Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/994,456

BOTTLE WITH HANDLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 28, 2022
Examiner
BALDRIGHI, ERIC C
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Yoshino Kogyosho Co. Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 188 resolved
-29.0% vs TC avg
Strong +44% interview lift
Without
With
+44.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
243
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.6%
+10.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 188 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 Arguments All previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome. Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 in response to Office Action 8/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason: Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that primary prior art Comper does not have a lower side surface of the groove since their Figures 5-6 show an upper peripheral groove lower side surface 17b that does not look like Comper Figure 2 upper peripheral groove sides (pages 7-8). Examiner agrees it looks different but points out that the specification is not read into the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation accommodates for Comper as is being properly read onto the amendment. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below. Also, should the language narrow further, examiner has included references in the PTO-892 (summaries in the conclusion) with upper grooves of Figures 5-6 shape. 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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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. Claims 1, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012052837 by Comper (hereinafter “Comper”) in view of US Pub 20090294400 by Sasaki et al. (hereinafter “Sasaki”). Regarding claim 1, Comper teaches a bottle (Fig 2, 1) with a handle (Fig 2, 2) comprising: a bottle in which a mouth portion, a shoulder portion, a body portion, and a bottom portion are configured in this order from top to bottom (Fig 2, mouth portion of bottle 1 is the top of 1, continuously upward from a shoulder portion, a body portion below, and a bottom portion); and the handle (2), wherein the body portion is provided with a mounting recess which is recessed forward and opened rearward, in a radial direction (Fig 6, a forward mounting recess 10 opens rearward and radially), the handle is mounted to the mounting recess (2 is mounted in 10), an upper peripheral groove, which is recessed inward in the radial direction and is defined by upper and lower ends (see examiner annotated Comper Figure 2 hereinafter “EAFC2”; EAFC2, upper end of the groove, lower end of the groove, that comprise the groove show the groove recessed radially) extending continuously over an entire length in a circumferential direction and has an upper side surface, a lower side surface and a groove bottom surface in between (EAFC2, upper side surface, lower side surface, with a bottom surface of the upper groove shown in between, all shown extending continuously), is formed in a connecting portion between the shoulder portion and the body portion (Fig 2, an upper peripheral groove is in a connecting portion between the shoulder and body portions), a portion of the upper peripheral groove, which is located at a same position in the circumferential direction as at least a part of the mounting recess (Fig 2, a portion of the upper peripheral groove is at the same circumferential position as at least part of the mounting recess) and is defined by the upper and lower ends (EAFC2, a portion of the upper peripheral groove is necessarily defined by its own upper and lower ends), a first portion is provided at a boundary portion of the upper peripheral groove between the portion of the upper peripheral groove and the remaining other portion (there is also a first portion at a boundary between the [shallow groove] portion of the groove and the remaining other portion of the groove) is defined by the upper and lower ends (EAFC2, the first portion at the boundary, being of the groove, is necessarily defined by its own upper and lower ends), PNG media_image1.png 879 573 media_image1.png Greyscale But Comper does not explicitly teach a shallow groove in the upper groove. Sasaki, however, teaches a bottle with an upper peripheral groove (Figs 1-2, a bottle 100 with an upper groove on the periphery of the bottle 151 with 152, 153) comprising: a portion of the upper peripheral groove is a shallow groove portion (Figs 1-2, a lateral shallow groove 2b is within a portion of the upper groove) which has a groove depth shallower than a remaining other portion of the upper peripheral groove (Figs 1-2, 2b is shown to have a shallower cross-sectional groove depth than a remaining other portion of the upper peripheral groove that is 151), the remaining other portion of the upper peripheral groove being a portion, which is adjacent to the portion of the upper peripheral groove in the circumferential direction, of the upper peripheral groove (the remaining portion of the upper peripheral groove is adjacent to the portion of the upper peripheral groove), and a central portion of the shallow groove portion in the circumferential direction and a central portion of the mounting recess in the circumferential direction are positioned at a same position in the circumferential position (examiner notes that since the placement of the shallow groove of Sasaki within the upper groove of Comper which is already vertically above the mounting recess of Comper, this positioning limitation is met; please see the reasoning below further elaborating why the positioning is obvious via use of the handle that is within the mounting recess), a first stepped portion which faces the circumferential direction (see examiner annotated Sasaki Figure 1, hereinafter “EAFS1”; EAFS1, a first stepped portion is shown facing the circumferential direction), and the first stepped portion is a wall surface that rises radially outward (EAFS1 shows the first stepped portion rises radially outward from the container central axis), upper and lower second stepped portions which extend from the first stepped portion toward a side of the other portion along the circumferential direction is provided at the boundary portion (EAFS1 shows a pair of upper and lower second stepped portions extending from the first stepped portion toward a side of the remaining other portion of the upper groove, and along the circumferential direction, and located at the boundary portion), the upper second stepped portion is provided on the upper side surface which is located at the upper end and faces downward (EAFS1, the upper second stepped portion is located on the upper side surface of the upper peripheral groove at the upper peripheral groove upper end near 151 and faces downward), in an inner surface of the upper peripheral groove, the lower second stepped portion is provided on the lower side surface which is located at the lower end and faces upward, in the inner surface of the upper peripheral groove (EAFS1, the lower second stepped portion is located on the lower side surface of the upper peripheral groove at the upper peripheral groove lower end near 152 and faces upward, and is in the inner surface of the upper peripheral groove), a protruding amount of the upper second stepped portion (examiner interprets as a taper/slope) in a vertical direction from the upper side surface (examiner interprets as downward) increases toward the shallow groove portion along the circumferential direction (EAFS1 shows the taper/slope increases along an amount of the second portions toward the shown leftmost container edge (i.e. in the circumferential direction)), and a protruding amount of the lower second stepped portion in the vertical direction from the lower side surface (examiner interprets as upward) increases toward the shallow groove portion along the circumferential direction (examiner interprets in light of Applicant’s specification wherein the protruding amount is not labeled in the drawings but is part of the second stepped portion 42, Fig 3; EAFS1 the lower second stepped portion, like the upper, has an increasing taper/slope toward the shallow groove), and the upper and lower stepped portions and the first stepped portion have a horizontal V shape in which the upper second stepped portion extends toward an upper side in the vertical direction toward the remaining other portion side in the circumferential direction and the lower second stepped portion extends toward a lower side in the vertical direction toward the remaining other portion side in the circumferential direction, when viewed from an outer side in the radial direction (EAFS1, the upper and lower stepped portions and the first stepped portion form a horizontally open V shape, with one leg inclined up and the other inclined down (i.e. “>”, as claimed; like Applicant Figure 3)). 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 the upper peripheral groove of Comper with a shallower groove and first stepped portion within it as taught by Sasaki, the first stepped portion necessarily provided at a boundary between the upper peripheral groove’s remaining other portion and the shallow groove portion, and thereby also extending outward from a bottom surface of the remaining other portion of the upper peripheral groove, thereby also faces toward the remaining other portion in a circumferential direction, in order to advantageously so that the stress concentration at the constricted portion caused by the load applied along the bottle axis is dispersed to, thereby, suppress occurrence of the buckling (Sasaki, [0066]), especially where frequent concentrated loading is applied at the handle that occupies and transfers load to the mounting recess vertically below the groove. Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the stepped portions (first and second of an upper peripheral groove) of Sasaki being in the circumferential upper peripheral groove of Comper, arranged as claimed. PNG media_image2.png 673 573 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Comper/Sasaki further teaches the shallow groove portion (Sasaki, Figs 1-2, the shallow groove 2b) located at a same position in the circumferential direction as a whole of the mounting recess, and extends over an entire length at the same position in the circumferential direction (Comper, Fig 2, a portion of the upper peripheral groove – having the shallow groove of Sasaki – is at the same position as the mounting recess in the circumferential direction and the groove is to extend at least equally to the recess circumferential extent (i.e. groove arc length extends over a whole entire length of the recess arc length from a side view perspective, like Applicant Fig 2)). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify. Regarding claim 5, Comper/Sasaki further teaches the shallow groove portion is provided from a central portion (Sasaki, a central portion of the upper groove) of the mounting recess (Comper, a central portion of the mounting recess (see analysis above for alignment)) in the circumferential direction to locations separated from the central portion by an acute angle (see examiner annotated Sasaki Figure 4a, hereinafter “EAFS4a”; EAFS4a, dashed lines show an acute angle in between about the central axis O) to each of both sides thereof in the circumferential direction, around a central axis of the body portion (wherein the extent of 1b is shared by 2b because Fig 2 shows 1a having vertically aligned end points with 2a just as 1b is with 2b). PNG media_image3.png 638 568 media_image3.png Greyscale But Comper/Sasaki does not explicitly teach a specific angle range. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a range of between 15 degrees and 75 degrees (i.e. 15 to 75), recognizing that groove angular extent is directly correlated to container shoulder strength and material cost versus just thickening the container wall, which is a desirable characteristic, 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 of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 6, Comper/Sasaki does not explicitly teach a groove depth of the remaining other portion of the upper peripheral groove is 1.2 to 2.0 times as a groove depth of the shallow groove portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at a range of between 1.2 times and 2.0 times greater upper peripheral groove depth over the shallow groove depth (i.e. 1.2 and more up through 2.0), recognizing that groove depth extent is directly correlated to container shoulder strength and material cost versus just thickening the container wall, which is a desirable characteristic, 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 of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 7, Comper further teaches an inner surface of the mounting recess (see examiner annotated Comper Figure 6, hereinafter “EAFC6”; EAFC6, recess 10) includes an upper surface facing downward (EAFC6, upper surface facing downward), a lower surface facing upward (EAFC6, lower surface facing upward), a bottom surface which faces rearward and connects a front end portion of the upper surface and a front end portion of the lower surface (EAFC6, bottom surface connects front end portions, and faces rearward), and a lower connecting surface which extends downward from an outer peripheral edge of the lower surface, and is connected to an outer peripheral surface of the body portion (EAFC6, lower connecting surface downward, from an outer peripheral edge of the lower surface is connected to an outer peripheral surface of the body portion), wherein the handle (2) includes a fixing plate which is fixed to the bottom surface of the mounting recess and extends in the vertical direction (EAFC6, fixing plate fixed to, bottom surface and extending in the vertical direction), a handle portion which is provided behind the fixing plate and extends in the vertical direction (EAFC6, handle portion, shown provided behind the fixing plate and extending in the vertical direction), an upper connection plate which connects an upper end portion of the fixing plate and an upper end portion of the handle portion, and is fixed to the upper surface of the mounting recess (EAFC6, upper connection plate, connects an upper end portion of the fixing plate and an upper end portion of the handle portion, and is fixed to the upper surface of the mounting recess), and a lower connection plate which connects a lower end portion of the fixing plate and a lower end portion of the handle portion, and is fixed to the lower surface of the mounting recess (EAFC6, lower connection plate, connects a lower end portion of the fixing plate and a lower end portion of the handle portion, and is fixed to the lower surface of the mounting recess), wherein the lower connecting surface includes a vertical surface which extends downward from the outer peripheral edge of the lower surface such that the vertical surface and the lower surface form a step, and which faces rearward (EAFC6, vertical surface, extends downward from the outer peripheral edge of the lower surface, faces rearward, and forms a step with the lower surface), and a horizontal surface which extends rearward from a lower end portion of the vertical surface such that the horizontal surface and the vertical surface form a step, and which faces upward (EAFC6, horizontal surface, extends rearward from a lower end portion of the vertical surface, faces upward and forms a step with the vertical surface), and the lower connection plate protrudes rearward from the vertical surface, while being separated upward from the horizontal surface (EAFC6, separated upward, the lower connection plate also protrudes rearward from the vertical stepped surface). [AltContent: textbox (Comper)] PNG media_image4.png 696 706 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, Comper further teaches the inner surface of the mounting recess includes an upper connecting surface which extends outward in the radial direction as it goes upward from an outer peripheral edge of the upper surface, and is connected to an outer peripheral surface of the body portion (EAFC6, upper connecting surface, extends outward from the inner surface of the mounting recess in the radial direction as it goes upward from an outer peripheral edge of the upper surface, and is connected to an outer peripheral surface of the body portion). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012052837 by Comper (hereinafter “Comper”) in view of US Pub 20090294400 by Sasaki et al. (hereinafter “Sasaki”) in further view of JP 2000309329 by Akinobu et al. (hereinafter “Akinobu”). Regarding claim 8, Comper/Sasaki does not explicitly teach a pair of vertical grooves. Akinobu, however, teaches a pair of vertical grooves which sandwich an upper connection plate are provided on an upper surface in a left-right direction orthogonal to a front-rear direction when viewed from the vertical direction (Figs 3 and 5, a pair of vertical groove ribs 25 are on an upper surface of and sandwiching a handle connection plate portion in a left-right direction orthogonal to a front-rear direction when viewed from the vertical direction). 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 the upper connection plate of Comper with a pair of vertical grooves as taught by Akinobu in order to advantageously prevent dent deformation travel (Akinobu, page 3 translation, last para) and depression deformation (Akinobu, page 4 translation, first para) by reinforcing to add strength against other loadings on the thin wall. In addition, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Comper/Sasaki as modified above with Akinobu does not expressly disclose the pair of vertical grooves to be on the upper surface and sandwiching the upper plate in the particular claimed direction, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the grooves to the particular sandwich direction, since it has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to shift the position of the element, when claims that read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the element because shifting the position of the element would not have modified the operation of the device. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012052837 by Comper (hereinafter “Comper”) in view of US Pub 20090294400 by Sasaki et al. (hereinafter “Sasaki”) in further view of JP 2001048189 by Kazunori et al. (hereinafter “Kazunori”). Regarding claim 10, Comper/Sasaki does not explicitly teach a reinforcing rib. Kazunori, however, teaches a reinforcing rib is formed in a portion of an upper connecting surface that is adjacent to an upper connection plate in the vertical direction (Fig 4, a reinforcing rib 21 with 25 is formed in a portion of an upper connecting surface that is adjacent to an upper connection plate in the vertical direction). 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 the upper plate of Comper with a reinforcing rib as taught by Kazunori in order to advantageously provide a grip surface for increased handling stability. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. JP 3970479 - Fig 7 [013] reinforcing rib 20 is a concave groove above handle JP 2012012076 - circumferential full groove shown (IDS 1/31/2025) 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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST. 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 on 5712705055. 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. /ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733 /DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 28, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 25, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 25, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 03, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 25, 2025
Response Filed
May 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 31, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 12, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 18, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 18, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600539
FOOD SPOILAGE MONITORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589921
FOOD THERMOMETER STORAGE BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589919
LID ASSEMBLY FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583649
Modified Sidewall of Tethered Closure
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583647
Tethered Cap and Spout
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+44.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 188 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month