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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-21 are pending.
Claims 6, 8 and 22 are cancelled.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10 and 21 are examined as follows:
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN2728981Y (previously cited) herein set forth as CN8981, in view of Helleman (USD227077S newly cited) herein set forth as Helleman.
Regarding claim 1, CN8981 discloses a barrel shaped wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) for storing and aging a hard liquor beverage (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”) for long term personal use and aging (refer to the abstract cited: “a steel-wood combined bottle for anti-traditional structure mode, function of the bottle a continuous brewing wine and wine, vintage effect is good, it is not easy to break and has long service life”), comprising:
a bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1,) comprising a plurality of curved wooden staves (wood bottle work piece #5, fig.1 and 2) arranged to form a barrel shape (refer to “barrel shape” annotated in fig 1 and 2) for the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1), and swollen from hot air or gas to prevent leaking (Examiner note: “swollen from hot air or gas” is a product by process, CN8981 wood bottle workpiece #5 also swollen by soaking in water for 24-48 hours refer to attached translation Page 2, Paragraph 10 cited: “…soaking and washing for 24-48 hours…”) and are in contact with the hard liquor (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”) inside the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2),
a wooden bottom cap (cake-shaped wood bottle bottom #4, fig.1) disposed at one end of the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1), the bottom cap (cake-shaped wood bottle bottom #4, fig.1) defining a bottom flat end (refer to the flat end that surrounded by #7) of the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1); and
a wooden top cap (wood bottle cork #2, fig.1, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle plug is set in the wood and installing cork…”, Examiner note: the citation evidence that the cork #2 is made of wood) is oppositely facing the bottom cap (cake-shaped wood bottle bottom #4, fig.1), the top cap (wood bottle cork #2, fig.1) including:
a wooden bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1) that is narrower (Examiner note: the “bottle neck” is narrower than some portion of the bottle body refer to fig.1) than the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1) and is centrally disposed within the top cap (wood bottle cork #2, fig.1), the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1) having a spout (refer to “spout” annotated in fig.1) centrally disposed within the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1) and adapted to pour the beverage (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”), and
a shoulder (refer to “shoulder” annotated in fig.1) dimensioned and configured to provide an inward transition (refer to “inward transition” annotated in fig.1), the inward transition (refer to “inward transition” annotated in fig.1) defining a top flat end (refer to “flat top” annotated in fig.1) of the top cap (wood bottle cork #2, fig.1),
the top flat end (refer to “flat top” annotated in fig.1) and the bottom flat end (refer to the flat end that surrounded by #7) providing the barrel shape (refer to “barrel shape” annotated in fig 1 and 2) to the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1); and
wherein the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1) is adapted at junctions (refer to “junctions” annotated in fig.1) of adjacent swollen curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) is configured to permit an exchange of gas1, through the junction (refer to “junctions” annotated in fig.1), between the hard liquor (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”) in the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) and the environment outside the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) to enhance aging (refer to the abstract as “brewing”) of the hard liquor (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”) in the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
819
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN8981 does not explicitly disclose wherein the inward transition is from the bottle body to the bottle neck, the bottom cap and top cap are matched in size.
In the relevant field of container design, Helleman discloses wherein the inward transition (refer to “inward transition” annotated in fig.1) is from the bottle body (refer to “barrel body” annotated in fig.1) to the bottle neck (refer to the “neck” annotated in fig.1), the bottom cap and top cap are matched in size (refer to the “same size” annotated in fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
411
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN8981 ‘s shape and sizes with Helleman’s container shape and sizes, in order to provide different size or shape of the bottle, such that can accommodate storage space or customer preferences (refer to MPEP2144.04 IV on sizes and shapes)
Regarding claim 2, the modification of CN8981 and HELLEMAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 does not explicitly disclose the wooden bottle has a capacity between about 700 mL and about 2L.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN8981’ bottle with the capacity between about 700ml and about 2L, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also MEPE 2144.04 IV. In order to provide choices of different sizes, volume bottle for different needs, market or customer desired.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of CN8981 and HELLEMAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses wherein the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) are curved outwardly along the longitudinal axis of the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) to form a bilge (refer to “longitudinal bilge” annotated in fig.1) on the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of CN8981 and HELLEMAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) are curved along a circumference (refer to fig.1 and 2) of the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of CN8981 and HELLEMAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) comprises one pieces of wood to form a curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of CN8981 and HELLEMAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses wherein the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) is adapted allow passage of a gas2 through the wood of the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 21, the modification of CN8981 and HELLEMAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses wherein the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) terminate at the shoulder (refer to “shoulder” annotated in fig.1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN2728981Y (previously cited) herein set forth as CN8981, in view of Helleman (USD227077S newly cited) herein set forth as Helleman, further in view of Ganti (US2009/0183638A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Ganti.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of CN8981 and HELLEMAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 does not explicitly disclose the wood of the curved wooden staves is treated with open flame to facilitate aging of the content of the wooden bottle.
In the field of wooden bottle for aging wine and whiskey, Ganti discloses the wood of the curved wooden staves is treated with open flame to facilitate aging of the content of the wooden bottle (refer to Paragraph 0005 cited: “…This invention relates to a wooden bottle designed and sized for retail sale. Its interior is heat treated with flame, to prepare it to age liquids such as whiskey and wine…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN8981’s bottle with the wood of the curved wooden staves is treated with open flame to facilitate aging of the content of the wooden bottle, as taught by Ganti, in order to prepare the bottle to age liquids (refer to Paragraph 0005 cited: “…This invention relates to a wooden bottle designed and sized for retail sale. Its interior is heat treated with flame, to prepare it to age liquids such as whiskey and wine…”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN2728981Y (previously cited) herein set forth as CN8981, in view of Helleman (USD227077S newly cited) herein set forth as Helleman, further in view of Eutis (US2008/0000356A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Eutis.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of CN8981 and HELLEMAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 does not explicitly disclose the curved wooden staves are carved from oak.
In the similar field of wooden barrel, Eutis discloses the curved wooden staves (refer to annotated “barrel staves”, fig.10-12) are carved from oak (refer to paragraph 0027 cited: “…The container walls are made of semi-permeable material such as oak, wood or other suitable (food grade) semi-permeable material which allows for the infusion of oxygen from the atmosphere through the walls of the container to interact with the Wine in the Reaction Region…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN8981’s bottle with using oak wood, as taught by Eutis, in order to provide a better semi-permeable material (refer to paragraph 0027 cited: “…The container walls are made of semi-permeable material such as oak, wood or other suitable (food grade) semi-permeable material which allows for the infusion of oxygen from the atmosphere through the walls of the container to interact with the Wine in the Reaction Region…”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument related to DAVID, the arguments are not persuasive and mooted, because DAVID is no longer used as secondary prior art for rejection. Instead, a newly cited secondary prior art of Helleman.
In response to the argument related to CN8981,
It is expressed that the modification of CN8981 are not substituting CN8981 structure limitation with anything, is merely modifying the size and shape of existing structure of CN8981, such that it is well within a person skilled in art to do, especially with Helleman’s teaching in place.
Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, CN8981 disclosed every structure cited in independent claim 1 cited, except the sizes and the shape of the “top cap”, Helleman only relay on disclosure of the sizes and shape of the “top cap” only.
In response to the argument related to dependent claims,
The argument is addressed or mooted above.
In response to the argument related to footnote,
Examiner is respectfully disagreed, and such argument had already been passed through the appeal court. The footnote is the evidence that the gas exchanges has naturally occurred at the staves junctions. There is no structure limitation different between current application and the prior art of record of CN8981 at the staves junctions. It is suggested multiple times that applicant clarify the claim’s limitation related to the structure of the current application’s staves junctions that is distinct from the prior art of record, such that such argument would be persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USD175758S discloses a container read on the shape and sizes cited in claim 1 (refer to the figures).
USD721281S discloses a container read on the shape and sizes cited in claim 1 (refer to the figures).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is 571-272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 September 18, 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 As evident of natural occurrence of gas exchanges, NPL – “Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition” written by Maria Del Alamo-Sanza & Ignacio Nevares; published by Taylor & Francis 2017 Maria del Alamo-Sanza and Ignacio Nevares; on September 6th 2017. For natural occurrence refer to Page 4/17 for gas exchange, Page 6/17-7/17 for exchanging gas at joints, Page 9/17-10/17 for alcohol transfer from the content to the outside environment.(Previously cited)
2 As evident of natural occurrence of gas exchanges, NPL – “Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition” written by Maria Del Alamo-Sanza & Ignacio Nevares; published by Taylor & Francis 2017 Maria del Alamo-Sanza and Ignacio Nevares; on September 6th 2017. For natural occurrence refer to Page 4/17 for gas exchange, Page 6/17-7/17 for exchanging gas at joints, Page 9/17-10/17 for alcohol transfer from the content to the outside environment.(Previously cited)
