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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 depends from canceled claim 12. For the remainder of this office action the Examiner is viewing that claim 13 depends from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 3 are missing a transitional phrase e.g. “comprising” and according to MPEP 2111.03 the transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. It is therefore unclear what the scope of the claim is without a transitional phrase.
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, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 2016/0244197 A1 to Hermel (“Hermel”).
This figure, now referred to as Hermel annotated Fig. 2, used for the rejection of claims 1-20 has been replicated below, and the Examiner has added reference points for ease of explanation, and said reference points will be used for the rejection of claims 1-20 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Hermel teaches a plastic container (Hermel abstract), having a bottom region (bottom 3), a main body (body 2) adjoining this bottom region in a longitudinal direction of the plastic container, and a mouth region (Hermel Fig. 1 shows the mouth region opposite the bottom 3) adjoining this main body at least indirectly in the longitudinal direction and having a container mouth (Hermel, pg. 1, ¶ 0002), wherein the bottom region has at least three supporting feet (feet 7), wherein each of these supporting feet has at least one supporting region (apex 9) extending in a circumferential direction with respect to the longitudinal direction over a supporting region circumferential angle and each having at least one supporting surface (standing plane 10) for standing the plastic container upright, wherein at least one groove (valley 12) having a groove base (bottom wall 4) acting as a tension band is arranged between two of these supporting feet, said groove base widening outwardly in a radial direction of the plastic container (Hermel Fig. 2 shows the bottom wall 4 widening outwardly in a radial direction), wherein the at least three supporting feet are delimited in the circumferential direction by at least one foot side region (sides 16) in each case and outwardly in a radial direction by a foot outer region (Hermel Fig. 2 shows the foot 7 has an outer region extending from the terminal zone 23 to the periphery 8), wherein the at least three supporting feet in a corner region of the supporting feet, in which the supporting region, the foot side region and the foot outer region meet, have at least one flattened region (facets 24) which causes a flattening of the corresponding supporting foot in the corner region (Hermel Fig. 7 shows that the facets are flattened), and wherein each of the at least three supporting feet has at least one flattened region arranged between the supporting region and the adjacent groove (Hermel Fig. 2 shows the feet 7 has a facet 24 between the apex 9 and the valley 12), and at least one bulged region (bulged region, Hermel annotated Fig. 2) arranged between the flattened region and the supporting region (Hermel annotated Fig. 2 shows the space between the facet 24 and the apex 9 has a different angle then the facet 24).
As to claim 2, Hermel teaches a plastic container (Hermel abstract), having a bottom region (bottom 3), a main body (body 2) adjoining this bottom region in a longitudinal direction of the plastic container, and a mouth region (Hermel Fig. 1 shows the mouth region opposite the bottom 3) adjoining this main body at least indirectly in the longitudinal direction and having a container mouth (Hermel, pg. 1, ¶ 0002), wherein the bottom region has at least three supporting feet (feet 7) which, viewed in a circumferential direction with respect to a central axis of the bottom region extending along the longitudinal direction, each extend over a supporting foot circumferential angle (angular opening A3), wherein each of these supporting feet has at least one supporting region (apex 9) extending in the circumferential direction over a supporting region circumferential angle and each having at least one supporting surface (standing plane 10) for standing the plastic container upright, wherein at least one groove (valley 12) having a groove base (bottom wall 4) acting as a tension band is arranged between two of these supporting feet, the groove base widening outwardly in a radial direction (Hermel Fig. 2 shows the bottom wall 4 widening outwardly in a radial direction), wherein each of the at least three supporting feet has at least one flattened region (facets 24) arranged at least partially between the supporting region and the adjacent groove (Hermel Fig. 7 shows that the facets are flattened) and at least one bulged region (bulged region, Hermel annotated Fig. 2) arranged between the flattened region and the supporting region (Hermel Fig. 2 shows the space between the facet 24 and the apex 9 has a different angle then the facet 24), wherein the flattened region is flattened compared to the bulged region with respect to a curvature behavior (Hermel Fig. 7 shows the facet 24 is flat compared to the apex 9), wherein the bulged region extends, as viewed in the circumferential direction, at most over half the supporting region circumferential angle and/or at most over one tenth of the supporting foot circumferential angle (Hermel Fig. 4 shows the bulged region extends at most over one tenth of the angular opening A3), and wherein the support region circumferential angle is selected from an angular range between 7° and 15° and/or each supporting foot has exactly one supporting surface (Hermel teaches each foot 7 has one standing plane 10, as seen in Fig. 4).
As to claim 5, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein a bulged region with a curvature progression of a same orientation adjoins in each case the flattened region of the supporting foot (Hermel annotated Fig. 2 shows the bulged region adjoins the facet 24), viewed both in a direction of the adjacent groove and/or of the groove base of the adjacent groove and viewed in the direction of the supporting region of the supporting foot (Hermel annotated Fig. 2 shows the bulged region surrounds the facet 24 in all directions), wherein the amount of the curvature within the bulged regions assumes at least one maximum with respect to the curvature amounts assumed within the flattened region (Hermel annotated Fig. 2 shows the bulged region assumes at least one maximum with respect to the facet 24).
As to claim 6, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 5, wherein the bulged region surrounds at least substantially half a circumference of the flattened region (Hermel annotated Fig. 2 shows the bulged region surrounds the facet 24 in all directions).
As to claim 7, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 6, wherein an amount of a surface curvature within the entire flattened region is smaller than the amount of the surface curvature of the bulged region (Hermel annotated Fig. 2 shows the amount of surface curvature within the facet 24 is smaller than the amount of surface curvature of the bulged region) surrounding at least half the circumference of the flattened region (Hermel annotated Fig. 2 shows the bulged region surrounds the facet 24 in all directions).
As to claim 9, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the flattened region tapers in a direction of the groove base (Hermel Fig. 2 shows the facet 24 tapers in a direction of the bottom wall 4).
As to claim 10, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the flattened region is substantially flat (Hermel Fig. 7 shows the facet 24 is substantially flat).
As to claim 17, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the foot side regions of the supporting foot are configured in portions as foot flank surfaces (foot flank surface, Hermel annotated Fig. 2) formed by a free-form surface.
As to claim 18, Hermel teaches a blow molding device for the production of plastic containers having an inner wall, against which a plastic container can be expanded during a blow molding process (Hermel, pg. 1, ¶ 0001), wherein the inner wall has a contour that is configured for creating a plastic container according to claim 1.
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) 3, 4, 21, and 22 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermel in view of European Publication EP 3770073 A1 to Hüttner et al. (“Hüttner”).
As to claim 3, Hermel teaches a plastic container (Hermel abstract), having a bottom region (bottom 3), a main body (body 2) adjoining this bottom region in a longitudinal direction of the plastic container, and a mouth region (Hermel Fig. 1 shows the mouth region opposite the bottom 3) adjoining this main body at least indirectly in the longitudinal direction and having a container mouth (Hermel, pg. 1, ¶ 0002), wherein the bottom region has at least three supporting feet (feet 7), wherein each of these supporting feet has at least one supporting region (apex 9) extending in a circumferential direction with respect to a central axis of the bottom region extending along the longitudinal direction and each having at least one supporting surface (standing plane 10) for standing the plastic container upright, wherein at least one groove (valley 12) having a groove base (bottom wall 4) acting as a tension band is arranged between two of these supporting feet, the groove base widening outwardly in a radial direction (Hermel Fig. 2 shows the bottom wall 4 widening outwardly in a radial direction); but does not teach wherein the bottom region is configured such that a bottom line running along the bottom region from a geometric center of the supporting region of a supporting foot to the groove base of an adjacent groove at a constant distance from the central axis has a geometric progression of height values, considered along the central axis, as a function of an angle of rotation measured in the circumferential direction with respect to the geometric center of the supporting region, which angle of rotation, after passing through the supporting region, decreases sharply in such a way that a maximum height value assumed in the supporting region within a line portion, which takes up at most 30% of an angle of rotation between the geometric center of the supporting region and the geometric center of the groove base of the adjacent groove, is reduced by at least 8% with respect to a maximum height difference of the bottom line.
Hüttner teaches wherein the bottom region (base area 2) is configured such that a bottom line running along the bottom region from a geometric center of the supporting region of a supporting foot (feet 22) to the groove base (groove base 32) of the adjacent groove (groove 30) at a constant distance from the central axis has a geometric progression of height values, considered along the central axis, as a function of an angle of rotation measured in the circumferential direction with respect to the geometric center of the supporting region, which angle of rotation, after passing through the supporting region, decreases sharply in such a way that a maximum height value assumed in the supporting region within a line portion, which takes up at most 30% of an angle of rotation between the geometric center of the supporting region (Hüttner, pg. 7, lines 30-41) and the geometric center of the groove base of the adjacent groove, is reduced by at least 8% (Hüttner, pg. 7, lines 30-41) with respect to a maximum height difference of the bottom line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the curvature value of Hüttner with the container as taught by Hermel to reduce the material consumption while at the same time creating the highest possible stability (Hüttner, pg. 2, lines 10-11).
As to claim 4, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the bottom region is configured such that a bottom line running along the bottom region from a geometric center of the supporting region of a supporting foot over a turning point region, in which an orientation of a curvature of the bottom region changes, to the groove base of the adjacent groove at a constant distance from the central axis has a geometric progression of height values, considered along the central axis, as a function of an angle of rotation measured in the circumferential direction with respect to the geometric center of the supporting region, which angle of rotation decreases strongly in a region adjoining the supporting region such that a maximum height value assumed in the supporting region within a line portion of the base line, which takes up at least 30% of an angle of rotation between the geometric center of the supporting region and the geometric center of the groove base of the adjacent groove, is reduced by at least 15% with respect to a height difference of the base line to the height value assumed in the turning point region.
Hüttner teaches wherein the bottom region (base area 2) is configured such that a bottom line running along the bottom region from a geometric center of the supporting region of a supporting foot (feet 22) over a turning point region, in which an orientation of the curvature of the bottom region changes, to the groove base (groove base 32) of the adjacent groove (groove 30) at a constant distance from the central axis has a geometric progression of height values, considered along the central axis, as a function of an angle of rotation measured in the circumferential direction with respect to the geometric center of the supporting region, which angle of rotation decreases strongly in a region adjoining the supporting region such that a maximum height value assumed in the supporting region within a line portion of the base line, which takes up at least 30% of an angle of rotation between the geometric center of the supporting region (Hüttner, pg. 7, lines 30-41) and the geometric center of the groove base of the adjacent groove, is reduced by at least 15% with respect to a height difference of the base line to the height value assumed in the turning point region (Hüttner, pg. 7, lines 30-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the curvature value of Hüttner with the container as taught by Hermel to reduce the material consumption while at the same time creating the highest possible stability (Hüttner, pg. 2, lines 10-11).
As to claim 21, Hermel modified by Hüttner teaches the plastic container according to claim 3, wherein bottom region (base area 2) is configured such that a bottom line running along the bottom region from a geometric center of the supporting region of a supporting foot (feet 22) over a turning point region, in which an orientation of the curvature of the bottom region changes, to the groove base (groove base 32) of the adjacent groove (groove 30) at a constant distance from the central axis has a geometric progression of height values, considered along the central axis, as a function of an angle of rotation measured in the circumferential direction with respect to the geometric center of the supporting region, which angle of rotation decreases strongly in a region adjoining the supporting region such that a maximum height value assumed in the supporting region within a line portion, which takes tip at most 30% of an angle of rotation between the geometric center of the supporting region (Hüttner, pg. 7, lines 30-41) and the geometric center of the groove base of the adjacent groove, is reduced by at least 10% with respect to a maximum height difference of the bottom line (Hüttner, pg. 7, lines 30-41).
As to claim 22, Hermel modified by Hüttner teaches the plastic container according to claim 3, wherein the bottom line is selected such that it runs through the corner region (Hüttner Fig. 12 shows the bottom line BL runs through the corner region).
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermel in view of German Patent Publication DE 10 2021 127 061 A1 to Tissmer et al. (“Tissmer ‘061”).
The Examiner is using U.S. PGPUB 2023/0119605 A1 to Tissmer et al. as a convenient English translation of the German document.
This figure, now referred to as Tissmer ‘061 annotated Fig. 6, used for the rejection of claims 8, 11, and 13-19 has been replicated below, and the Examiner has added reference points for ease of explanation, and said reference points will be used for the rejection of claims 8, 11, and 13-19 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
382
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein a cross-sectional contour formed by a longitudinal section through the bottom region, a longitudinal sectional plane of which runs through the flattened region of a supporting foot and through the central axis of the plastic container, has a curvature progression which assumes a local minimum in the flattened region compared to a surrounding portions.
Tissmer ‘061 teaches wherein a cross-sectional contour formed by a longitudinal section through the bottom region, the longitudinal sectional plane of which runs through the flattened region of a supporting foot and through the central axis of the plastic container, has a curvature progression which assumes a local minimum in the flattened region compared to the surrounding portions (Tissmer ‘061, pg. 5, ¶ 0094-0102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the curvature progression of Tissmer ‘061 with the container as taught by Hermel to provide a cost-effective production of a plastic container which also withstands certain internal pressures (Tissmer ‘061, pg. 1, ¶ 0009).
As to claim 11, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the flattened region has a surface area which amounts to at least one quarter of a supporting surface of the supporting region of the supporting foot for standing the plastic container upright.
Tissmer ‘061 annotated Fig. 6 shows the flattened region has a surface area that appears to amount to at least one quarter of the supporting surface (Tissmer ‘061 annotated Fig. 6 shows the flattened region has a surface area that amounts to at least one quarter of the supporting surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flattened region having a surface area at least one quarter of the supporting surface of Tissmer ‘061 with the container as taught by Tissmer ‘061 to improve stability of the container.
As to claim 13, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the at least three supporting feet each have two flattened regions which, in cross-section, follow the progression of legs of a triangle at least in portions, and wherein a distance between a tip of the triangle and the supporting foot is between 0 and 20 mm.
Tissmer ‘061 teaches wherein the at least three supporting feet each have two flattened regions which, in cross-section, follow the progression of legs of a triangle (triangle 70) at least in portions, and wherein a distance between a tip of the triangle and the supporting foot is between 0 and 20 mm (Tissmer ‘061, pg. 6, ¶ 0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the distance between a tip of the triangle and the supporting foot of Tissmer ‘061 with the container as taught by Hermel to provide a cost-effective production of a plastic container which also withstands certain internal pressures (Tissmer ‘061, pg. 1, ¶ 0009).
As to claim 14, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the at least three supporting feet each have two flattened regions which in cross-section, follow the progression of legs of a triangle at least in portions, and wherein an opening angle of the triangle which encloses the tip of the triangle is between 45° and 170°.
Tissmer ‘061 teaches wherein the at least three supporting feet each have two flattened regions which in cross-section, follow the progression of legs of a triangle at least in portions, and wherein an opening angle of the triangle which encloses the tip of the triangle is between 45° and 170° (Tissmer ‘061, pg. 6, ¶ 0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the opening angle of Tissmer ‘061 with the container as taught by Hermel to provide a cost-effective production of a plastic container which also withstands certain internal pressures (Tissmer ‘061, pg. 1, ¶ 0009).
As to claim 15, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the flattened region follows a substantially parabolic progression.
Tissmer ‘061 teaches wherein the flattened region follows a substantially parabolic progression (Tissmer ‘061 annotated Fig. 6 shows the flattened region follows a parabolic progression with the tension bands 150 being the bottom of the parabolic wave).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flattened region follows a substantially parabolic progression of Tissmer ‘061 with the container as taught by Hermel to provide a cost-effective production of a plastic container which also withstands certain internal pressures (Tissmer ‘061, pg. 1, ¶ 0009).
As to claim 16, Hermel teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the supporting foot has at least two flattened regions and the at least two flattened regions and the supporting region of the supporting foot follow a progression of an open trapezoid in cross-section at least in portions.
Tissmer ‘061 teaches wherein the supporting foot has at least two flattened regions and the two flattened regions and the supporting region of the supporting foot follow a progression of an open trapezoid in cross-section at least in portions (Tissmer ‘061 Fig.16 shows tringles 70 on opposite sides of the foot 115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flattened regions of Tissmer ‘061 with the container as taught by Hermel to provide a cost-effective production of a plastic container which also withstands certain internal pressures (Tissmer ‘061, pg. 1, ¶ 0009).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermel in view of Chinese Publication CN 113859699 A to Xie et al. (“Xie”).
As to claim 19, Hermel teaches the blow molding device according to claim 18, wherein the blow molding device has at least one supporting foot forming region for producing a supporting foot of the plastic container, wherein the inner wall of the blow molding device has at least one flattened region in the region of the supporting foot forming region (Hermel, pg. 1, ¶ 0001); but does not teach wherein each supporting foot forming region of the blow molding device configured to form a supporting foot has at least one opening, and wherein the at least one opening is arranged at least in regions in the flattened region of the blow mold.
Xie teaches wherein each supporting foot forming region (mould inner forming surface 24) of the blow molding device configured to form a supporting foot has at least one opening (exhaust hole 29), wherein the at least one opening is arranged at least in regions in the flattened region of the blow mold (Xie Fig. 4 shows the exhaust hole 29 in the region of the flattened region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mold with exhaust holes of Xie with the container as taught by Hermel to create a bottom die that can be quickly discharged (Xie, pg. 7, lines 1-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-16, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
Conclusion
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 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, 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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 2 June 2026
Prosecution Insights