbled and labeled “upper section” in Figure 1x below) below the dome (apparent from Figure 1x below); and
a lower section (shown bubbled in Figure 1x below);
the lower section (shown bubbled in Figure 1x below) comprising a wavy groove (200 in Figure 5) defining a plurality of tongue panels (the “first tongue panel” and the “second tongue panel” shown in an annotated version of Figure 5 of Kinmont, hereinafter Figure 5x, below);
wherein the wavy groove (200) comprises a Z-like shape (apparent from Figure 5); and
wherein a vertical line (shown in Figure 5x below) along a length of the lower section intersects the wavy groove (200) at least twice (it is apparent from Figure 5x below that the “vertical line” shown in Figure 5x below intersects the wavy groove 200 two times at the “two points of intersection” shown in Figure 5x below).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1x: an annotated version of Figure 1 of Kinmont
PNG
media_image2.png
806
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5x: an annotated version of Figure 5 of Kinmont
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Thus, the recitation “for a beverage filled in a hot fill process” of claim 1 does not differentiate the claimed container from the container (400) of Kinmont. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Kinmont discloses that the dome (shown bubbled in Figure 1x above) is separated from the upper section (the section shown bubbled and labeled “upper section” in Figure 1x above) by an upper circumferential groove (140 in Figure 1) (apparent from Figure 1x above).
Regarding claim 6, Kinmont discloses that the lower section (shown bubbled in Figure 1x above) comprises a substantial hour glass configuration in the form of an upper decreasing diameter area and a lower increasing diameter area (apparent from Figure 1x above).
Regarding claim 9, Kinmont discloses that the wavy groove (200) bisects a first tongue panel (shown in Figure 5x above) and a second tongue panel (shown in Figure 5x above) (apparent from Figure 5x above).
Regarding claim 10, Kinmont discloses that the plurality of tongue panels (the “first tongue panel” and the “second tongue panel” shown in Figure 5x above) comprises a contoured shape (apparent from Figure 5x above).
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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinmont in view of Greer (WO 2014062071 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kinmont discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the upper section comprises an upper section circumferential groove therein.
Greer teaches that it was known to provide an upper section (shown bubbled in an annotated version of Figure 2 of Greer, hereinafter Figure 2x, below) of a container (1 in Figure 2) with an upper section circumferential groove (5 in Figure 2) therein (apparent from Figure 2x below), in order to increase the strength of the container (1) (Page 13 lines 13-14).
PNG
media_image3.png
688
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2x: an annotated version of Figure 2 of Kinmont
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the upper section of Kinmont with an upper section circumferential groove therein, as taught by Greer, because doing so would increase the strength of the container.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinmont in view of Yourist et al. (US 2011/0049084), hereinafter Yourist.
Regarding claim 5, Kinmont discloses a base (shown circled in Figure 1x above).
However, Kinmont does not expressly disclose: the base is separated from the lower section by a lower circumferential groove.
Yourist teaches that it was known to provide a container (10 in Figure 1) with a base (40 in Figure 1) that is separated from a lower section (30 in Figure 1) by a lower circumferential groove (33 in Figure 1), in order to permit the base (40) to be increased in capacity without affecting the aesthetics of the container (10) and permit the container (10) to be stouter in appearance (Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Kinmont so that the base is separated from the lower section by a lower circumferential groove, as taught by Yourist, because doing so would permit the base to be increased in capacity without affecting the aesthetics of the container and permit the container to be stouter in appearance.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinmont.
Regarding claim 11, Kinmont discloses that the container (400) comprises a bottle (400) (Col. 4 lines 54-57).
However, Kinmont does not expressly disclose: the container comprises a 250 milliliter bottle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the volume of the bottle (400) of Kinmont to be 250 milliliters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would make the bottle more compact and allow the bottle to be stored in smaller spaces. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in Paragraphs 0007, 0023, and 0025 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Kinmont discloses that the container (400) further comprises a thermoplastic (Col. 1 lines 41-47, Col. 3 lines 4-12).
However, Kinmont does not expressly disclose: the container comprises less than 15 grams of the thermoplastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the mass of the thermoplastic of Kinmont to be less than 15 grams, since 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, and since doing so would reduce the weight of the container, making the container easier to carry, and reduce the overall material cost of the container. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraph 0023 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Kinmont discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: a ratio of material in terms of mass in grams to size in terms of volume in milliliters of the container is one (1) to seventeen (17) or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the ratio of material in terms of mass in grams to size in terms of volume in milliliters of the container (400) of Kinmont to be one (1) to seventeen (17) or less, since 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, and since doing so would make the container lightweight, more flexible, and easier to carry. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraph 0025 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Kinmont discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: the lower section comprises forty percent (40%) or more of the container.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the container of Kinmont so that the lower section comprises forty percent (40%) or more of the container, since 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, and since doing so would allow the container to hold more beverage. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations in any part of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 8, the closest prior art reference, Kinmont (see 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious any of the limitations of the claim.
Regarding independent claim 15, as explained in detail in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/19/2025, Melrose (considered to be the closest prior art reference by the examiner) discloses all the limitations of claim 15 that were present before the claim amendments filed on 02/19/2026.
However, Melrose, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious the following limitation: a vertical line along a length of a lower section of the container intersects the wavy groove at least three times.
Regarding independent claim 18, the closest prior art reference, Kinmont et al. (US 8,186,529), hereinafter Kinmont, discloses a container (400 in Figure 5, which looks similar to bottle 100 in Figure 1) for a beverage filled in a hot fill process (container 400 is suitable for this intended use), comprising:
an upper section (140 in Figure 1; or the section shown bubbled and labeled “upper section” in Figure 1x above); and
a lower section (shown bubbled in Figure 1x above);
the lower section (shown bubbled in Figure 1x above) comprising a wavy groove (200 in Figure 5) defining a plurality of tongue panels (the “first tongue panel” and the “second tongue panel” shown in Figure 5x above);
wherein the wavy groove (200) comprises a Z-like shape (apparent from Figure 5); and
wherein a vertical line (shown in Figure 5x below) along a length of the lower section intersects the wavy groove (200) two times (it is apparent from Figure 5x below that the “vertical line” shown in Figure 5x above intersects the wavy groove 200 two times at the “two points of intersection” shown in Figure 5x above).
However, Kinmont, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious: the vertical line intersects the wavy groove at least three times.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new interpretation of Kinmont being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights