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 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.
Claim(s) 13-14, 19, 21-22 is\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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation --polymeric container of claim 1, wherein the generally vertical portion-- [line 1] on which --generally vertical portion-- lacks antecedent from its independent claim 1. For purposes of examination claim 13 will be considered as dependent of claim 7 since --generally vertical portion-- is recited thereto.
Claim 14 recites the limitation --polymeric container of claim 1, wherein the generally vertical portion and the generally horizontal portion-- [lines 1-2] on which --generally vertical portion-- / -- generally horizontal portion-- lacks antecedent from its independent claim 1. For purposes of examination claim 13 will be considered as dependent of claim 7 since --generally vertical portion-- / --generally horizontal portion-- are recited thereto.
Claim 19 recites the limitation --polymeric container of claim 1, wherein the generally horizontal portion-- [line 1] on which -- generally horizontal portion-- lacks antecedent from its independent claim 1. For purposes of examination claim 19 will be considered as dependent of claim 7 since --generally horizontal portion-- is recited thereto.
Claim 21 recites --21. The polymeric container of claim 1, wherein the base is molded at a temperature of about 98°C-107°C.-- which is identical to claim 5. For purposes of examination claim 21 will be considered as dependent of claim 7.
Claim 22 recites --22. The polymeric container of claim 1, wherein the polymeric container has a crystallinity of 27%-31 %.-- which is identical to claim 6. For purposes of examination claim 21 will be considered as dependent of claim 7.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 15-18, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by WILSON, in view of Bhat et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20210340371A1) hereinafter BHAT.
Regarding claim 1, WILSON teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B below) a polymeric container 11, 11’ comprising:
a finish W3B-01 defining an opening W3B-02;
a base W3B-03 at an end of the polymeric container 11, 11’ opposite to the opening W3B-02;
a plurality of base lobes W3A-01 included with the base W3B-03 and spaced apart about an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03; and
a counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 at an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03 and defined by the plurality of base lobes W3A-01, the counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 is capable to receive a counter-stretch rod 31, 31’ of a blow-molding machine during formation of the polymeric container 11, 11’.
WILSON fails to teach polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of at least 35% recycled material.
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B below) container 100 is made of at least 50% recycled material (page 12, para. [0003], lines 7-12, “… include at least 50 % recycled polyethylene terephthalate…”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON with material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Furthermore, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 50% recycled material to 35% recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT to meet design requirements since amount of recycled material is a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
PNG
media_image1.png
713
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
886
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
552
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
903
375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
881
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”).
Regarding claim 3, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the recycled material is recycled polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”).
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 wherein the recycled material is recycled polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT with recycled material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Regarding claim 4, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 has a diameter W3A-05 of 11-14mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified diameter W3A-05 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT to meet design requirements since a change of form / shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 5, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the base W3B-03 is molded at a temperature of about 185°C-210°C (page 7, para. [0032], lines 4-6, “… heat…”).
WILSON fails to teach base W3B-03 is molded at a temperature of about 98°C-107°C.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified range of molded temperature (from 185°C-210°C to 98°C-107°C) in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT to meet design requirements since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 6, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein crystallinity depends on time during manufacturing (page 6, para. [0026], right column, lines 15-18, “… predetermined time…”).
WILSON fails to teach polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ has a crystallinity of 27%-31 %.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified manufacturing time (to reach crystallinity of 27%-31 %) in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 10, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of at least 50% recycled polymeric material.
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 is made of at least 50% recycled material (page 12, para. [0003], lines 7-12, “… include at least 50 % recycled polyethylene terephthalate…”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT with material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Regarding claim 11, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of at least 75% recycled polymeric material.
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 is made of at least 50% recycled material (page 12, para. [0003], lines 7-12, “… include at least 50 % recycled polyethylene terephthalate…”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT with material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Furthermore, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 50% recycled material to 75% recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT to meet design requirements since amount of recycled material is a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 12, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of at least 100% recycled polymeric material.
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 is made of at least 50% recycled material (page 12, para. [0003], lines 7-12, “… include at least 50 % recycled polyethylene terephthalate…”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT with material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Furthermore, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 50% recycled material to 100% recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT to meet design requirements since amount of recycled material is a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 15, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, where the circular outer edge W3A-03 has a depth W3B-05 of 1-2mm.
Regarding claim 16, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, where the circular outer edge W3A-03 has a depth W3B-05 of 1.5mm.
Regarding claim 17, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, further comprising a counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 at an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03 and defined by the plurality of base lobes W3A-01, the counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 is configured to receive a counter-stretch rod 31, 31’ of a blow-molding machine during formation of the polymeric container 11, 11’.
Regarding claim 18, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 17 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 has a diameter W3A-05 of 11-14mm.
Regarding claim 23, WILSON and BHAT (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein crystallinity depends on time during manufacturing (page 6, para. [0026], right column, lines 15-18, “… predetermined time…”).
WILSON fails to teach polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ has a crystallinity of 29%.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified manufacturing time (to reach crystallinity of 29%) in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BHAT since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Claim(s) 7-9, 13-14, 19-22, 24-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by WILSON, in view of BATES et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20170297759A1) hereinafter BATES, in further view of BHAT.
Regarding claim 7, WILSON teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) a polymeric container 11, 11’ comprising:
a finish W3B-01 defining an opening W3B-02;
a base W3B-03 at an end of the polymeric container 11, 11’ opposite to the opening W3B-02;
a plurality of base lobes W3A-01 included with the base W3B-03 and spaced apart about an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03; and
a circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03 surrounding the plurality of base lobes W3A-01, an outer end W3A-04 of each one of the plurality of base lobes W3A-01 contacts the circular outer edge W3A-03; and
wherein the plurality of base lobes W3A-01 are 54% - 57% of a total surface area W3A-06 of the base W3B-03 within the circular outer edge W3A-03 surrounding the plurality of base lobes W3A-01.
WILSON fails to teach wherein each one of the plurality of base lobes W3A-01 includes a generally horizontal portion, a generally vertical portion, and a curved portion between the generally horizontal portion and the generally vertical portion.
WILSON fails to teach polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of at least 35% recycled material.
However, BATES teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-4 below) container 10 wherein each one of the plurality of base lobes 134 includes a generally horizontal portion BA2-01, a generally vertical portion B2-02, and a curved portion BA2-03 between the generally horizontal portion BA2-01 and the generally vertical portion BA2-02 for structural purposes (page 12, para. [0038], lines 3-6, “… rigidity…”).
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 is made of at least 50% recycled material (page 12, para. [0003], lines 7-12, “… include at least 50 % recycled polyethylene terephthalate…”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified base lobes W3A-01 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON with base lobes 134 as taught in container 10 of BATES for structural purposes.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BATES with material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Moreover, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 50% recycled material to 35% recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT to meet design requirements since amount of recycled material is a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
PNG
media_image6.png
823
575
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
926
966
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
848
927
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
420
880
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”).
Regarding claim 9, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the recycled material is recycled polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”).
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 wherein the recycled material is recycled polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with recycled material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Regarding claim 13, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the generally vertical portion is at an angle of about 5° relative to a longitudinal axis W3B-04 extending along an axial center W3B-04 of the polymeric container 11, 11’.
However, BATES teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-4 above) container 10 wherein the generally vertical portion BA2-02 is at an angle of about 5° relative to a longitudinal axis BA1-01 extending along an axial center BA2-04 of the container 10 for structural purposes (page 12, para. [0038], lines 3-6, “… rigidity…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified generally vertical portion BA2-02 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with generally vertical portion BA2-02 as taught in container 10 of BATES for structural purposes.
Regarding claim 14, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the generally vertical portion and the generally horizontal portion are at an angle of about 100° relative to each other.
However, BATES teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-4 above) container 10 wherein the generally vertical portion BA2-02 and the generally horizontal portion BA2-01 are at an angle of about 100° relative to each other for structural purposes (page 12, para. [0038], lines 3-6, “… rigidity…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified generally vertical portion BA2-02 / generally horizontal portion BA2-01 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with generally vertical portion BA2-02 / generally horizontal portion BA2-01 as taught in container 10 of BATES for structural purposes.
Regarding claim 19, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the oblique portion W3A-07 is most narrow at the circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03 for structural purposes.
WILSON fails to teach generally horizontal portion BA2-01 is most narrow at the circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified generally horizontal portion BA2-01 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with oblique portion W3A-07 as taught in polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON for structural purposes.
Regarding claim 20, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 19 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the oblique portion W3A-07 tapers outward from the circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03 towards an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03 for structural purposes.
WILSON fails to teach generally horizontal portion tapers outward from the circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03 towards an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified generally horizontal portion BA2-01 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with oblique portion W3A-07 as taught in polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON for structural purposes.
Regarding claim 21, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the base W3B-03 is molded at a temperature of about 185°C-210°C (page 7, para. [0032], lines 4-6, “… heat…”).
WILSON fails to teach base W3B-03 is molded at a temperature of about 98°C-107°C.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified range of molded temperature (from 185°C-210°C to 98°C-107°C) in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT to meet design requirements since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 22, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein crystallinity depends on time during manufacturing (page 6, para. [0026], right column, lines 15-18, “… predetermined time…”).
WILSON fails to teach polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ has a crystallinity of 27%-31 %.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified manufacturing time (to reach crystallinity of 27%-31 %) in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 24, WILSON teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) a polymeric container 11, 11’ comprising:
a finish W3B-01 defining an opening W3B-02;
a base W3B-03 at an end of the polymeric container 11, 11’ opposite to the opening W3B-02; and
a plurality of base lobes W3A-01 included with the base W3B-03 and spaced apart about an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03; and
a circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03 surrounding the plurality of base lobes W3A-01, the circular outer edge W3A-03 has a depth W3B-05 of 1mm - 2mm, an outer end W3A-04 of each one of the plurality of base lobes W3A-01 contacts the circular outer edge W3A-03;
wherein:
the plurality of base lobes W3A-01 are 54% - 57% of a total surface area W3A-06 of the base W3B-03 within the circular outer edge W3A-03 surrounding the plurality of base lobes W3A-01.
WILSON further teaches polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein crystallinity depends on time during manufacturing (page 6, para. [0026], right column, lines 15-18, “… predetermined time…”).
WILSON fails to teach each one of the plurality of base lobes W3A-01 includes a generally horizontal portion, a generally vertical portion, and a curved portion between the generally horizontal portion and the generally vertical portion;
the generally vertical portion is at an angle of 5° relative to a longitudinal axis W3B-04 extending along an axial center W3B-04 of the polymeric container 11, 11’;
the generally vertical portion and the generally horizontal portion are at an angle of about 100° relative to each other.
WILSON fails to teach polymeric container 11, 11’ has a crystallinity of 27-31 %.
WILSON fails to teach polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of at least 35% recycled material.
However, BATES teaches (see FIG-1 - FIG-4 above) each one of the plurality of base lobes 134 includes a generally horizontal portion BA2-01, a generally horizontal portion BA2-01, and a curved portion BA2-03 between the generally horizontal portion BA2-01 and the generally horizontal portion BA2-01;
the generally horizontal portion BA2-01 is at an angle of 5° relative to a longitudinal axis BA1-01 extending along an axial center BA2-04 of the container 10.
the generally horizontal portion BA2-01 and the generally horizontal portion BA2-01 are at an angle of about 100° relative to each other for structural purposes (page 12, para. [0038], lines 3-6, “… rigidity…”).
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 is made of at least 50% recycled material (page 12, para. [0003], lines 7-12, “… include at least 50 % recycled polyethylene terephthalate…”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified base lobes W3A-01 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON with base lobes 134 as taught in container 10 of BATES for structural purposes.
Furthermore, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified manufacturing time (to reach crystallinity of 27%-31 %) in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BATES since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON and BATES with material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Furthermore, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 50% recycled material to 35% recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT to meet design requirements since amount of recycled material is a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 25, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”).
Regarding claim 26, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the recycled material is recycled polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”).
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 wherein the recycled material is recycled polyethylene terephthalate (page 5, para. [0016], lines 5-6, “... PET...”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with recycled material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Regarding claim 27, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, where the circular outer edge W3A-03 has a depth W3B-05 of 1.5mm.
Regarding claim 28, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of at least 50% recycled polymeric material.
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 is made of at least 50% recycled material (page 12, para. [0003], lines 7-12, “… include at least 50 % recycled polyethylene terephthalate…”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Regarding claim 29, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON fails to teach (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ is made of at least 100% recycled polymeric material.
However, BHAT teaches (see FIG. 1B above) container 100 is made of at least 50% recycled material (page 12, para. [0003], lines 7-12, “… include at least 50 % recycled polyethylene terephthalate…”) for environmental considerations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with material as taught in container 100 of BHAT for environmental considerations.
Furthermore, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 50% recycled material to 100% recycled material in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT to meet design requirements since amount of recycled material is a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 30, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, further comprising a counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 at an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03 and defined by the plurality of base lobes W3A-01, the counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 is configured to receive a counter-stretch rod 31, 31’ of a blow-molding machine during formation of the polymeric container 11, 11’.
Regarding claim 31, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 30 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the counter-stretch rod receptacle W3A-02 has a diameter W3A-05 of 11-14mm.
Regarding claim 32, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the oblique portion W3A-07 is most narrow at the circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03 for structural purposes.
WILSON fails to teach generally horizontal portion BA2-01 is most narrow at the circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified generally horizontal portion BA2-01 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with oblique portion W3A-07 as taught in polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON for structural purposes.
Regarding claim 33, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the oblique portion W3A-07 tapers outward from the circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03 towards an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03 for structural purposes.
WILSON fails to teach generally horizontal portion tapers outward from the circular outer edge W3A-03 of the base W3B-03 towards an axial center W3B-04 of the base W3B-03.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified generally horizontal portion BA2-01 in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT with oblique portion W3A-07 as taught in polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON for structural purposes.
Regarding claim 34, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the base W3B-03 is molded at a temperature of about 185°C-210°C (page 7, para. [0032], lines 4-6, “… heat…”).
WILSON fails to teach base W3B-03 is molded at a temperature of about 98°C-107°C.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified range of molded temperature (from 185°C-210°C to 98°C-107°C) in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT to meet design requirements since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 35, WILSON, BATES, and BHAT (as applied to claim 24 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. WILSON further teaches (see Fig-1, Fig-2, Fig-3A, Fig-3B above) polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein crystallinity depends on time during manufacturing (page 6, para. [0026], right column, lines 15-18, “… predetermined time…”).
WILSON fails to teach polymeric container 11, 11’, wherein the polymeric container 11, 11’ has a crystallinity of 29%.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified manufacturing time (to reach crystallinity of 29%) in the polymeric container 11, 11’ of WILSON, BATES, and BHAT since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lane et al. (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2021194506A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Lane (Canada Patent Application Publication CA2713866A1): Teaches a “base design” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Slat (E. P. O. Patent Application Publication EP1980493A2): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Kraft et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20150375886A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Wurster et al. (U. S. Patent US8991628B2): Teaches a “base” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Kamineni et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20040000533A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735