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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 1 is currently amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Replacement drawing filled on 11/04/2025 changes the location of reference 31 and as well as the definition of H. The drawing must be corrected to reflect limitations supported by the original disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
555
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A. Claim 1 recites “all points of the intermediate portion having cross- sectional shape having, at vertices thereof, 6 to 12 inclined ridge lines spirally extending around the axis line”. However, the original disclosure fails to disclose all points of the intermediate portion having at vertices thereof, 6 to 12 inclined ridge.
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.
Claim 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “all points of the intermediate portion having cross- sectional shape having, at vertices thereof, 6 to 12 inclined ridge lines spirally extending around the axis line” It is unclear as to how all points of the intermediate portion having cross- sectional shape has these inclined ridges. For example, if a cross section is taken in the vertical direction parallel to the central axis, it would not have “all points of the intermediate portion having cross- sectional shape having at vertices thereof, 6 to 12 inclined ridge” For examination purpose, it will be assumed that the cross-section is lateral. Further correction and or clarification is required. All the dependent claims inherit the same issue.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA (JP2016011156A; Provided by Applicant) in view of KITAGAWA (JP 2014037269).
Regarding claim 1, TANAKA Discloses, A synthetic resin container (Para 11, “The bottle 1 is integrally formed of, for example, a synthetic resin material such as polyethylene terephthalate”) that includes a tubular mouth (See annotated fig. below), a body (See annotated fig. below) connected to the mouth via a shoulder (12), and a bottom (14) closing a lower end of the body, wherein the body comprises: an upper end portion (See annotated fig. below) with a circular cross-sectional shape (Fig. 3) centered on an axis line (O) the upper end portion being integrally connected to a lower end of the shoulder at a first plane that defines a first boundary (See annotated fig. below) at which the shoulder begins to curve inward toward the axis line; a lower end portion (See annotated fig. below) with a circular cross-sectional shape (Fig. 6) centered on the axis line (o) the lower end portion being integrally connected to the bottom at a second plane that defines a second boundary (See annotated fig. below) at which the bottom begins to curve inward toward the axis line; and an intermediate portion with a polygonal cross-sectional shape having, at vertices thereof, 6 to 12 inclined ridge (Fig. 1,2,4; element 25) lines spirally extending around the axis line with a twist angle of 30° or more and 90°or less (Fig. 1, and 2), the cross sectional shape having i) a single straight line connecting each pair of adjacent one of the vertices or ii) a single curved line connecting each pair of adjacent one of the vertices, each curved line curing outward with respect to the axis line (Fig. 5; at c-c a single curved line connects the adjacent vertices) ; the intermediate portion being disposed between the upper end portion and the lower end portion, each of the inclined ridge lines spirally extends from the first boundary to the second boundary.
PNG
media_image2.png
770
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, TANAKA does not appear to disclose, the shoulder has a substantially dome shape that is convex toward an outer side of the container.
KITAGAWA discloses, a shoulder (12) that has a substantially dome shape that is convex toward an outer side of the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TANAKA to have shoulder has a substantially dome shape that is convex toward an outer side of the container as taught by KITAGAWA for improving vertical strength (para 12) .
Regarding claim 3, TANAKA discloses, wherein the inclined ridge lines each have a shape in which a circumferential width (Fig. 1, 2) thereof is maximum in a middle portion between the upper end portion and the lower end portion and in which the circumferential width gradually decreases from the middle portion toward the upper end portion and the lower end portion (Para18-20; 25a).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA- KITAGAWA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NONAKA (JP H11105846; Provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 2, TANAKA as modified does not disclose, the body has a shape in which a width thereof gradually decreases from the upper end portion toward the lower end portion.
NONAKA discloses, the body has a shape in which a width thereof gradually decreases from the upper end portion toward the lower end portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TANAKA to have the body has a shape in which a width thereof gradually decreases from the upper end portion toward the lower end portion as taught by NONAKA as it would allow the user hold the bottle easily.
Regarding claim 5, TANAKA discloses, wherein the inclined ridge lines each have a shape in which a circumferential width (Fig. 1, 2) thereof is maximum in a middle portion between the upper end portion and the lower end portion and in which the circumferential width gradually decreases from the middle portion toward the upper end portion and the lower end portion (Para18-20; 25a).
Claim(s) 4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA- KITAGAWA and TANAKA- NONAKA as applied to claim 1, 2,3, 5 above , and further in view of OKUYAMA (US 20200047395).
Regarding claim 4, 6-8, TANAKA as modified does not disclose, the synthetic resin container is a liquid blow molded product.
OKUYAMA disclose a synthetic plastic bottle made by process of liquid blow mold (Abstract; para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TANAKA to have the synthetic resin container to be a liquid blow molded product as it is cost efficient ( Para 66, “liquid blow molding method achieves reduction in the manufacturing cost […]”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The prior art of Tanaka as incorporated above discloses “the upper end portion being integrally connected to a lower end of the shoulder at a first plane that defines a first boundary at which the shoulder begins to curve inward toward the axis line” as claimed in claim 1. The prior art of KITAGAWA is incorporated to show that it is known to have dome shaped shoulder.
Lastly, fig. 5 of Tanaka shows a single curved line to connect two adjacent vertices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights