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) 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 21 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 central waist (shown below) comprising a ring-like shape; and a bottom ribbed panel (500); the top label panel extending from the shoulder section to the central waist and comprising a ripple panel with a plurality of undulating waves (shown below, Fig. 6) and a plurality of troughs (420) therebetween, wherein the plurality of undulating waves comprises a convex shape in a vertical direction with the plurality of troughs formed therebetween; the bottom ribbed panel extending from the central 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 central waist, as can be seen in the figures below (Paragraphs [0024], [0048], and [0064]).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (waist)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (waves)]
PNG
media_image1.png
717
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
537
504
media_image2.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_image3.png
148
605
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14
RYU JANG teaches the base section (700) comprises a plurality of feet (Paragraphs [0058] and [0059]).
Regarding Claim 21
RYU JANG teaches the central waist (shown above) extends from the top label panel (400) to the bottom ribbed panel (500) and wherein the central waist comprises a diameter similar to a largest diameter of the shoulder section (300), as can be seen in the figures above.
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_image4.png
495
347
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
269
230
media_image5.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_image6.png
710
353
media_image6.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 and 22 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, wherein the plurality of undulating waves comprises a convex shape in a vertical direction with the plurality of troughs formed therebetween; the bottom ribbed panel comprising a plurality of ribs (510) with a plurality of lands (510) therebetween; a central waist (shown above) comprising a ring-like shape and a base section (700); the top label panel extending from the shoulder section to the central waist; the bottom ribbed panel extending from the central waist to the base section; and wherein the top label panel has a reduced diameter as compared to the shoulder section and the central 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.
Regarding Claim 22
Modified RYU JANG teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. RYU JANG further teaches the central waist (shown above) extends from the top label panel (400) to the bottom ribbed panel (500) and wherein the central waist comprises a diameter similar to a largest diameter of the shoulder section (300), as can be seen in the figures above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that RYU JANG does not teach the plurality of undulating waves comprises a convex shape in a vertical direction with the plurality of troughs formed therebetween. The Examiner fails to see how the undulating waves (shown below) fail to comprise a convex shape in a vertical direction and how the reference does not teach a plurality of troughs (420) formed there between. As such, the rejection has been updated above to reflect the Applicant’s new amendments.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (troughs)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (waves)]
PNG
media_image2.png
537
504
media_image2.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 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights