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 .
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "no reinforcing portions" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 3, 5-8, 11-13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. (US 2017/0021956) (hereinafter Ring) in view of Ozawa et al. (US 6513669) (hereinafter Ozawa).
Regarding Claim 1
Ring teaches a container (below – Fig. 5) made of plastic material comprising a neck, a bottom, and a body joining the neck and the bottom, and a panel (50) formed with the, the container comprising a longitudinal axis extending between the neck and the bottom, the panel having reinforcing means (80) (Paragraphs [0033] and [0037]).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ring does not specifically teach the panel having at least one radius of curvature greater than 100 mm, and the reinforcing means include: a peripheral slot defining a substantially rectangular reinforcing contour that is closed, comprising a top side, a bottom side, a left-hand side, a right-hand side, and comers interconnecting adjacent ends of the sides thereof, wherein at least one side of the peripheral slot is substantially parallel with the longitudinal axis and wherein at least one of the comers is at least partially curved, and a plurality of inner slots arranged inside the reinforcing contour, each inner slot having two ends, each end opening into the peripheral slot, or at least one end opening out into another inner slot.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel with at least one radius of curvature greater than
100mm, to increase the capacity of the container. Further, it would have been an obvious matter
of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel with at least one radius
of curvature greater than 100mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change
in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of the panel having at
least one radius of curvature greater than 100mm does not provide patentable distinction over the
prior art of record.
Ozawa teaches a container (below – Fig. 1, 4a, and 4b) made of plastic material comprising a neck (1), a bottom (4), and a body (3) joining the neck and the bottom, and a panel (shown at 7) formed with the, the container comprising a longitudinal axis extending between the neck and the bottom, the panel having reinforcing means (12); wherein the reinforcing means include: a peripheral slot (14) defining a substantially rectangular reinforcing contour that is closed, comprising a top side, a bottom side, a left-hand side, a right-hand side, and comers interconnecting adjacent ends of the sides thereof, wherein at least one side of the peripheral slot is substantially parallel with the longitudinal axis and wherein at least one of the comers is at least partially curved, and a plurality of inner slots (16) arranged inside the reinforcing contour, each inner slot having two ends, each end opening into the peripheral slot (Col. 2, Ln. 41-45 and Col. 2, Ln. 56 – Col. 3, Ln. 16).
PNG
media_image2.png
709
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
492
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ring and Ozawa are analogous inventions in the field of reinforced plastic containers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the reinforcing means of Ring with the teachings of the reinforcing means (including a peripheral slot and inner slots) of Ozawa in order to provide a reinforcing panel that has additional surrounding support (Col. 3, Ln. 39-45).
Regarding Claim 3
Ring in view of Ozawa (hereinafter “modified Ring”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ozawa further teaches the sides of the peripheral slot (14) are substantially linear, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Ring teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ozawa further teaches the inner slots (16) may be rectilinear, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Ring teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ozawa does not specifically teach the inner slots are curvilinear, however, Ring teaches it is known to have reinforcing slots that are curvilinear, as can be seen in a partial view of Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
178
227
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the inner slots being. Applicant has not disclosed that the inner slots being curvilinear provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the inner slots being curvilinear does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8
Modified Ring teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Ozawa further teaches the inner slots comprise: a series of inner slots (16) that are parallel with one another and oriented in a direction at an angle (i.e. perpendicular) to a longitudinal axis of the container, as can be seen in the figures above. Ozawa does not teach at least two additional inner slots extending substantially along the longitudinal axis of the container.
However, an alternate embodiment of Ring (Fig. 8 and 10) that teaches a panel having reinforcing means with both horizontal (85) and vertical (80) reinforcing slots working together on the same panel.
PNG
media_image5.png
619
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
602
425
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the reinforcing inner slots of modified Ring with the teachings of a reinforcing means having both horizontal and vertical slots in order to provide additional support (Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claims 11-13
Modified Ring teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Regarding the relative dimensions of the peripheral slot and the inner slots, Ozawa appears to teach a ratio between a depth of the peripheral slot (14) and a depth of the inner slots (16) appears to be roughly 1:2 (or 0.5), the width of the peripheral slot (14) appears to be between 100% and 300% of the depth of the peripheral slot; and the width of the inner slots (16) appears to be between 100% and 300% of the depth of the inner slots, all of which can be seen in Fig. 4B above.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with different slot dimensions in order to minimize the effects of the internal pressure on the structure of the container. Further, it would have appeared obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio between a depth of the peripheral slot and a depth of the inner slots of the reinforcing means is between 0.8 and 2.4 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). As such, the claim of a ratio between a depth of the peripheral slot and a depth of the inner slots of the reinforcing means is between 0.8 and 2.4 does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 18
Ring teaches a container (Fig. 5) made of plastic material comprising a neck, a bottom, and a body joining the neck and the bottom to define a substantially rectangular or oval cross section, and a panel (50) formed with the body, the container comprising a longitudinal axis extending between the neck and the bottom, the panel having reinforcing means (80), as can be seen in Fig. 5 above (Paragraphs [0033] and [0037]).
Ring does not specifically teach the panel with at least one radius of curvature greater than 100 mm, and the reinforcing means comprises a peripheral slot and a plurality of inner slots, the peripheral slot defining a substantially rectangular reinforcing contour comprising a top side, a bottom side, a left-hand side and a right-hand side, wherein at least one of the sides of the peripheral slot is substantially parallel with the longitudinal axis, and the plurality of inner slots arranged inside the reinforcing contour, wherein each inner slot has two ends, each end opening into the peripheral slot, and wherein the reinforcing means are confined within the area defined by the peripheral slot of the panel with no reinforcing portions extending beyond the reinforcing contour.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel with at least one radius of curvature greater than 100mm, to increase the capacity of the container. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel with at least one radius of curvature greater than 100mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of the panel having at least one radius of curvature greater than 100mm does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Ozawa teaches a container (Fig. 1, 4a, and 4b) made of plastic material comprising a neck (2), a bottom (4), and a body (3) joining the neck and the bottom to define a substantially rectangular or oval cross section, and a panel (shown at 7) formed with the body, the container comprising a longitudinal axis extending between the neck and the bottom, the panel having reinforcing means (12), wherein the reinforcing means comprises a peripheral slot (14) and a plurality of inner slots (16), the peripheral slot (14) defining a substantially rectangular reinforcing contour comprising a top side, a bottom side, a left-hand side and a right-hand side, wherein at least one of the sides of the peripheral slot is substantially parallel with the longitudinal axis, and the plurality of inner slots (16) arranged inside the reinforcing contour, wherein each inner slot has two ends, each end opening into the peripheral slot, and wherein the reinforcing means are confined within the area defined by the peripheral slot of the panel with no reinforcing portions extending beyond the reinforcing contour (Col. 2, Ln. 41-45 and Col. 2, Ln. 56 – Col. 3, Ln. 16).
Ring and Ozawa are analogous inventions in the field of reinforced plastic containers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the reinforcing means of Ring with the teachings of the reinforcing means (including a peripheral slot and inner slots) of Ozawa in order to provide a reinforcing panel that has additional surrounding support (Col. 3, Ln. 39-45).
Claim(s) 4, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takayama et al. (US 2019/0118991) (hereinafter Takayama).
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Ring teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Ring does not teach the inner slots are arranged to form a lattice pattern.
Takayama teaches a container (below – Fig. 4) made of a plastic material comprising a neck (11 – Fig. 1), a bottom (14), and a body joining the neck and the bottom, and a panel (30) formed with the body, the panel having reinforcing means (35), wherein the reinforcing means include a peripheral slot (e.g. the outermost perimeter slot, shown below) and a plurality of inner slots arranged inside the peripheral slot, each inner slot having two ends, each end opening in to the peripheral slot; and wherein the inner slots are arranged to form a lattice pattern, as can be seen in Fig. 4 below (Paragraphs [0087] and [0112]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Peripheral slot)]
PNG
media_image7.png
679
404
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Ring and Takayama are analogous inventions in the field of containers having reinforcing means in the body. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the inner slots of modified Ring with the teachings of the lattice patterned inner slots of Takayama in order to help the user identify the product (Paragraph [0112]).
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Ring in view of Takayama (hereinafter “modified Ring2”) teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Takayama further teaches the lattice pattern defines a plurality of surfaces (36), each of which is delimited by four inner slot portions, as can be seen in Fig. 4 above.
However, modified Ring2 does not specifically teach each full surface having an area of between 150mm2 and 1000mm2.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each full surface having an area of between 150mm2 and 1000mm2, in order to optimize the full surface area to panel surface area ratio. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each full surface having an area of between 150mm2 and 1000mm2 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of each full surface having an area of between 150mm2 and 1000mm2 does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Ring2 teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Takayama further teaches the ratio between the areas of two adjoining full surfaces (36) is between 0.5 and 1.5, as can be seen in Fig. 4 above.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mooney (US 6375025).
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Ring teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Ring does not teach a label covering the panel, the reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label.
Mooney teaches a container (below – Fig. 2) made of plastic material comprising a panel (24), the panel having reinforcing means (28/56), wherein the reinforcing means include: a peripheral slot (shown below – similar to the Applicant’s discontinuous configuration in Fig. 4) defining a reinforcing contour, and a plurality of inner slots (28) arranged inside the reinforcing contour, each inner slot having two ends, each end opening into the peripheral slot, or at least one end opening out into another inner slot (Col. 3, Ln. 29-49 and Col. 5, Ln. 27-43). Mooney further teaches a label covering the panel (24). As can be seen in Fig. 2 below, the reinforcing means cover between 55% and 90% of the surface of the panel. As such, it would appear as though Mooney teaches the reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label, which extends (at least vertically above and below) the reinforcing means.
PNG
media_image8.png
558
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Modified Ring and Mooney are analogous inventions in the field of containers having reinforcing means including peripheral and inner slots. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container of modified Ring with the teachings of the label of Mooney, as the use of labels on containers is well known in the art as a way to provide a form of identification to allow a user to determine what is inside the container or provide somewhere for the manufacturer to put their logo, for example.
Regarding the size of the reinforcing means with relationship to the label, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label to ensure the reinforcing means were hidden behind the label while maximizing their effectiveness on the container overall. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. (US 201/0021956) (hereinafter Ring) in view of Mooney (US 6375025).
Regarding Claim 17
Ring teaches a container (below - Fig. 1) made of plastic material defining a substantially rectangular cross section and comprising a panel (50), the panel having reinforcing means (80/85), wherein the reinforcing means include: a peripheral slot (shown above) defining a reinforcing contour, the reinforcing contour comprising two pairs of spaced apart and linearly extending slots, the pairs oriented orthogonally relative to each other such that ends of a first pair of spaced apart slots communicate with ends of a second pair of spaced apart slots to define a substantially continuous rectangular reinforcing contour, and a plurality of inner slots (shown above) arranged inside the reinforcing contour without any of the inner slots extending outside the reinforcing contour thereof, each inner slot having two ends, each end opening into the peripheral slot, as can be seen in Fig. 1 below (Paragraphs [0033] and [0036]).
[AltContent: textbox (Second end of vertical slots)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (First end of vertical slots)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Inner slots)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Peripheral slot)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image9.png
674
424
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Ring does not specifically teach the panel with at least one radius of curvature greater than 100 mm, or a label covering the panel, and the reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel with at least one radius of curvature greater than 100mm, to increase the capacity of the container. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel with at least one radius of curvature greater than 100mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of the panel having at least one radius of curvature greater than 100mm does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Mooney teaches a container (Fig. 2) made of plastic material comprising a panel (24), the panel having reinforcing means (28/56), wherein the reinforcing means include: a peripheral slot (shown above – similar to the configuration in Applicant’s Fig. 4) defining a reinforcing contour, and a plurality of inner slots (28) arranged inside the reinforcing contour, each inner slot having two ends, each end opening into the peripheral slot, or at least one end opening out into another inner slot (Col. 3, Ln. 29-49 and Col. 5, Ln. 27-43). Mooney teaches the panel (24) having at least one radius of curvature of roughly 60mm (Col. 6, Ln. 10-11). Mooney further teaches a label covering the panel (24). As can be seen in Fig. 2 above, the reinforcing means cover between 55% and 90% of the surface of the panel. As such, it would appear as though Mooney teaches the reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label, which extends (at least vertically above and below) the reinforcing means.
Ring and Mooney are analogous inventions in the field of containers having reinforcing means including peripheral and inner slots. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container of Ring with the teachings of the label of Mooney, as the use of labels on containers is well known in the art as a way to provide a form of identification to allow a user to determine what is inside the container or provide somewhere for the manufacturer to put their logo, for example.
Regarding the size of the reinforcing means with relationship to the label, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label to ensure the reinforcing means were hidden behind the label while maximizing their effectiveness on the container overall. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of reinforcing means extending over a surface covering between 55% and 90% of the surface of the label does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that Ring does not teach “ends of a first pair of spaced apart slots communicate with ends of a second pair of spaced apart slots to define a substantially continuous rectangular reinforcing contour”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection of claim 17 has been updated above to better point out the Examiner’s position regarding the communication of the ends of the slots.
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 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 JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 23 June 2026
Prosecution Insights