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 § 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 2, 5-7, 10-11 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the geometry" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 5 and 11 recites the broad recitation “height is in a range of 1,2 to 1.7”, and the claim also recites “preferably in a range from 1,4 to 1,5” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 6 and 10 recites the broad recitation “between 2 and 10” and “less than 5 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably in a range from 1,4 to 1,5” and “preferably less than 3 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “tubular base is less than 45o”, and the claim also recites “preferably less than 40o, more preferably less than 36o and even more preferably less than 26o” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term “1,2 to 1,7, preferably in a range from 1,4 to 1,5” in claims 5 and 11 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “1,2 to 1,7, preferably in a range from 1,4 to 1,5” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The range does not provide a unit of measure. No further examination is performed on the claims.
The term “a supporting plane of the bottle is between 2 and 10, preferably between 4 and 10, more preferably between 7 and 8” in claims 6 and 10 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term a supporting plane of the bottle is between 2 and 10, preferably between 4 and 10, more preferably between 7 and 8” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The range does not provide a unit of measure. No further examination is performed on the claims.
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) 1-4, 8-9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehleisen et al (DE 411170 C) in view of Fournier et al (WO 2022/046619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muehleisen et al discloses a glass bottle for containing and pouring a liquid (See Abstract and See Fig. Abb 2.), preferably a beverage, vinegar or perfume, comprising: (a) a hollow main containment body acting as a container for the liquid during use; (b) a neck with an opening in the upper part of the bottle (See Fig. Abb 2.); (c) a bottom made with a punt, i.e. with a recess (f) towards the hollow main containment body of the bottle (See Fig. Abb 2.); wherein the bottom and the neck enclose between them the hollow main containment body, wherein a portion of the central bottom extends as a protrusion downwards into the recess (See Fig. Abb 2.). Muehleisen et al is silent with regards to the volume of the main body container. Fournier et al discloses a wine bottle comprising a punt at a lower end comprising: elongated bottle (10) of a variety of different sizes typically a standard wine bottle size of 750 ml; the bottle includes a neck (12) at an upper portion extending from a shoulder (14) to a finish (50), defining an upper end of the neck (12) (See Fig. 3 and page 8, lines 20-26). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Muehleisen et al with a container for liquid size of at least 500 ml, as taught by Fournier et al, since both Muehleisen et al and Fournier et al comprise a bottle with a punt and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Muehleisen et al discloses wherein the protrusion has (i) the geometry of a solid body whose cross-section has a rotational symmetry, and preferably, the protrusion (f) has the geometry of a symmetrical polyhedron, thus it has a regular polygonal cross-section at any point of its height; or (ii) a geometry suitable for defining on a respective complementary support element a single position with respect to a reference point, preferably an irregular geometry or a geometry with a single plane of symmetry (See Fig. Abb 2.).
Regarding claim 3, Fournier et al disclose wherein the tubular bottom wall (26) is massive (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Fournier et al discloses wherein the maximum height of the punt A (20) or of its recess relative to the lowest point of the bottle (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Muehleisen et al (See Fig. Abb2) and Fournier et al (See Fig. 3) disclose wherein the protrusion is hollow with a respective cavity forming a single volume with the interior of the hollow main containment body.
Regarding claim 9, Muehleisen et al disclose wherein the protrusion (f) is massive (See Fig. Abb 2.).
Regarding claim 12, Muehleisen et al discloses a glass bottle transport system (See Abstract and See Fig. Abb 2.), comprising: a glass bottle for containing and pouring a liquid preferably a beverage, vinegar or perfume, comprising: (a) a hollow main containment body acting as a container for the liquid during use; (b) a neck with an opening in the upper part of the bottle (See Fig. Abb 2.); (c) a bottom made with a punt, i.e. with a recess (f) towards the hollow main containment body of the bottle (See Fig. Abb 2.); wherein the bottom and the neck enclose between them the hollow main containment body, wherein a portion of the central bottom extends as a protrusion downwards into the recess (See Fig. Abb 2.); at least one support comprising a body complementary to the recess with the protrusion suitable to accommodate the bottom the glass bottle (See Fig. Abb 2.). Muehleisen et al is silent with regards to the volume of the main body container, as claimed. Fournier et al discloses a wine bottle comprising a punt at a lower end comprising: elongated bottle (10) of a variety of different sizes typically a standard wine bottle size of 750 ml; the bottle includes a neck (12) at an upper portion extending from a shoulder (14) to a finish (50), defining an upper end of the neck (12) (See Fig. 3 and page 8, lines 20-26). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Muehleisen et al with a container for liquid size of at least 500 ml, as taught by Fournier et al, since both Muehleisen et al and Fournier et al comprise a bottle with a punt and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehleisen et al (DE 411170 C) in view of Fournier et al (WO 2022/046619 A1) and Saarainen et al (CN 107257713 B).
Regarding claim 13, Muehleisen et al discloses a glass bottle for containing and pouring a liquid (See Abstract and See Fig. Abb 2.), preferably a beverage, vinegar or perfume, comprising: (a) a hollow main containment body acting as a container for the liquid during use; (b) a neck with an opening in the upper part of the bottle (See Fig. Abb 2.); (c) a bottom made with a punt, i.e. with a recess (f) towards the hollow main containment body of the bottle (See Fig. Abb 2.); wherein the bottom and the neck enclose between them the hollow main containment body, wherein a portion of the central bottom extends as a protrusion downwards into the recess (See Fig. Abb 2.); at least one support comprising a body complementary to the recess with the protrusion suitable to accommodate the bottom the glass bottle (See Fig. Abb 2.). Muehleisen et al is silent with regards to the volume of the main body container and an analysis instrument as claimed. Fournier et al discloses a wine bottle comprising a punt at a lower end comprising: elongated bottle (10) of a variety of different sizes typically a standard wine bottle size of 750 ml; the bottle includes a neck (12) at an upper portion extending from a shoulder (14) to a finish (50), defining an upper end of the neck (12) (See Fig. 3 and page 8, lines 20-26). Saarainen et al disclose a bottle (10) compartment for an analytical instrument (analysis system) comprising: an analysis instrument included in a support element for analyzing the content of a protrusion of the bottle (Section: Content of the Invention, paragraph 14). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Muehleisen et al with a container for liquid size of at least 500 ml, as taught by Fournier et al, since both Muehleisen et al and Fournier et al comprise a bottle with a punt and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. and an analyzing instrument, as taught supra by Saarainen et al, so as to enable means of containment body detection within cavity of protrusion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oguchi et al (WO 2006129449 A1) discloses A synthetic resin bottle body designed in a shape having increased rigidly and strength in the lateral direction without an increase in wall thickness which results in a rise in material cost. The bottle bodies according to the design can be smoothly used in conveyor lines and vending machines, are not deformed even when they are stored stacked, can exhibit a sufficient pressure-reduction absorbing function for a high-temperature filling application, and are provided at a reduced cost. To achieve the above, a plurality of projected bar-like column parts are formed on a barrel part of the bottle body so as to be tilted at a specified angle relative to the center axis of the bottle body and to be spirally positioned in parallel with each other. Thus, deformation of the bottle body due to pressing force acting on a cylindrical wall of the barrel part from the lateral direction can be suppressed.
PNG
media_image3.png
496
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 PM.
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, David Makiya can be reached at david.makiya@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884