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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boukobza et al. (U.S. 9,623,999). Boukobza et al. teaches a plastic container 1 comprising a base region 3, a base body 2 adjoining such base region in the longitudinal direction of the plastic container (figure 1), and a mouth region (at end of 2 opposite 3) adjoining such base body at least indirectly in the longitudinal direction and having a container mouth (figure 1), wherein the base region has at least three supporting feet 5, wherein at least one groove 12 with a groove base at 17 extending in the circumferential direction over a circumferential angle is arranged between two supporting feet (figures 4-6), wherein the groove base acts as a tension band, wherein the container is designed in one piece (figure 1), wherein the groove base at 17 has a central tension band region in which the wall of the container is inwardly bulged (figure 4) and which is arranged in the circumferential direction between two lateral tension band regions 13, wherein the central tension band region includes central tension bands configured to transfer forces acting on a bottom center of the container to a side wall of the container (the side wall located above the feet of the bottom), wherein the groove base at 17 is designed in a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction in the central tension band region according to a first curvature property at 25 (figure 9) and is designed in the two lateral tension band regions (at lead line 12 in figure 9) according to a second curvature property, which is different from the first curvature property (figure 9; col. 6 lines 39-52), wherein the orientation of the curvature of the groove base in the central tension band region (concave when viewed from below) is the same or opposite to the orientation of the curvature of the groove base in the lateral tension band region (convex when viewed from below) or in the two lateral tension band regions.
Regarding claim 2, the central tension band region extends at least in sections along the geometric center of the groove base (figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, the groove base at 25 in a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal di- rection in the central tension band region has, at least in sections, a curvature with a greater amount of curvature than the groove base in the two lateral tension band regions (figure 9; col. 6 lines 39-52).
Regarding claim 5, the groove base has at least a first and a second turning region, in which a surface region of the groove base changes the orientation of its bulge (figure 10).
Regarding claim 7, at least one groove base has a circumferential angle of between 0.5°and 30° (figures in figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, the groove base at 25 is designed to be substantially symmetrical to the geometric center of the groove base (figure 9).
Regarding claim 11, a region, arranged between a supporting foot and a groove base, of the base section merges into the groove base in a tangentially-continuous and/or curvature-continuous manner (figures 4-6).
Regarding claim 12, a groove base at 25 cross-sectional contour at a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the container follows a spline of the nth degree at least in sections (figure 9).
Regarding 13, a section, which can be described by a spline, of a groove base merges in a tangentially-continuous and/or curvature-continuous manner into a section, adjoining the spline, of a supporting foot flank (figures 4-6, 9).
Regarding claim 14, a blow molding device for the production of plastic containers having an inner wall, against which a plastic container can be expanded during a blow molding process (col. 1 lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 15, the groove base and/or the central tension band region and/or the two lateral tension band regions extend/extends radially outwardly from the injection point or a central region surrounding, substantially up to the base body, as shown in figure 7.
Regarding claim 18, the wall of the container or the groove base is outwardly bulged in each of the two lateral tension band regions at least in some regions (the wall of the container is bulged outwardly, as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, the wall of the container or the groove base is bulged inwards in each of the two lateral tension band regions at least in some regions (the groove base is bulged axially inwardly, as shown in figure 4).
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.
Claims 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukobza et al. (U.S. 9,623,999). Regarding claim 4, Boukobza et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio of the amount of curvature of the groove base in the central tension ban region to the amount of curvature of the groove base in the lateral tension band region is greater than 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Boukobza et al. with the ratio of the amount of curvature of the groove base in the central tension band region to the amount of curvature of the groove base in the lateral tension band region being greater than 2, in order to provide a sufficient amount of strength and flexibility, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Boukobza et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the central tension band region extending over a circumferential angle that is between 0.1°and 10°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Boukobza et al. with the central tension band region extending over a circumferential angle that is between 0.1°and 10°, in order to provide a sufficient amount of strength and flexibility, in order to provide more feet for added stability, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Boukobza et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio which the circumferential angle, over which the central tension band region extends, to the circumferential angle over which the two lateral tension band regions extend, being in a range between 1:0.1 and 1:40. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Boukobza et al. with the ratio which the circumferential angle, over which the central tension band region extends, to the circumferential angle over which the two lateral tension band regions extend, being in a range between 1:0.1 and 1:40, in order to provide a sufficient amount of strength and flexibility, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukobza et al. (U.S. 9,623,999) in view of de Francesco (U.S. 2006/0201900). Regarding claim 6, Boukobza et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the base section being a free-formed base section. De Francesco teaches that it is known to provide a container with a free-formed base section (see element 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Boukobza et al. with the base section being a free-formed base section, as taught by de Francesco, in order to allow replacement of the base if it becomes damaged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Boukobza et al. does not teach the orientation of the curvature of the groove base in the central tension band region is the same or opposite to the orientation of the curvature of the groove base in the lateral tension band region or in the two lateral tension band regions, as set forth in amended claim 1. It is the examiner’s position that Boukobza et al. meets this newly added limitation of claim 1, to the degree set forth in claim 1. It is the examiner’s position that the orientation of the curvature of the groove base in the central tension band region is concave when viewed from below which is opposite to the orientation of the curvature of the groove base in the lateral tension band region which is convex when viewed from below. The is depicted in figures 3 and 6 of Boukobza et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736