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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 34-50 and 53-56, 59-63, 65-69 are currently pending.
Claims 1-33, 51, 52, 57, 58, 64 are canceled.
Claims 34-36, 45-47, 49,53, 55, 56,61-63, 65-66 are amended.
Claims 37-44, 48, 50, 54, 59-60, are withdrawn.
Claims 67-69 are newly added.
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.
Claim(s) 34-36, 45-47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 61-63, and 65-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (US 20080264939) in view of Staton (US 10139641) and Zhang (CN 103043272; Provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 34, Bray discloses, A plastic bottle (Fig. 7), comprising a container body which comprises container walls (See annotated fig. below) and a container base (See annotated fig. below) which encompass a cavity (See annotated fig. below), the container body defines a longitudinal axis (See annotated fig. below) and further comprises one emptying opening (See annotated fig. below; Para 34 “A removeable lid 118 seats against a rim 120 about an opening 122 to the compartment 116.”) , emptying opening comprises a shoulder region (See annotated fig. below), a neck region (See annotated fig. below) , and a pour-out opening(See annotated fig. below; opening is covered by lid 118), the emptying openings being formed by the container body at an upper axial end of the container body opposite the container base, the container body further comprises at least one support structure (See annotated fig. below), the support structure being designed as a flat support structure which already defines the entire contour of the container body, wherein the support structure and the emptying opening are manufactured as a unitary element (the support and the opening are a singular structure).
With regards to the incorporation of additive manufacturing/ 3D printing; Bray does not explicitly disclose this method, Staton is relevant to this issue and discloses the method of using additive manufacturing to construct a container (Col. 2; line 30). 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 Bray, to incorporate additive manufacturing to construct the bottle as taught by Staton since such method is known in the art and is efficient/cost productive.
However, Bray does not explicitly disclose, flat support structure with a flat laterally outer face which defines the entire outer shape of the container body.
ZHANG discloses, a bottle/container (Fig. 7; Para 14, 20) comprising flat support structure (11; Fig. 7) with a flat laterally outer face which defines the entire outer shape of the container body wherein wall bodies (12) are placed in between flat support structure independent of each other.
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 Bray to have flat support structure with a flat laterally outer face which defines the entire outer shape of the container body wherein wall bodies are placed in between flat support structure independent of each other as taught by ZHANG for the purpose of saving material and cost.
The preamble recites “for flowable and pourable filling material” is considered to be intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction See MPEP 2111.02 ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP § 2111.02(II).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, Bray as modified discloses, wherein the support structure is arranged on at least one of an outer wall of the container body (Fig. 1, 7 Zhang discloses the support structures to be on outer walls).
Regarding claim 36, Bray as modified discloses, the support structure comprises one of plastic(para 24, 37).
Regarding claim 45, Bray discloses, the support structure is arranged on at least one of the container walls, and the support structure extends around a periphery of the container centrally between the upper axial end of the container body and the container base (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 46, Bray discloses, the support structure is designed as a frame structure having a plurality of first regions (See annotated fig. below) and a second region (See annotated fig. below), the plurality of first regions extend longitudinally from the upper axial end of the container body to the container base, the second region (See annotated fig. below) extend circumferentially around the container body centrally between the upper axial end of the container body and the container base and the plurality of first regions are spaced from each other circumferentially around the container body.
PNG
media_image2.png
515
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 47, Bray discloses the support structure is designed as a contour-providing structure, and the contour-providing structure defines a contour of the at least one container wall (see at least Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 49, Bray discloses wherein the support structure is designed as a contour-providing structure of the container body, the support structure has base (See annotated fig. below) and an outer periphery of a base wall (See annotated fig. below) is fixed to the base of the support structure to form the container base.
PNG
media_image3.png
515
451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 53, the limitation “the support structure is manufactured in layers by a 3D printing method, and the layers are aligned parallel to one another and to a longitudinal axis of the plastic container” is considered product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Regarding claim 55, Bray discloses, the support structure has base (See annotated fig. of claim 49) and an outer periphery of a base wall (See annotated fig. of claim 49)is fixed to the base of the support structure to form the container base.
Regarding claim 56, Bray discloses, the support structure is designed as a framework.
Regarding claim 61, Bray discloses the container body comprises more than 50% thermoplastic plastics, PET, PP, HDPE, LDPE, other bio-based thermoplastic plastics, or PEF (Para 24, “The body 12 is preferably made with virgin or nor-virgin polymers, paperboard or metals, but other materials can also be used including, but not limited to recycled polymeric material such as PE, PP and PET”).
Regarding claim 62, Bray discloses, wherein the container body has a circular cross section (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 63, Bray as modified discloses, the container body comprises an integrated handle (the upper part of the bottle can be grabbed by a user and is considered to be a handle) .
Regarding claim 65, Bray discloses, the support structure (See annotated fig. below)is designed as a frame structure having a plurality of first regions (See annotated fig. below) and a second region (See annotated fig. below), the plurality of first regions extend longitudinally from the upper axial end of the container body to the container base, and the second region over a circumference of the container wall at an axial location centrally between the upper axial end of the container body and the container base.
PNG
media_image2.png
515
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 66, Bray discloses the support structure of the container body has an upper end (See annotated fig. below) that forms the emptying opening and the support structure has peripheral strip (See annotated fig. below) and a plurality of longitudinal strips (See annotated fig. below) having upper and lower axial ends, the longitudinal strips are separated from each other around a circumference of the support structure and the upper axial ends of the longitudinal strips are connected to the shoulder region (See annotated fig. below) of the emptying opening and the lower axial ends of the longitudinal strips are connected to the container base (See annotated fig. below), the peripheral strip merges with the plurality of longitudinal strips centrally between the shoulder region and the container base and together with the shoulder region and the container base form a plurality of further openings (See annotated fig. below)in the support structure, wherein the container walls (Zhang, 12; Fig. 1, 7; “The soft material region 12 is formed between the eight branch skeletons 111 to jointly define a rectangular receiving space 20 with the eight branch skeletons 111.”) are independent of each other and the container walls each have a periphery that is connected to the periphery strip, two of the longitudinal strips and either the shoulder region or the container base and enclose the plurality of opening in the support structure such that the support structure is partially uncovered by the container walls (since the walls of Zhang are in between the skeleton, the support structure should be uncovered) .
PNG
media_image4.png
515
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 67, Bray discloses, the shoulder region comprises a shoulder section which is flat. (See annotated fig. of claim 66)
Regarding claim 68, Bray discloses, the neck region extends in the direction of the pour-out opening (the neck region extends upwards from the shoulder region towards the opening).
Claim(s) 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray-Zhang as applied to claim 66 above, and further in view of Nahill (US 6112925).
Regarding claim 69, Bray discloses, connections formed between the upper axial ends of the longitudinal strips and the shoulder region are spaced apart from each other around a periphery of the emptying opening, neck region extends axially from the shoulder region (as annotated in claim 66) to the pour-out opening (Fig. 7).
While Bray does not disclose, the shoulder region tapers radially inward from the upper axial ends of the longitudinal strips to the neck region.
Nahill discloses, a bottle comprising shoulder region tapers radially inward to the neck region (Fig. 1).
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 Bray to have shoulder region tapers radially inward to the neck region as taught by Nahill for the purpose of manipulating the speed at which content is dispensed while also allowing for easy grasp of the bottle.
As a result, Bray as modified would have shoulder region that tapers radially inward from the upper axial ends of the longitudinal strips to the neck region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the invention is limited to bottle and defines the shoulder region “as where the body starts to curve or taper inwards towards the neck.” And argues that the bottle of Bray is not a bottle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Bottles come in different size and shape, including bottles in which the body and the shoulder are at the same level with no curve.
The applicant argues that the Bray discloses does not disclose flat structure due to rib 34. The examiner replies that the rib is in the interior and not on the exterior as such the exterior can be considered flat.
Lastly, the applicant argues that Zhang fails to disclose, walls are independent from each other such that when connected to framework, the framework is still visible or rather exposed to the outside; to that the examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang explicitly discloses, “The soft material region 12 is formed between the eight branch skeletons 111 to jointly define a rectangular receiving space 20 with the eight branch skeletons 111”. If the walls are formed in between the frame/support then the frame should be still be visible since nothing is covering it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art US D919377 by Seiders discloses a bottle where the body and the shoulder is at the same level with no curve.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736