DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led away from combining WARRINGTON with the disclosure of LIMANJAYA, as such a combination would frustrate the purpose of WARRINGTON (namely, to have a container having that explicit shape).”
Examiner does not find this persuasive because WARRINGTON shows a bottle having a shape and LIMANJAYA discloses a method of forming bottles that would be suitable for forming the WARRINGTON bottle. The shape of WARRINGTON’s bottle and the LIMANJAYA bottle are similar.
Applicant argues that that WARRINGTON and LIMANJA YA, either alone or in any proper combination, fail to disclose or render obvious at least "wherein an angle between a first line and a second line is equal to or greater than 7°, the first line passing through a center of the opening plane and being orthogonal to a ground contact surf ace of the bottom portion, the second line connecting an intersection point of a vertical line passing through a center of the bulge portion and intersecting with the ground contact surface of the bottom portion and the center of the opening plane,"
Examiner does not find this persuasive because Warrington shows a bottle having a shape that, when formed using blow molding of Limanjaya would result in the claimed angle.
In particular, Warrington shows a generally similar bottle. Limanjaya teaches a method for forming similar bottles by injection stretch blowing. Injection stretch blowing would result in the bulge located central to the eccentricity as illustrated in Fig 3 of Limanjaya.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrington (US D324495 S) in view of Limanjaya (US 7033535 B1)
In reference to claim 1, Warrington discloses a similar container (see claims, portion copied below)
PNG
media_image1.png
711
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Warrington does not disclose the container is blow molded with a bulge at the bottom such that an angle is formed as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, containers, Limanjaya discloses blow molding a similar container (see Fig 3, copied below).
PNG
media_image2.png
575
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Limanjaya teaches to use blow molding to mold a bottle.
Warrington shows a bottle having a shape that, when formed using blow molding of Limanjaya would result in the claimed angle. Injection stretch blowing would result in the bulge located central to the eccentricity as illustrated in Fig 3 of Limanjaya.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to blow mold the container of Warrington using the process of Limanjaya and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
The cited art discloses the same structure and meets the claim.
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 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 NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744