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 § 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(s) 1-3 and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Sugizaki et al. (WO 2021/261578) (Sugizaki).
Sugizaki discloses a container (bottle as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: a body at least partially defining an internal volume and a central axis, the body having a base including: a standing ring (upright circumferential wall part 21 and ground contact part 18) positioned concentric to the central axis, a base wall (bottom wall 19) extending radially inwardly from the standing ring, and a plurality of dome-like impressions (a first dome-like impression is the entire bottom wall 19 is upwardly indented or impressed from ground contact part 18, a second dome-like impression is the central impression 24, third dome-like impressions are formed by the smaller impressions 29 which appear to run into each other as shown in Fig. 6) formed into the base wall, and wherein at least two of the dome-like impressions intersect with each other (at least two third impressions 29 intersect with each other).
Re claim 2, the body also includes a sidewall and a threaded finish portion (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 3, the body is monolithic (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 4, the body is formed from a thermoplastic material (bottle composed of synthetic resin material).
Re claim 5, each dome-like impression includes an effective dimension (height or depth of impression is an effective dimension), and wherein the effective dimension of at least two of the dome-like impressions are different (the heights of first, second and third impressions are different).
Re claim 6, each dome-like impression defines a center point, and wherein each center point is spaced a respective radial offset distance from the central axis (the third impressions are all radially offset), and wherein the radial offset distance of at least two of the dome-like impressions are different (any two of the third impressions aligned along a radially extending line 129 of third impressions).
Re claim 7, each impression (each third impression forms a curve that is at least part spherical in appearance and shape, see Fig. 4) forms at least a portion of a spherical cap.
Re claim 8, the base wall includes a radial center, and wherein the radial center of the base wall is offset axially (offset upwardly along the axis) relative to the standing ring.
Re claim 9, at least two of the dome-like impressions form a strap (there are six radially extending straps, each having eight connected third impressions) defining a strap axis, and wherein the strap axis extends radially outwardly from the central axis.
Re claim 10, each of the at least two of the dome-like impressions include an effective dimension (height or depth of impression is an effective dimension), and wherein each effective dimension is unique (the heights of first, second and third impressions are different).
Re claim 11, the structure of the body is of a form consistent with forming the body using one of a blow molding and stretch blow molding technique (this limitation is functional).
Re claim 12, Sugizaki discloses a container comprising: a body at least partially defining an internal volume and a central axis, the body having a base including: a standing ring positioned concentric to the central axis, a base wall extending radially inwardly from the standing ring, a first dome-like impression (a first dome-like impression is the entire bottom wall 19 is upwardly indented or impressed from ground contact part 18) formed into the base wall, wherein the first dome-like impression includes a first effective dimension (height or depth of impression), a second dome-like impression (a second dome-like impression is the central impression 24) formed into the base wall, wherein the second dome-like impression includes a second effective dimension (height or depth of impression), and wherein the first effective dimension is different than the second effective dimension (first height larger than second height).
Re claim 13, the first dome-like impression (change to smaller impression 29 and dimension is height) forms at least a portion of a first spherical cap, and wherein the second dome-like impression (change to another smaller impression 29 and dimension is diameter) forms at least a portion of a second spherical cap (both impressions 29 forming spherical caps).
Re claim 14, the difference in size of the first effective dimension (diameter of first impression, see claim 12) and the second effective dimension (diameter of second impression 24, see clam 12) is at least partially dependent on the difference in radial distance between the first dome-like impression and the second dome-like impression (first impression extends further from axial center than second impression 24).
Re claim 15, Sugizaki discloses a container comprising: a body at least partially defining an internal volume and a central axis, the body having a base including: a standing ring positioned concentric to the central axis, a base wall extending radially inwardly from the standing ring, and a first strap (there are six radially extending straps, each having eight connected or intersecting third impressions 29) including a plurality of intersecting impressions (impressions 29 of a radial strap), wherein each impression includes a corresponding central point, and wherein the first strap (there are six radially extending straps, each having eight connected third impressions 29) includes a first strap axis that passes through the central point of each impression included therein, and wherein the first strap axis is radially oriented relative to the central axis.
Re claim 16, each impression (impressions 29) at least partially forms a spherical cap.
Re claim 17, the intersecting impressions include a first impression and a second impression, wherein the first impression includes a first effective dimension (diameter of impression) and wherein the second impression includes a second effective dimension (height or depth of impression), and wherein the first effective dimension is different than the second effective dimension (height is less than diameter).
Re claim 18, the first effective dimension is larger than the second effective dimension, and wherein the first impression (first impression is impression closer to center axis) is positioned closer to the central axis than the second impression.
Re claim 19, further comprising a second strap including a second plurality of intersecting impressions, wherein each impression of the second plurality of intersecting impressions includes a corresponding central point, and wherein the second strap includes a second strap axis that passes through the central point of each impression of the second plurality of intersecting impressions.
Re claim 20, the first strap axis and the second strap axis define a strap angle therebetween, and wherein the strap angle is between 45 and 120 degrees (two adjacent straps of the equally spaced straps will have a circumferential spacing angle of approximately 60 degrees).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugizaki in view of Boukobza (US 9284092).
Sugizaki fails to disclose thermoplastic material. Boukobza teaches thermoplastic material (see last paragraph of column 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the material to be thermoplastic for its easy moldability, ready availability and low cost.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights