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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 15th 2026 has been entered.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-21 are pending.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 6, 8 and 22 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10 and 21 are examined as follow:
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 DAVID (US0175178A previously cited) herein set forth as DAVID.
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 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 bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1 on wood bottle plug #2, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle plug is set in the wood and installing cork…” ) and a spout (refer to “spout” in fig. 1) at one end of the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1) and adapted to pour the beverage (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”), and
a top cap (wood bottle plug #2, fig.1) oppositely facing the bottom cap (cake-shaped wood bottle bottom #4, fig.1) and comprising a shoulder (refer to “shoulder” annotated in fig.1) defining a transition (refer to “transition” annotated in fig.1) from the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1) to the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1), and defining a top flat end (refer to the flat end of the connection between the annotated “barrel body” and the “wood bottle plug #2 in fig.1) of the barrel body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1);
wherein the spout (refer to “spout” in fig. 1) is centrally disposed within the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1 on wood bottle plug #2, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle plug is set in the wood and installing cork…” ),
wherein the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1 on wood bottle plug #2, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle plug is set in the wood and installing cork…” ) is centrally disposed in the top cap (wood bottle plug #2, fig.1),
wherein the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1 on wood bottle plug #2, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle plug is set in the wood and installing cork…” ) is narrower than the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1),
wherein the bottom (refer to the flat end that surrounded by #7) and top flat ends (refer to the flat end of the connection between the annotated “barrel body” and the “wood bottle plug #2 in fig.1) provide the barrel shape (refer to the shape of the barrel body) 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
663
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
819
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN8981 does not explicitly disclose a shoulder defining an inward transition from the bottle body to the bottle neck.
In the similar field of barrel shaped bottle, DAVID discloses a shoulder (refer to annotated “shoulder” in DAVID fig) defining an inward transition (refer to annotated “inward transition” in DAVID fig) from the bottle body (refer to annotated “bottle body” in DAVID fig) to the bottle neck (refer to annotated “bottle neck” in DAVID fig).
PNG
media_image3.png
607
507
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 top cap with a shoulder defining an inward transition from the bottle body to the bottle neck, as taught by DAVID, in order to provide a smooth pouring, easier to hold and better control, such that would increase the marketability and utility of the CN8981’s bottle.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID 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). In order to provide choices of different volume bottle for different needs, market or customer desired.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID 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 DAVID 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 DAVID 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 DAVID 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 DAVID 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 DAVID (US0175178A previously cited) herein set forth as DAVID, further in view of Ganti (US2009/0183638A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Ganti.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID 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 DAVID (US0175178A previously cited) herein set forth as DAVID, further in view of Eutis (US2008/0000356A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Eutis.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID 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 Amendment
With respect to the Drawing Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on January 15th 2026 that overcame the Drawing objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on January 15th 2026 that overcame the Notification of 112f in the previous office action.
With respect to the Rejection 112a: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on January 15th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112a in the previous office action.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on January 15th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15th 2026 have been fully considered but moot in view of the new grounds of rejection with the new combination with secondary Prior art DAVID (US0175178A previously cited).
However, Examiner is responding to a few applicant’s argument below:
Regarding to the argument of “bottle neck is not narrower than the bottle body”.
It is noted that, the “bottle neck” is definitely narrower than a certain portion of the “bottle body”. There is no further limitation cited in the rejected claim to restrict the interpretation of the “bottle neck” only require to be narrower to a portion of the “bottle body”.
Regarding to the argument of “barrel shape”,
It is expressed that such argument to be unpersuasive, because just as argued, a barrel shaped, is not a barrel itself, barrel shaped is always been interpreted as “barrel like shape”, or else it would call a barrel, instead a barrel shaped bottle. CN8981 clearly has a barrel shaped body, furthermore, CN8981 is clearly matching Oxford dictionary definition of barrel “a large round container, usually made of wood or metal, with flat ends and usually curved sides”, Since CN8981 clearly have tow flat ends and curved sides, make of wood, and round container too.
Furthermore, notice the Oxford dictionary definition using the term “usually”, such that some barrel maybe not curved too.
Regarding to the argument of “air exchange”,
It is noted that, “Alamo-Sanza” is not relied upon for a rejection, it is merely to proof that air exchanging through wooden starve is a naturel process, because to a wooden starves barrel that seal by soaking and expending the starve as CN8981 disclose, do not create air tight container, it merely create liquid tight only, the “airtight” that is argued is actually not airtight completely, there is still an oxygen transfer rate happened through the wooden starves especially at the joint, it actually has a scientific term for it, it call “breathing”.
To be air tight, a wooden starves barrel would require sealant, to cover the whole barrel for achieving complete air tightness. It is a very specific procedure and requirement that need to be described or else a wooden barrel would not be air tight at all, just as CN8981 described sealing by soaking in water only, and does not describe the use of any sealant afterward. Just as argued many times before, what is the different between present application’s starve joint than CN8981’s starve joint? Merely arguing the process is natural occurrence or not would not further advance the prosecution. If there is no difference in structure of the starve joint between present application and CN8981, then the argument of CN8981 starve joint cannot let air pass through would eventually bring in the question of how would present application starve joint can allow air pass through but CN8981 cannot? Once again, for compact prosecution, please amend in the distinct corresponding structure for such argument.
The rest of the argument in the remark are either mooted by the new ground of rejection or addressed by the argument listed above.
Conclusion
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 5712705095. 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 January 29th 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)