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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states: “… a container information is attached so that the container information on a finished plastic container replaces an item of label information…” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “…[[a]] container information is attached so that the container information on a finished plastic container replaces an item of label information…”
Claim 7 states: “…the plastic container was filled with nitrogen before being closed.” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “…the plastic container [[was]] is filled with nitrogen before being closed.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 currently states “container information is attached so that the container information on a finished plastic container replaces an item of label information” and “the container information is provided as a raised inscription oriented in a longitudinal direction”. This is confusing because the container information being “attached” and the container information being a “raised inscription” appear to be contradictory statements. “Attached” appears to imply it is separate and then joined to the bottle whereas a “raised inscription” appears to indicate that the wall material was raised. The claim has been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
Claim 1 references “an outer surface of the plastic container” in lines 1 and 7. It is unclear if the second iteration of the phrase is intended to be a different “outer surface” or the same “outer surface”. For purposes of further consideration, they are being interpreted as being the same outer surface.
Claim 1 states “the stiffening region defines at least two regions on the outer surface configured to be separated from one another by the at least one stiffening region”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how the stiffening region can be defined by itself. It appears as though the claim is intended to state something along the lines of “the stiffening region [[defines]] is defined by at least two regions on the outer surface [[configured to be]] separated from one another by [[the]] at least one [[stiffening region]] groove”. The claim has been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one stiffening area" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 currently says “a maximum weight load limit of the plastic container along a container longitudinal axis when the plastic container is filled and closed is at most 20 kg.” This language is confusing. Based on the way the claim is currently written, it appears as though the claim is saying that the maximum weight load limit of the container is anything less than 20kg. The Specification states “a minimum weight load limit of the partially filled plastic container along a longitudinal container axis is at least 20 kg and preferably at most 30 kg” (Paragraph [0012]). As best the Examiner can understand, the claim is intended to state something along the lines of “a maximum weight load limit of the plastic container along a container longitudinal axis when the plastic container is filled and closed is [[at most]] between 20 kg and 30 kg.” Further clarification is required. The claim has been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one stiffening element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the stiffening element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one stiffening element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Throughout the claims the Applicant references “a stiffening region”, “a stiffening area”, and “a stiffening element”. It is unclear if these are all supposed to be the same element, or different elements. Further clarification is required. The claims have been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
Please see the rejections below for how the Examiner believes the Applicant intended to write the claims. Further clarification is required.
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, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spigelman et al. (US 2008/0308442) (hereinafter Spigelman) in view of Lepoitevin et al. (hereinafter Lepoitevin).
Regarding Claim 1
Spigelman teaches a plastic container (below – Fig. 1-3, 5, and 7) with a mouth and a main body, wherein an outer surface of the plastic container includes container information (60a) on a finished plastic container replaces an item of label information, wherein the finished plastic container is free of a label; at least one stiffening region (shown below)is formed by a wall material of the plastic container, wherein the stiffening region is defined by at least two regions on the outer surface configured to be separated from one another by at least one groove, wherein wall structures are distributed on at least these two regions, and with at least two grooves arranged along the circumference of the container, between which the container information is provided as a raised inscription oriented in a longitudinal direction, as can be seen in the figures below (Paragraph [0015]-[0018] and [0020]).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (stiffening region)]
PNG
media_image1.png
622
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
306
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
184
347
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
148
179
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Spigelman does not teach the at least one stiffening region area has a thickening or thinning of a wall thickness of the plastic container.
Lepoitevin teaches a plastic container (below – Fig. 1) with a mouth and a main body, wherein on an outer surface of the plastic container, in the form of at least one wall depression (12), is container information, which replaces an item of label information; and at least one stiffening region (9) is formed on an outer surface of the plastic container, wherein the at least one stiffening region defines at least two regions (10) on the outer surface configured to be separated from one another by at least one groove, and the at least one stiffening region (9) has a thickening of a wall thickness of the plastic container, as can be seen in Fig. 1 below (Paragraphs [0024]-[0043]).
PNG
media_image5.png
708
331
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Spigelman and Lepoitevin are analogous inventions in the field of plastic containers having stiffening regions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container of Spigelman with the teachings of the stiffening region having a thickening of the wall thickness of Lepoitevin in order to provide a stronger gripping portion (Paragraphs [0013], [0014], and [0037]).
Regarding Claim 2
Spigelman in view of Lepoitevin (hereinafter “modified Spigelman”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Spigelman does not teach a specific wall thickness of the main body.
Lepoitevin teaches a wall thickness of the main body, at a location of the largest diameter of the container, is less than 0.15 mm (Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the main body of Spigelman with the teachings of the wall thicknesses of Lepoitevin in order to provide a strong bottle (Paragraphs [0013], [0014], and [0037]).
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Spigelman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Based on the fact that modified Spigelman teaches all the claimed structural limitations of the container, it would appear obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the plastic container is more than capable of having a maximum weight load limit along a container longitudinal axis when the plastic container is filled and closed of between 20 kg and 30 kg. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Spigelman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Spigelman further teaches the container information may be designation of a food product, net fill quantity, best before date of the filling product, country of origin, place of origin, name of the food company, address of the food company, allergy labeling, list of ingredients, quantitative indication of ingredients, storage and use conditions, alcohol content of the filling product, and nutritional value declaration, depending on how the user wants to use the display area (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Spigelman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Spigelman further teaches the at least one stiffening region increases static properties of the plastic container selected from longitudinal axial load and diameter axial load.
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Spigelman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Spigelman further teaches the course of the stiffening region also follows force lines in the event of a force load on the plastic container, inasmuch as Applicant shows.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Spigelman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hermel (US 9758271).
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Spigelman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Spigelman does not teach the plastic container is filled with nitrogen before being closed.
Hermel teaches a plastic container (below, Fig. 1) with a mouth and a main body, and at least one stiffening region (shown at 5) formed on an outer surface of the plastic container, wherein the stiffening region defines at least two regions on the outer surface configured to be separated from one another by the at least one stiffening region; and the plastic container is filled with nitrogen before being closed (Col. 6, Ln. 3-11).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Spigelman and Hermel are analogous inventions in the field of plastic containers having stiffening regions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container of modified Spigelman with the teachings of filling with nitrogen before being closed, taught by Hermel, in order to ensure the container is sufficiently stiff to be able to be palletized (Col. 6, Ln. 3-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that they have amended the claims to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, however the claims still have several indefiniteness issues, as can be seen above. Regarding the limitations added to claim 1, the rejection has been updated above to reflect the new limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 27 March 2026