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 .
The elected invention is the invention of Group I, and the elected species is the species of Group 1 represented by Figs. 1-5. Both elections were made by applicant without traverse. Claims 1-20 and 26-28 were examined last time as reading on the elected invention and species.
Claims 13-18 have now been amended to recite a bottle, an invention that is non-elected. See the restriction of 5/23/25 and applicant’s election of 7/21/25. Therefore, claims 13-18 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Alternatively: Newly submitted claims 13-18 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed and examined for the following reasons:
The invention originally claimed is a handle for a bottle and may be considered the invention of Group I. The newly submitted claims are directed to a bottle and may be considered the invention of Group II. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function or effect. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13-18 are hereby withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Since claims 13-18 are now withdrawn for either of the reasons above, the claims examined on their merits herein are 1-12, 19-20 and 26-28. An action on the merits of these claims appears below.
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, 9-12, 19-20 and 26-28 is/are finally 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.
Regarding the amendment at the end of claim 3, Fig 2 of Jhuang most clearly shows the anchor lines (defined by the first and second anchors and the first and second distal junctions) and the grip line to be approximately parallel.
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.
Claim 12 recites functions that the handle of Jhuang is capable of performing.
Regarding claims 26-28 see 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, regarding the withdrawal of claims 13-18 from further consideration, the examiner notes that applicant elected the invention of the handle for prosecution on the merits from 3 groups consisting of a handle, a method and a bottle. Note the restriction of 5/23/25 and applicant’s subsequent election of 7/21/25. Not only that, but in the Office action of 2/23/26, the examiner specifically indicated in paragraph 4 thereof that the indefinite claims were interpreted as being directed to a handle. Thus, it is not understood why the applicant would amend claims 13-18 in the latest reply to recite a bottle, if applicant’s goal is to try to expeditiously conclude the prosecution in the subject application.
As to the merits of the outstanding rejection and the latest claim amendments, the examiner notes that independent claim 1 has been amended with text from previously examined claims 2 and 6, all of which were rejected last time. Said differently, it appears the applicant has not really changed the claims at all, in spite of the applicant apparently making amendments to claim 1. Therefore, even on the merits the applicant appears to be arguing the rejection although the independent claim has been amended. Accordingly, applicant’s argument that the outstanding rejection is mooted by the amendments to claim 1 is rejected and the rejection is the same as it was last time.
By way of even further explanation, the claimed grip line defined between the first and second grip junctions (added to claim 1 from claim 2) can clearly be any line that can be drawn between the first and second grip junctions of Jhuang, as indicated in the outstanding rejection. Compare grip line 115 in the annotated drawing that is part of applicant’s latest argument with the same line or a similar line that can be drawn between the first and second grip junctions of Jhuang.
Furthermore, the limitations that the first and second anchor faces predominantly face the grip line (added to claim 1 from dependent claim 6) is clearly met by Jhuang as set forth in the last Office action (see the top of page 6 in the 2/23/26 Office action). In the latest reply, the applicant does not argue the identification by the examiner of the faces in Jhuang that meet the claimed first and second anchor faces. Nor does the applicant argue that it would have been unobvious in view of Yonemori to provide the Yonemori textured surfaces on the anchor faces of Jhuang, as set forth in the rejection. For these reasons the amendments to claim 1 do not avoid the outstanding rejection. Additionally, the examiner notes that even if applicant had made the arguments indicated above as being omitted in the latest response, Yonemori discloses in the portions thereof specifically cted in the rejection that the textured surfaces therein are made on surfaces of the handle that are in contact with the bottle body, and the textured surfaces can be extended to other relevant surfaces of the handle. Therefore, such argument if made would be unconvincing.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights