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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 18, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reisig (U.S. 2012/0000878).
Regarding claim 1, Reisig teaches an optimized glass bottle 20 comprising the following parts arranged in succession along an axial axis and joined in continuity as a single element a base (bottom wall of 20), a body portion 22, a shoulder portion at 28, and a neck portion at 26, 24, with a mouth defined by neck 24 providing access to the hollow interior of the bottle, the shoulder portion 28 is defined between a beginning and an end of an abrupt narrowing of the cross-section of the hollow interior of the bottle along the axial axis (shoulder portion extends from cross sectional view line 4 in figure 1 to cross sectional view line 6 in figure 1), which constitutes the most abrupt narrowing of the cross-section of the interior of the bottle (figure 1), wherein the body portion 22 presents at least in lower two-thirds thereof, axial symmetry around the axial axis 29 with a circular cross-section or with a polygonal or radial repeating pattern around the axial axis with at least four repetitions (circular cross section of 22; figures 3, 4), and the neck portion 24 presents axial symmetry around the axial axis 29, at least in upper two- thirds thereof, axial symmetry around the axial axis 29 with a circular cross-section or with a polygonal or radially repeating pattern around the axial axis with at least four repetitions (circular cross section of 24 in figure 3), and the shoulder portion 28 has a cross-section, perpendicular to the axial axis 29, that is oblong at least in its central part farthest away from the body and neck portions (center portion of 28 has oblong cross section; figure 5), maximizing the visual front of the bottle in relation to the inner volume of the shoulder portion (figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, the upper third of the body portion 22 also presents axial symmetry around the axial axis 29 (figures 3 and 4), and at the point where the body portion 22 and the shoulder portion 26 meet (generally at cross section view line 4 of figure 1), the cross-section perpendicular to the axial axis 29 presents axial symmetry around the axial axis-(figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, the lower third of the neck portion at 26 also has a cross-section, perpendicular to the axial axis, that is oblong (figure 6), and at the point where the neck portion and the shoulder portion meet, the cross- section perpendicular to the axial axis is oblong (figure 6), thereby increasing the area of the bottle in which the visual front of the bottle is maximized in relation to the inner volume.
Regarding claim 9, the segments of the body portion 22 and/or of the neck portion presenting axial symmetry around the axial axis have a cross-section, perpendicular the axial axis 29, with constant shape and size (figures 1, 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 10, the segments of the body portion and/or of the neck portion presenting axial symmetry around the axial axis 29 have a cross-section with constant shape and increasing or decreasing size, from the base to the mouth (constant shape shown of body portion shown in figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, Reisig teaches an optimization method for optimizing a non-optimized glass bottle which comprises generating a virtual geometric model of a non-optimized bottle comprising a base (bottom wall of container 20), a body portion 22, a shoulder portion 28, 26, and a neck portion 24 arranged in succession along an axial axis 29 and joined in continuity, the neck portion 24 including a mouth (at upper end thereof) providing access to a hollow interior of the bottle 20, the shoulder portion being defined between a beginning and an end of an abrupt narrowing of the cross-section of the hollow interior of the bottle along the axial axis (shoulder portion extends from cross sectional view line 4 in figure 1 to cross sectional view line 6 in figure 1), which constitutes the most abrupt narrowing of the cross-section of the interior of the bottle (figure 1), the virtual geometric model of the non-optimized bottle presenting axial symmetry around the axial axis 29 with a circular cross-section (figures 3, 4 and 7) or with a polygonal or radially repeating pattern around the axial axis, with at least four repetitions along the entire length of the body, shoulder, and neck portions, characterized in that the method further comprises modifying the virtual geometric model of the non-optimized bottle by deforming at least one central region of the shoulder portion at 28 causing a cross-section of the central region of the shoulder portion perpendicular to the axial axis 29 to become oblong losing its axial symmetry (figures 3 and 5), and keeping the volume of the hollow interior, the outer geometry in at least the lower two-thirds of the body portion and in at least the upper two-thirds of the neck portion unchanged (figures 1 and 2), obtaining a virtual geometric model of an optimized bottle, producing optimized bottles by means of at least one manufacturing mold generated from the virtual geometric model of the optimized bottle.
Regarding claim 14, deformation of the central region of the shoulder portion 28 is performed by keeping the area contained within the cross-section perpendicular to the axial axis 29 in the optimized bottle the same as in the non-optimized bottle (figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, deformation of the central region of the shoulder portion 28 is performed by keeping the area contained within the cross-section perpendicular to the axial axis 29 in the optimized bottle smaller than in the non-optimized bottle, and then reducing the general thickness of the walls of the bottle to keep the inner volume of the bottle unchanged (figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, the modification of the virtual geometric model of the non-optimized bottle also comprises deforming at least the upper third of the body portion and/or the lower third of the neck portion causing a cross-section thereof, perpendicular to the axial axis to become oblong (figure 5), causing the meeting of the shoulder portion with the body portion and/or the neck portion to become oblong and keeping the volume of the hollow interior, thereby increasing the area of the bottle in which the visual front of the bottle is maximized in relation to the inner volume (figure 1 and 2).
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.
Claims 6-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisig (U.S. 2012/0000878).
Regarding claim 6, Reisig discloses the claimed invention except for the difference between the width dimension and depth dimension is at most 30% wider than it is deep. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Reisig with the difference between the width dimension and depth dimension is at most 30% wider than it is deep, in order to provide a container of sufficient capacity and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Reisig discloses the claimed invention except for the difference between the width dimension and depth dimension is at least 5% wider than it is deep. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Reisig with the difference between the width dimension and depth dimension is at least 5% wider than it is deep, in order to provide a container of sufficient capacity and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Reisig discloses the claimed invention except for the weight of the empty bottle divided by the internal capacity provides a glass efficiency ratio equal to or less than 0.66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Reisig with the weight of the empty bottle divided by the internal capacity providing a glass efficiency ratio equal to or less than 0.66, in order to provide a container of sufficient strength and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Reisig discloses the claimed invention except for the weight of the empty bottle divided by the internal capacity provides a glass efficiency ratio equal to or less than 0.66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Reisig with the weight of the empty bottle divided by the internal capacity providing a glass efficiency ratio equal to or less than 0.66, in order to provide a container of sufficient strength and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisig (U.S. 2012/0000878) in view of Kisela (U.S. 2014/0217054). Reisig discloses the claimed invention except for the label only in the body portion. Kisela shown a bottle with a label only in the body portion (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Reisig with the label only in the body portion, as taught by Kisela, in order to advertise the contents and allow the user to view the contents as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 are have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Reisig does not teach "the shoulder portion is defined between a beginning and an end of an abrupt narrowing of the cross-section of the hollow interior of the bottle along the axial axis, which constitutes the most abrupt narrowing of the cross-section of the interior of the bottle", as set forth in amended claims 1 and 13. It is the examiner’s position that Reisig teaches this limitation when the shoulder portion is the portion shown at lead line 28 which extends from cross sectional view line 4 in figure 1 to cross sectional view line 6 in figure 1. Figure 5 of Reisig shows that this portion of the bottle has an oblong cross sectional shape.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736