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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2 and 5 both include reference number 200 twice, pointing to two different areas, however reference number 200 is only mentioned as being the waist in the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
819
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 is currently marked as being “Currently amended”, however there does not appear to be any amendments made to the claim. Based on the amendments made to similar claims, the Examiner believes the claim was intended to be amended to state “The polyethylene terephthalate bottle of claim 16, wherein the plurality of 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 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “waist” in claims 1 and 16 is used by the claim to define a portion of the bottle which is not described as meeting the accepted meaning is “waist.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. A “waist” is generally defined by a narrowed part of a body between a broader upper and lower region. However, the independent claims define the bottle as having a top label panel (attached to the waist) which has a reduced diameter, as compared to the waist.
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) 1-6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RYU JANG (KR 20170104784) (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1
RYU JANG teaches a bottle (below – Fig. 12), comprising a shoulder section (200/300), a body section, and a base section (700), the body section comprising: a top label panel (400); a waist (shown below); and a bottom ribbed panel (500); the top label panel extending from the shoulder section to the waist and comprising a ripple panel with a plurality of undulating waves (shown below, Fig. 6) and a plurality of troughs (420) therebetween; the bottom ribbed panel extending from the waist to the base section and comprising a plurality of ribs (510) with a plurality of lands (520) therebetween, wherein the top label panel has a reduced diameter as compared to the shoulder section and the waist, as can be seen in the figures below (Paragraphs [0024], [0048], and [0064]).
[AltContent: textbox (waist)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (waves)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
717
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
537
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2, 3, and 4
RYU JANG teaches the plurality of undulating waves (shown above) comprises a sine wave shape; and a stylized "S" shape, and a convex shape, a can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 5
RYU JANG teaches the plurality of ribs (510) comprises a concave shape, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 6
RYU JANG teaches the bottom ribbed panel (500) comprises a concave shape, as can be seen in Fig. 12 above.
Regarding Claim 8
RYU JANG teaches the waist (shown above) comprises a ring-like shape.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12
RYU JANG teaches a shoulder section (200/300) has indicia (210) formed therein; and a mouth (800) section adjacent to the shoulder section, as can be seen in the figures (Paragraphs [0037]-[0040]).
PNG
media_image4.png
148
605
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14
RYU JANG teaches the base section (700) comprises a plurality of feet (Paragraphs [0058] and [0059]).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU JANG as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mooney (US 9340314).
Regarding Claim 11
RYU JANG teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. However, RYU JANG does not teach the indicia comprises a stylized "S" shape.
Mooney teaches a bottle (Fig. 28 and 4B), comprising: a shoulder section (30/34), a body section (shown at 28), and a base section (16); the shoulder section (30/34) adjacent to the body portion; the shoulder section has indicia (130f) formed therein; and wherein the indicia comprises a stylized "S" shape, as can be seen in the figures below (Col. 7, Ln. 42-51).
PNG
media_image5.png
495
347
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
269
230
media_image6.png
Greyscale
RYU JANG and Mooney are analogous inventions in the field of bottles having indicia at the shoulder section. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the indicia of RYU JANG with the teachings of the indicia (comprising a stylized “S” shape) of Mooney in order to allow the user to customize the indicia for the users own aesthetic preferences.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU JANG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanan et al. (US 2015/0144587) (hereinafter Hanan).
Regarding Claim 15
RYU JANG teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. However, RYU JANG does not appear to teach the bottle comprising a polyethylene terephthalate material.
Hanan teaches a bottle (below – Fig. 2), comprising: a shoulder section (128), a body section (108/116), and a base section (104); the body section comprising: a label panel (116); the label panel comprising a ripple panel with a plurality of undulating waves (168) and a plurality of troughs (160) therebetween; and a ribbed panel (108); the ribbed panel comprising a plurality of horizontal ribs (148) with a plurality of lands (156) therebetween; the bottle comprising a polyethylene terephthalate material (Paragraphs [0003] and [0041]).
PNG
media_image7.png
710
353
media_image7.png
Greyscale
RYU JANG and Hanan are analogous inventions in the field of bottles having force resistant panels. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the material of RYU JANG with the teachings of the polyethylene terephthalate material of Hanan in order to have a bottle that is transparent, thin-walled, and has the ability to maintain their shape by withstanding the force exerted on the walls of the container by their contents (Paragraph [0003]).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU JANG (KR 20170104784) (see attached original document and translation) in view of Hanan et al. (US 2015/0144587) (hereinafter Hanan).
Regarding Claim 16
RYU JANG teaches a bottle (10), comprising: a shoulder section (200/300); a body section; the body section comprising a top label panel (400) and a bottom ribbed panel (500); the top label panel comprising a ripple panel with a plurality of undulating waves (shown above) and a plurality of troughs (420) therebetween; the bottom ribbed panel comprising a plurality of ribs (510) with a plurality of lands (510) therebetween; a waist (shown above) and a base section (700); the top label panel extending from the shoulder section to the waist; the bottom ribbed panel extending from the waist to the base section; and wherein the top label panel has a reduced diameter as compared to the shoulder section and the waist, as can be seen in the figures above (Paragraphs [0024], [0048], and [0064]).
RYU JANG does not teach the bottle is made from polyethylene terephthalate.
Hanan teaches a polyethylene terephthalate bottle (Fig. 2), comprising: a shoulder section (124/128); a body section; the body section comprising a label panel (116) and a ribbed panel (108); the label panel comprising a ripple panel with a plurality of undulating waves (168) and a plurality of troughs (160) therebetween; the ribbed panel comprising a plurality of ribs (148) with a plurality of lands (156) therebetween; and a base section (104), as can be seen in Fig. 2 above (Paragraphs [0039], [0041], and [0047]).
RYU JANG and Hanan are analogous inventions in the field of bottles having force resistant panels. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the material of RYU JANG with the teachings of the polyethylene terephthalate material of Hanan in order to have a bottle that is transparent, thin-walled, and has the ability to maintain their shape by withstanding the force exerted on the walls of the container by their contents (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claims 17, 18, and 19
RYU JANG in view of Hanan (hereinafter “modified RYU JANG”) teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. RYU JANG further teaches the plurality of undulating waves (shown above) comprises a sine wave shape, and a stylized "S" shape, and a convex shape, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 20
Modified RYU JANG teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. RYU JANG further teaches the plurality of ribs (510) comprises a concave shape, as can be seen in the figures above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the top label panel extending from the shoulder section to the waist; the bottom ribbed panel extending from the waist to the base section; and wherein the top label panel has a reduced diameter as compared to the shoulder section and the waist. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the figures below, RYU JANG teaches teach the top label panel (400) extending from the shoulder section (200/300) to the waist (shown below); the bottom ribbed panel (500) extending from the waist to the base section (700); and wherein the top label panel (400) has a reduced diameter as compared to the shoulder section (200/300) and the waist (shown below).
[AltContent: textbox (waist)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
717
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
537
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 17 March 2026