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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on July 22, 2026 wherein: claim(s) 1 was amended, claim(s) 18 previously canceled. Examiner notes amendments in claim(s) are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1-17, 19-26 are pending and will be examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 9-12, 14-17, 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kazuya et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP2013079096A) hereafter KAZUYA.
Regarding claim 2, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the polymeric container 1 is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [page 2, Description, line 1, “(PET)”].
Regarding claim 7, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the diaphragm 13 is interrupted by the plurality of straps 15 at an outer circumference K1-04 of the diaphragm 13.
Regarding claim 9, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the diaphragm 13 has a shallow inset K2-08 from the heel 11 of 1mm to 5mm.
Regarding claim 10, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein a radius K2-09 of the heel 11 increases as vacuum (page 1, Abstract, lines 1-3, “... negative pressure...”) in the container 1 increases and the pushup portion 14 moves inward K2-06 towards the finish K1-01.
Regarding claim 11, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the container 1 is configured to undergo a 4% reduction in the internal volume K2-01 after being cold-filled with a product.
Regarding claim 12, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein each one of the plurality of straps 15 has a truncated oval shape.
Regarding claim 14, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein each one of the plurality of straps 15 extends outward K2-10 from the diaphragm 13 to a heel 11 of the polymeric container 1 at an angle of from 4° to 8° (FIG-1(a)) in the as-blown configuration K2-03.
Regarding claim 15, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein in the post-fill, post-vacuum configuration K2-04 each one of the plurality of straps 15 extends outward K2-10 from the diaphragm 13 to the heel 11 of the polymeric container 1 at an angle of from -4° to -8°.
Regarding claim 16, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the plurality of straps 15 interrupt the heel 11 around a circumference of the heel 11.
Regarding claim 17, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the pushup portion 14 is configured as a truncated cone when viewed in cross-section.
Regarding claim 21, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the pushup portion 14 has a rigidity that is greater than a remainder of the base 6.
Regarding claim 22, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the plurality of straps 15 have a strap surface area that is 21% - 32% of a total base surface area of the base 6.
Regarding claim 23, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the diaphragm 13 has a diaphragm surface area that is 38% - 46% of a total base surface area of the base 6.
Regarding claim 24, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the pushup portion 14 has a pushup surface area that is 20% - 29% of a total base surface area of the base 6.
Regarding claim 25, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the outer standing surface 12 has a ring surface area that is 6% - 13% of a total base surface area of the base 6.
Regarding claim 26, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) polymeric container 1, wherein the base 6 is circular.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8, 13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAZUYA, in view of Lane et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20170096249A1) hereinafter LANE, in further view of Tanaka (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20150367979A1) hereinafter TANAKA.
Regarding claim 1, KAZUYA teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 below) a polymeric container 1 comprising:
a finish K1-01 defining an opening K1-02 of the container 1;
a body 5 defining a portion of an internal volume K2-01 of the container 1, the body 5 including a sidewall K2-02; and
a base 6 including:
a pushup portion 14 at an axial center K1-03 of the base 6;
an outer standing surface 12;
a heel 11 extending from the outer standing surface 12 to the sidewall K2-02;
a plurality of straps 15 spaced apart about the outer standing surface 12, each one of the plurality of straps 15 is configured as a recession (FIG-1(b)) defined by the base 6; and
wherein: the base 6 moves inward K2-06 toward the finish K1-01 from an as-blown configuration K2-03 to a post-fill, post vacuum configuration K2-04 after the container 1 has been filled and capped to generate a vacuum (page 1, Abstract, lines 1-3, “... negative pressure...”) therein;
in the as-blown configuration K2-03 the diaphragm 13 is linear (FIG-2(a)) in cross-section;
in the post-fill, post-vacuum configuration K2-04 configuration the diaphragm 13 is concave (FIG-2(b)) relative to an outer surface K2-05 of the base 6; and
as the base 6 moves inward K2-06 from the as-blown configuration K2-03 to the post-fill, post vacuum configuration K2-04, an angle of intersection K2-07 between the outer standing surface 12 and the heel 11 decreases as vacuum (page 1, Abstract, lines 1-3, “... negative pressure...”) in the container 1 increases and the pushup portion 14 moves inward K2-06 towards the finish K1-01.
KAZUYA fails to teach pushup portion 14 including a center portion through which a longitudinal axis K1-03 of the container 1 extends and an angled portion extending outward from the center portion.
KAZUYA fails to teach diaphragm 13 extending from the outer standing surface 12 to the angled portion of the pushup portion 14.
KAZUYA fails to teach plurality of protrusions included with the angled portion of the push up portion 14, each one of the plurality of protrusions protruding outward from the angled portion towards the longitudinal axis K1-03 of the container 1 and aligned with one of the plurality of straps 15.
KAZUYA fails to teach plurality of straps 15 extend along the base 6 from the heel 11 towards the plurality of protrusions, each one of the plurality of straps 15 terminates on the diaphragm 13 prior to reaching the pushup portion 14 such that the plurality of straps 15 do not extend completely across the diaphragm 13.
However, LANE teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-16, Fig-17, Fig-24, Fig-25, Fig-31A, Fig-31B below) a container 10, wherein pushup portion 140 includes a center portion L17-01 through which a longitudinal axis 150 of the container 10 extends and an angled portion 148 extending outward from the center portion L17-01;
diaphragm L24-01 extending from the outer standing surface L24-01 to the angled portion 148 of the pushup portion 140;
plurality of protrusions 171 included with the angled portion 148 of the pushup portion 140, each one of the plurality of protrusions 171 protruding outward from the angled portion 148 towards the longitudinal axis 150 of the container 10 and aligned with one of the plurality of straps 170 to meet design criteria (page 43, para. [0083], “… vary greatly…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified pushup portion 14 in the polymeric container 1 of KAZUYA with pushup portion 140 as taught in the container 10 of LANE to meet design criteria.
Furthermore, TANAKA teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 below) bottle 1, wherein plurality of straps 15 extend along the base 12, 13 from the heel 11 towards the plurality of protrusions 17, each one of the plurality of straps 15 terminates on the diaphragm 14 prior to reaching the pushup portion T3-01 such that the plurality of straps 15 do not extend completely across the diaphragm 14 to meet design criteria.
Henceforth, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified plurality of straps 15 in the polymeric container 1 of KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA with plurality of straps 15 as taught in the bottle 1 of TANAKA to meet design criteria.
PNG
media_image1.png
896
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
563
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
966
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
979
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
584
821
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
595
637
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
550
920
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
274
638
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
540
847
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
272
573
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
825
466
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
429
512
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
364
860
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. KAZUYA fails to teach (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 above) polymeric container 1, wherein the polymeric container 1 is made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed polymeric container 1 of KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. KAZUYA fails to teach (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 above) polymeric container 1, wherein the polymeric container 1 includes up to 100% recycled material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed polymeric container 1 of KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA to include up to 100% recycled material to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. KAZUYA further teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 above) polymeric container 1, wherein in the as-blown configuration K2-03, the diaphragm 13 is angled inward K2-06 at 12.9° (i.e., angle of intersection K2-07) [page 5, line 22, “… Inclination angle (θ1)…”].
KAZUYA fails to teach diaphragm 13 is angled inward K2-06 at 5.25°. (i.e., angle of intersection K2-07).
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA and arrange the diaphragm 13 to be angled inward K2-06 at 5.25 since aforementioned value is a result effective variable influencing response under vacuuming conditions. In addition, it has been held that where the general condition of the claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 13, KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. KAZUYA further teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 above) polymeric container 1, wherein the plurality of straps 15 consists of eight straps 15.
KAZUYA fails to teach polymeric container 1, wherein the plurality of straps 15 consists of five straps 15.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA and arrange plurality of straps 15 to amount five since aforementioned value is a result effective variable influencing response under vacuuming conditions. In addition, it has been held that where the general condition of the claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 19, KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. KAZUYA fails to teach (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 above) polymeric container 1, wherein the base 6 includes an equal number of the plurality of protrusions and the plurality of straps 15.
However, LANE teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-16, Fig-17, Fig-24, Fig-25, Fig-31A, Fig-31B below) container 10, wherein the base 30 includes an equal number (Fig-24) of the plurality of protrusions 171 and the plurality of straps 170 to meet design criteria (page 43, para. [0083], “… vary greatly…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified pushup portion 14 in the polymeric container 1 of KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA with pushup portion 140 as taught in the container 10 of LANE to meet design criteria.
Regarding claim 20, KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. KAZUYA further teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 above) polymeric container 1, wherein an innermost part of the pushup portion 14 is recessed inward K2-06 from the outer standing surface 12 towards the finish K1-01 a clearance of an overall height of the polymeric container 1.
KAZUYA fails to teach innermost part of the pushup portion 14 is recessed inward K2-06 from the outer standing surface 12 towards the finish K1-01 at a clearance of 5% to 6% of an overall height of the polymeric container 1.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA and arrange innermost part with clearance of 5% to 6% of an overall height of the polymeric container 1 since aforementioned value (i.e. clearance) is a result effective variable influencing response under vacuuming conditions. In addition, it has been held that where the general condition of the claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAZUYA, in view of LANE, in further view of TANAKA, further in view of Patcheak et al. (U. S. Patent US9394072B2) hereinafter PATCHEAK.
Regarding claim 5, KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. KAZUYA fails to teach (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 above) polymeric container 1, wherein the diaphragm 13 includes an outer textured surface.
However, PATCHEAK teaches (see Figure-1, Figure-9 - Figure-10, Fig-21 below) a plastic container 10 conforming to vacuum forces thereto (page 1, ABSTRACT, lines 4-6, “… vacuum…”), wherein the diaphragm P21-01 includes an outer textured surface 102 for control over vacuuming conditions (page 32, col. 13, lines 40-44, “… vacuum curve…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified diaphragm 13 in the polymeric container 1 of KAZUYA, LANE, and TANAKA with diaphragm P21-01 as taught in the plastic container 10 of PATCHEAK for control over vacuuming conditions.
PNG
media_image14.png
829
433
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
599
589
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
261
772
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
393
417
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, KAZUYA, LANE, TANAKA, and PATCHEAK (as applied to claim 5 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. KAZUYA fails to teach (see FIG-1 - FIG-2 above) polymeric container 1, wherein the outer textured surface includes a triangle-shaped texture.
However, PATCHEAK teaches (see Figure-1, Figure-9 - Figure-10, FIG-21 above) plastic container 10 conforming to vacuum forces thereto (page 1, ABSTRACT, lines 4-6, “… vacuum…”), wherein the outer textured surface 102 includes a triangle-shaped texture for control over vacuuming conditions (page 32, col. 13, lines 40-44, “… vacuum curve…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified outer textured surface 102 in the polymeric container 1 of KAZUYA, LANE, TANAKA, and PATCHEAK with outer textured surface 102 as taught in the plastic container 10 of PATCHEAK for control over vacuuming conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections of claim(s) 1-17, 19-26 (moot for claim 18 upon its cancellation) under 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103 in the reply filed January 22, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections (i.e., under 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103) does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miura et al. (U. S. Patent US9139328B2): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Woloszyk et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20200095008A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Pritchett et al. (W. I. P. O Patent Application Publication WO2019040749A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Oshino et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20150008210A1): Teaches a “bottle” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Melrose et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20140069937A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights