Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 18/285,131

BOTTLE FOR LIQUID

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Priority
Jan 06, 2023 — UK U202300059 +1 more
Examiner
CASTRIOTTA, JENNIFER
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Stanislav Mykolayovych Doroshenko
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
437 granted / 703 resolved
-7.8% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
744
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 703 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Objections The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses- specifically, α. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goemans (GB 698942). Regarding Claim 1 Goemans teaches a bottle for liquid (below – Fig. 1), comprising: a hollow body with a bottom (not shown) and a neck (N) with a tip (shown below) located below an upper end (B) of the neck and exceeding the upper end of the neck in diameter, wherein the neck has a conical chamfer (A) inside, wherein in a working position the internal conical chamfer shape of the neck serves as a diffuser for the dispensed liquid, an annular groove (shown below) in the neck below the upper end of the neck and below the tip, such that the tip is located between the upper end of the neck and the annular groove, as can be seen in the figure below (Pg. 1, Ln. 72-78). [AltContent: textbox (annular groove)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (tip)][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 427 297 media_image1.png Greyscale While Goemans does not specifically teach a specific angle of the conical chamfer with regards to a symmetry axis, as can be seen in Fig. 1 above, Goemans appears to teach the surface of the conical chamfer is tilted to a symmetry axis of the neck at an angle (α) from 20° to 50°. Response to Arguments Applicant has amended claim 1 to overcome the previous 112a and 112b rejections so that prior art was able to be applied. 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 15 July 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 17, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12735230
Tray with Lid
1y 7m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12722879
RECTANGULAR RUPTURE DISK
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12703547
CONTAINER LID
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12654912
Foilless Caps
4y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12636232
TEAT FOR USE WITH A CONTAINER FOR CONTAINING LIQUID
4y 10m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+28.7%)
2y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 703 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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