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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
A double inclusion limitation appears for the following term that has been cited previously: In claims 5-6, for "adjacent ribs".
Appropriate corrections are 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 1-10 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 1 recites “a plurality of equally sized and spaced ribs disposed around a circumference of the neck, each of the plurality of ribs extending across an interface region between the neck and the body”. It is not clear how the ribs are on a circumference of the neck and also on an interface between the neck and body. In order to advance the prosecution of this instant application the claim has been interpreted as such the ribs are on an interface between the neck and body.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mac (EP 0214675 A2) in view of Ye (CN 217673786 U).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Mac discloses a plastic bottle (fig.1 and see attached translation, page 1 under abstract and claim 1, “thermoplastic container”) comprising: a body (20) configured to contain liquid; a neck extending from the body (see neck in fig.1), the neck defining an opening for dispensing the liquid from the bottle and having a central axis (see fig.1); and a plurality of ribs (ribs 17, page 3, ll.29-30 and page 3, line 40) disposed around a circumference of the neck (see fig.1); and each of the plurality of ribs extending across an interface region between the neck and the body (interface area of 17).
Mac is silent in disclosing the plurality of equally sized and spaced ribs, each of the plurality of ribs extends across the interface region at an angle relative to the central axis of the neck, wherein each of the plurality of ribs has a length of 1 mm to 10 mm, and wherein a width of each of the plurality of ribs is greater than a separation width between adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs; each of the plurality of ribs has a length of 2 mm to 5 mm; and the width of each of the plurality of ribs is 1 to 10 times greater than the separation width between adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs. However, Ye teaches the obviousness of having a plurality of equally sized and spaced ribs (201, 202), each of the plurality of ribs extends across the interface region at an angle relative to the central axis of the neck (see fig.3-4), and wherein a width of each of the plurality of ribs is greater than a separation width between adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs (see the width of ribs and space between them in fig.3-4); and the width of each of the plurality of ribs is 1 to 10 times greater than the separation width between adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs (see size of the ribs in fig.3-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the ribs of Mac to the ribs of Ye, in order to improve the durability of the container. Further, regarding each of the plurality of ribs has a length of 1 mm to 10 mm, Mac is also silent in disclosing each of the plurality of ribs has a length of 1 mm to 10 mm and 2 mm to 5 mm, instead, Mac teaches the ribs are distributed between the neck and the body of the plastic bottle (ribs 17, page 3, ll.29-30 and page 3, line 41 and “the circular indentation 17 gives additional strength to the bottle neck”) . Therefore, Mac and Ye in combination provide the same end result as the applicants' ones (see [0031] of the disclosure of this instant application). Since Mac and Ye in combination meet the general conditions of the claim, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application through routine experimentation would have found the claimed ranges of the length of the ribs from 1 mm to 10 mm and or 2 mm to 5 mm. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Mac discloses each of the plurality of ribs extends across an entirety of the interface region (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, Mac is silent in disclosing each of the plurality of ribs extends across the interface region at an angle of 30 to 60 degrees relative to the central axis of the neck. However, Ye teaches the commonality of having ribs on the container at a given angle (see ribs in fig.3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of ribs extends across the interface region at an angle of 30 to 60 degrees relative to the central axis of the neck, since it has been held that 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. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 6, Mac is silent in disclosing a thickness of each of the plurality of ribs is approximately equal to the separation width between adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs. Instead, Mac teaches the commonality of having a variation of the thickness of the ribs in conjunction to the thickness of the wall of the bottle for the purpose of requiring a predetermined rigidity or stiffness at the neck portion (ribs 17, page 3, ll.29-30 and page 3, line 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the spacing and thickness of the ribs as such a thickness of each of the plurality of ribs to be approximately equal to the separation width between adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation other than improving the sturdiness of the container, in which Mac and Ye in combination as cited in the above provide such an end results.
Regarding claim 7, Mac is silent in disclosing 50 to 80 ribs are disposed around the circumference of the neck. However, Yeh teaches the commonality of having a number of ribs (see fig.3-4). Since Mac and Yeh in combination meet the general conditions of the claim, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application through routine experimentation would have found the claimed ranges of the number of ribs to be 50-80. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Mac discloses the bottle is blow-molded (page 2, ll.21).
Regarding claim 9, Mac discloses the neck extends vertically from the body (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Mac discloses a spout (30) that directs the liquid through the opening.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mac (EP 0214675 A2) in view of Suzuki (US 2022/0177180).
Mac discloses a plastic bottle (fig.1 and see attached translation, page 1 under abstract and claim 1, “thermoplastic container”) comprising: a body (20) configured to contain liquid; a neck (see fig.1) extending from the body (see fig.1), the neck defining an opening for dispensing from the bottle and having a central axis (see opening around marked area 12 in fig.1); a plurality of ribs disposed around a circumference of the neck (page 3, ll.29-30 and page 3, line 40); and a ring (13) of plastic integrally formed on an inner surface of the neck behind the ribs (see fig.1). Further, Mac discloses a plurality of circular ribs disposed around a circumference of the neck (page 3, ll.29-30 and page 3, line 41).
Mac is silent in disclosing the ribs extending from the neck to the body; each of the plurality of ribs has a rounded outer profile; each of the plurality of ribs extends linearly from the neck to the body; at least half the circumference of the neck is covered by the plurality of ribs; and each of the plurality of ribs extends across an interface region between the neck and the body at an angle relative to the central axis, and wherein the angle for each of the plurality of ribs is the same; and ribs of a first pair of adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs are separated by a first separation width, wherein ribs of a second pair of adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs are separated by a second separation width, and wherein the first separation width is equal to the second separation width; and the plurality of ribs are equally sized and spaced. However, Suzuki teaches the commonality of having ribs (25) extending from the neck (11) of the container (10) to the body (12, see fig.2); each of the plurality of ribs has a rounded outer profile; each of the plurality of ribs extends linearly from the neck to the body; at least half the circumference of the neck is covered by the plurality of ribs; each of the plurality of ribs extends across an interface region between the neck and the body at an angle relative to the central axis, and wherein the angle for each of the plurality of ribs is the same; and ribs of a first pair of adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs are separated by a first separation width, wherein ribs of a second pair of adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs are separated by a second separation width, and wherein the first separation width is equal to the second separation width; and the plurality of ribs are equally sized and spaced (see formation, gaps between ribs, shape and angles of ribs 25 in fig.1-2 and [0049-0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the ribs of Mac with the ribs of Suzuki, in order to improve the durability of the container.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2022/0177180).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki discloses a container (fig.1-8) comprising: a plastic bottle ([0038]) comprising: a body (13) configured to contain liquid; a neck (11) extending from the body, the neck defining an opening for dispensing the liquid from the bottle (see fig.1); and 18 or more ribs (25, [0050]) disposed around a circumference of the neck, each of the ribs extending across an interface region between the neck and the body (see location of 25); and a cap ([0031]) removably attachable to the neck to close the opening.
Suzuki is silent in disclosing 50 to 80 ribs disposed around a circumference of the neck, Instead, Suzuki teaches 18 ribs (25) are arranged with equal spacing in the circumferential direction in the shoulder portion (12) in the outer layer body (10) (see [0050]). Further, Suzuki teaches the number of ribs (25) and the arrangement of the ribs (25) are not limited to such, and may be changed as appropriate ([0050]). Since Suzuki meets the general conditions of the claim, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application through routine experimentation would have found the claimed ranges of the number of ribs to be 50-80. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation. Suzuki is also silent in disclosing each of the plurality of ribs has a length of 2 mm to 5 mm. Instead, Suzuki teaches the ribs are distributed along a neck interface between the neck and the body of a typical plastic bottle ([0049-0050] and [0038], Examiner notes the ribs also provides reinforcement to the neck and container). Therefore, Suzuki's ribs provide the same end result as the applicants' ones (see [0031] of the disclosure of this instant application). Since Suzuki meets the general conditions of the claim, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application through routine experimentation would have found the claimed ranges of the length of the ribs from 2 mm to 5 mm. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki discloses a portion of each of the plurality of ribs extends below the cap when the cap is attached to the neck (see 25 below cap in fig.2).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki discloses the interface region is angled 30 to 60 degrees relative to the neck (see angles of 25 in fig.2, also the obviousness of making the angles 30-60 degrees).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights