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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-20 and 26-28 in the reply filed on 7/21/25 is acknowledged. Applicant’s further election without traverse of the species of Group 1 in the reply filed on 11/13/25 is also acknowledged, as is applicant’s indication in the reply that the claims readable on the elected species are 1-20 and 26-28.
Claims 1-20 and 26-28 are examined on their merits below.
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 4 and 13-18 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 4 and 13-18 further structurally limit the claimed handle by reference to the bottle and/or they recite further limitations on the bottle itself, each of which raises the question whether applicant’s intention is to positively recite the bottle in the noted claims. Therefore, claims 4 and 13-18 are indefinite because it is not clear whether they are drawn to the sub-combination of the handle only, or whether they are drawn to the combination of the handle and a bottle. In the comparison of the claims with the prior art below, the claims are interpreted as being drawn to the noted sub-combination of the handle only. Therefore, all references in the claims to a bottle are treated to the extent possible as being merely statements of intended use with regard to the claimed handle. On the other hand, amendments to the claims to clarify their scope are required in response to this Office action. The examiner notes that applicant has elected claims to a handle for prosecution on the merits.
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) 1-7, 9-20 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jhuang (2007/0045225) in view of Yonemori et al. (6,460,715). Jhuang discloses most of the features of the claims including:
A handle for a bottle (handle set 2 of Figs 1 and 2).
The parts of the claimed handle as recited in the claims are read on the Jhuang handle in the same manner as disclosed in the subject application specification for applicant’s handle. Thus, the Jhuang handle has:
A grip portion with first and second grip junctions (the grip portion can be handle portion 21 and the first and second grip junctions can be the top and bottom ends respectively of handle portion 21 in the Fig 2 view;
A first end portion (note protrusion 22 attached to the top end of handle portion 22 in Figs. 2 and 3) with a first proximal junction and a first distal junction (the first proximal junction is the end of protrusion 22 that attaches to the first grip junction, and the first distal junction is the opposite end of protrusion 22 where it attaches to its convex);
A second end portion with second proximal junction and a second distal junction (the second end portion can be the bottom protrusion 22 in Figs 2 and 3 and its second proximal and distal junctions can be its features as described above for the claimed first end portion);
The claimed first anchor can be the majority of the convex at the end of the first end portion, including the part thereof projecting upwardly as most clearly shown in Fig 2. The claimed second anchor can be the majority of the convex at the end of the second end portion, including the part thereof projecting downwardly in Fig 2. The claimed first and second anchor faces can be the faces of the noted first and second anchors that face the grip portion, as also disclosed in the subject application for the claimed first and second anchor faces. Thus Fig 3 most clearly shows an anchor face at a top of the handle set 2 in the figure, the anchor face being the face of its anchor that faces the grip portion (handle portion 21) in the figure.
What Jhuang is missing is the claimed textured surface on one or both of the first and second anchor faces. On the other hand, Yonemori is cited to show that the feature is conventional. Thus, in column 2 third paragraph and at the bottom of column 4 through the top of column 5, Yonemori discloses with reference to Fig 2 thereof that small corrugations 5 can be placed in the surface 401 of the protruding piece 331 which is in contact with the bottle body and that the corrugations may even be extended to lower surfaces of the fitting arms 33 of the handle (in addition to Fig 2, see also figures such as Fig 6 for surfaces in which corrugations could be placed in accordance with the noted Yonemori disclosure). The claimed textured surfaces can be the corrugations, groove patterns, etc, including the same formed by sandblasting etc, as disclosed at the top of column 5 in the reference. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of Yonemori to provide the first and/or the second anchor face with a textured surface, for the purpose of reducing friction between the bottle wall and the handle, further to reduce the potential of the handle to damage the bottle wall. Refer to the disclosure in columns 1 and 2 of Yonemori.
As should be evident from the commentary above, the lines of claims 2 and 3 and their relationships are met by the Jhuang handle parts in the same manner as disclosed in the subject application specification for the claimed handle.
The first vestigial anchor of claim 4 is most clearly seen at the top of Jhuang Fig 2 as the structure depending downwardly from the far left of the first convex.
Regarding claims 5-6 refer to the commentary above regarding the disclosure in Yonemori including as it relates to the extent of the textured surface.
The features of claim 7 and 19 would have been obvious to provide to Jhuang in view of the teaching in Yonemori, in order to better adapt the handle to work with a particular attachment on a bottle for the handle.
The stippling of claim 9 would be included within the Yonemori disclosure as pointed out above.
The features of claims 10-11 are disclosed in Yonemori and would have been obvious to provide to Jhuang to make the handle more economical to produce.
Claims 12-18 recite functions that the handle of Jhuang is capable of performing.
Regarding claims 26-28 note the commentary above. The examiner also notes the disclosure in Yonemori of the knowledge in the art of providing a PET handle to be recycled (including recycled with a PET bottle) as disclosed in columns 1 and 4 thereof.
Claim 8 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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 at (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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736