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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 18-20, 25-28, 40-41, 43, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale (US 20050163952 A1) (previously cited) in view of Meisner et al. (US-5954216-A) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, Beale teaches an integral PET handle of a stretch blow molded PET container, the container blown from a PET preform including the integral handle; the handle being in the form of an integral loop of orientable material and extending integrally from the upper connection region of the container; the handle including a curved strengthening element at a lower end of the handle (Beale, Abstract, Par. 0014-0016, 0023-0028, 0088-0089, 0140-0143, Figs 2-3, 13, and 24-30 – see annotated Fig. 26 below). Beale teaches the curved strengthening element and the handle have an “I”-shape cross section and that the curved strengthening element and the handle have the same width (Beale, Par. 0023, 0084, Figs 13-15, 25-28, 35, and 37-38), and therefore satisfies the claimed limitation of the curved strengthening element conforming in width and cross section to the width and shape of the cross section of the handle.
PNG
media_image1.png
827
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beale – Annotated Fig. 26
Beale is silent regarding the cross section of the handle extending from opposing outer edges towards a central line; the cross section increasing in thickness progressively from the outer edges to a maximum thickness at a central line; the increased thickness at the central line acting as a further strengthening element.
Meisner teaches a blown container comprising a handle wherein the handle has a circular cross section and thus has a cross section increasing in thickness progressively from the outer edges to a maximum thickness at a central line (Meisner, Abstract, Col. 3 Lines 26-38, Col. 4 Lines 14-30, and Fig. 1). The increased thickness results in more material for the handle and thus acts as a further strengthening element.
Beale and Meisner are analogous art as they both teach blown containers comprising a handle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Meisner and create the handle of Beale to have a circular cross section. This would allow for a user to more comfortably hold the container for longer periods of time (Meisner, Col. 3 Lines 26-38). This would further result in the curved strengthening element and the handle to have a circular cross-section, thereby conforming in cross section with each other.
Regarding claims 19 and 26, modified Beale teaches the handle extends from the upper connection region to a lower connection region on the body portion of the preform (Beale, Par. 0157, Fig. 26, 43-44).
Regarding claims 20 and 27, modified Beale teaches the curved strengthening element abuts the body portion of the preform and the body of the blow molded container (Beale, Figs 2-3, 13, 24-30, and 42-43).
Regarding claim 25, Beale teaches a PET preform having an integral PET handle; the preform being formed in a first production step of a stretch blow molded PET container, the container blown from a PET preform including the integral PET handle; the handle extending integrally from the upper connection region; the handle being in the form of an integral loop of orientable material and including a straight lower section and includes a curved strengthening element at a lower end of the handle (Beale, Abstract, Par. 0014-0016, 0023-0028, 0088-0089, 0140-0143, Figs 2-3, 13, and 24-30 – see annotated Fig. 26 above). Beale teaches the curved strengthening element and the handle, including a straight section of the handle adjacent the curved strengthening element, have an “I”-shape cross section and that the curved strengthening element and the handle have the same width (Beale, Par. 0023, 0084, Figs 13-15, 25-28, 35, and 37-38), and therefore satisfies the claimed limitation of the curved strengthening element conforming in width and cross section to the width and shape of the cross section of a straight section of the handle adjacent the curved strengthening element.
Beale is silent regarding the cross section of the handle extending from opposing outer edges towards a central line; the cross section increasing in thickness progressively from the outer edges to a maximum thickness at a central line; the increased thickness at the central line acting as a further strengthening element.
Meisner teaches a blown container comprising a handle wherein the handle has a circular cross section and thus has a cross section increasing in thickness progressively from the outer edges to a maximum thickness at a central line (Meisner, Abstract, Col. 3 Lines 26-38, Col. 4 Lines 14-30, and Fig. 1). The increased thickness results in more material for the handle and thus acts as a further strengthening element.
Beale and Meisner are analogous art as they both teach blown containers comprising a handle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Meisner and create the handle of Beale to have a circular cross section. This would allow for a user to more comfortably hold the container for longer periods of time (Meisner, Col. 3 Lines 26-38). This would further result in the curved strengthening element and the handle to have a circular cross-section, thereby conforming in cross section with each other.
Regarding claim 28, modified Beale teaches the curved strengthening element and the handle have an “I”-shape cross section and that the curved strengthening element and the handle have the same width (Beale, Par. 0023, 0084, Figs 13-15, 25-28, 35, and 37-38), and therefore satisfies the claimed limitation of the curved strengthening element conforming in width and cross section to the width and shape of the cross section of the handle.
Regarding claim 40, Beale teaches a PET preform for a blown PET container stretch blow-molded with an integrally formed PET handle from the PET preform; the PET preform comprising a body portion and the integrally formed PET handle ; wherein the handle comprises a loop of orientable PET plastic material extending from an upper connection region on the body of the preform (Beale, Abstract, Par. 0014-0016, 0023-0028, 0088-0089, 0140-0143, Figs 2-3, 13, and 24-30 – see annotated Fig. 26 above).
Beale is silent regarding the cross section of the handle extending from opposing outer edges towards a central line; the cross section increasing in thickness progressively from the outer edges to a maximum thickness at a central line; the increased thickness at the central line.
Meisner teaches a blown container comprising a handle wherein the handle has a circular cross section and thus has a cross section increasing in thickness progressively from the outer edges to a maximum thickness at a central line (Meisner, Abstract, Col. 3 Lines 26-38, Col. 4 Lines 14-30, and Fig. 1). The increased thickness results in more material for the handle and thus acts as a further strengthening element.
Beale and Meisner are analogous art as they both teach blown containers comprising a handle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Meisner and create the handle of Beale to have a circular cross section. This would allow for a user to more comfortably hold the container for longer periods of time (Meisner, Col. 3 Lines 26-38).
Regarding claim 41, modified Beale teaches the handle comprises a loop of orientable PET plastic material extending from an upper connection region and a lower connection region on the body of the preform (Beale, Abstract, Par. 0014, and Figs. 2-3, 13, and 24-30 – see annotated Fig. 26 above).
Regarding claim 43, modified Beale teaches the handle includes a straight section angling downwardly from the lower connecting region and an arcuate (see curved) section extending from an end of the straight section to the upper connection region (Beale, Par. 0023, Figs 2-3, 13, 24-30, and 42-43 – see annotated Fig. 26 above).
Regarding claim 49, the limitation of the diamond shaped cross section would have been an obvious change of shape from the cross section of modified Beale. Change in size and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claims 21, 29, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Meisner et al. as applied to claims 18, 25, and 40 above, further in view of Umetsu et al. (JP-H0939973-A, herein English machine translation used for all citations) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 21, 29, and 42, modified Beale teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 18, 25, and 42. Modified Beale further teaches the handle includes a straight lower section and an arcuate (see curved) section extending from an end of the straight lower section to the upper connection region (Beale, Par. 0023, Figs 2-3, 13, 24-30, and 42-43 – see annotated Fig. 26 above).
Modified Beale is silent regarding the handle having a gradually widening cross section approaching the upper connection region; the cross section reaching and maintaining a maximum width proximate the upper connection region thereby to allow a finger of a user to ergonomically support the container.
Umetsu teaches a blown container comprising a handle (Umetsu, Par. 0001, 0004, and 0008). Umetsu further teaches that the handle has a wider cross section at an upper connection region, having a maximum width proximate the upper connection region (Umetsu, Par. 0021 and Fig. 1).
Regarding the limitation of allowing a finger of a user to ergonomically support the container, Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2106(II)(C) which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Umetsu teaches a handle with a gradually widening cross section as presently claimed, it is clear that the handle of Umetsu would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. being used by a finger of a user to ergonomically support the container presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Modified Beale and Umetsu are analogous art as they both teach blown containers comprising a handle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Umetsu and create the handle of modified Beale to have a maximum width proximate the upper connection region. This would allow for a larger connection region and less rattling to occur (Umetsu, Par. 0021).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44-48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record does not teach or render obvious each and every limitation of the instant claim 44.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be modified Beale as described above.
The differences between the closest prior art of record and the instant claim 44 are described below.
Modified Beale is silent regarding a second and third strengthening element being provided respectively at each of the upper connection region and the lower connection region.
The closest prior art of record does not teach or render obvious each and every limitation of the instant claim 44. Therefore, the instant claim 44 and all claims dependent thereof indicate allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 11 July 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the objections recited in the previous office action.
The objections recited in the previous office action have been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Regarding arguments directed to the rejections over prior art, on pages 1-2 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the handle of Meisner is circular in cross section and hollow and thus does not have a thickness. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
The handle of Meinser has a circular cross section as stated above. A circular cross-section, such as that of Meisner, would inherently have a thickness that is smaller at the edges of the circle, and increases until it reaches the center line of the circle, where the height is greatest. The handle of Meisner thus satisfies the claimed cross-section limitation and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on page of the remarks, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look towards Meisner as Meisner is not directed towards two-stage blow molding and does not teach a preform. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
In response to applicant's argument that Meisner is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Meisner is in the same field of Applicant’s endeavor as Meisner is directed towards a blown container having a handle as stated above (Meisner, Abstract, Col. 3 Lines 26-38, Col. 4 Lines 14-30, and Fig. 1). Meisner further provides motivation for utilizing a circular cross section for a handle of a blown container such as allowing for a user to more comfortably hold the container for longer periods of time (Meisner, Col. 3 Lines 26-38). Therefore, Beale in view of Meisner render obvious the claimed handle and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/JAMES C YAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights