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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-9 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/30/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 and 10 in the reply filed on 7/30/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kawahara et al. (US 2009/0258982, cited by applicant).
Kawahara discloses a stretch blow-molded article comprising:
a polyester; a wax; and at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic layered double hydroxide and zeolite (paragraphs [0006], [0012], [0020-0027], [0031], [0033-0034], [0038-0041]).
Kawahara also discloses wherein the inorganic layered double hydroxide comprises a hydrotalcites compound, wherein the polyester
comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate
and polyethylene naphthalate and a molded article (paragraphs [0006], [0012], [0020-0027], [0031], [0033-0034], [0038-0041]).
Kawahara does not specifically disclose a toner bottle, however, absent any further limitations, the examiner is of the position that the disclosed containers (paragraph [0041]) are capable of storing/containing toner.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (US 2009/0258982, cited by applicant).
Kawahara does not disclose wherein a total content of the inorganic layered double hydroxide and the zeolite is 0.09 to 1.2 mass% based on a mass of the stretch blow-molded article. However, discovering the optimum range or value for a result effective variable is obvious and well within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to have provided applicant’s recited mass% in order to lower costs and/or provide improved physical, mechanical and/or thermal properties.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (US 2009/0258982, cited by applicant) in view of Hase et al. (US 2012/0184686).
Kawahara does not disclose wherein the polyester is a material recycled polyester.
Hase discloses the use of recycled polyester in food containers (paragraphs [0001-0003], [0023) for the purpose of providing an environmentally friendly product and/or improve physical properties (paragraph [0003]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided wherein the polyester is a material recycled polyester in Kawahara in order to provide an environmentally friendly product and/or improve physical properties as taught or suggested by Hase.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 pm EST.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights