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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes several arguments regarding the Duffy reference. Each will be addressed below.
First, Applicant describes features related to the cavity disclosed by Duffy and concludes that the inner surface 7 and outer wall 13 are separate structures and “cannot naturally be regarded as the inner and outer walls of the same curving portion” (Remarks, Page 12, last full paragraph).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the relevant teaching of the Duffy reference is to form the inner surface of the bottle differently than the outer surface, and in particular, to form the inner surface with a greater curvature radius for purposes of cleanability. The cavity does not impact this teaching. It is further noted that Duffy refers to the lower portion of the bottle as “the parabolic portion 15” (Page 2, lines 9-39), which is considered to demonstrate that inner surface 7 and outer wall 13 are related as parts of the same structure. The rounded bottom edge of 13 in Duffy is noted primarily for its correspondence to the rounded bottom edge of the bottle disclosed by Mackal.
When implemented in the bottle of Mackal, one having ordinary skill in the art would not find it necessary to change the shape of the outer wall in order to practice the teaching of Duffy (i.e., the bottom edge must remain relatively “square” in order to allow the bottle to serve its purpose of standing upright to contain a liquid inside). Additionally, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), [t]he court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B. Considering the bottle of Mackal, a variety of design considerations (e.g., structural or manufacturing constraints) may cause one having ordinary skill in the art to maintain a relatively small curvature on the outside wall when modifying the inner wall in view of Duffy, and the cavity could be included or excluded without impacting the claimed relationship of curvature radii.
Next, Applicant argues that “the Duffy patent does not disclose a single constant radius of curvature for the interior wall” (Remarks, Page 13, first paragraph) and notes that the written description of Duffy does not include numerical values or “a clear arc-shaped inner wall” (Remarks, Page 13, second and third full paragraphs). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a constant radius arc-shaped inner wall) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that claim 1 does not limit the number of walls or curvature radii in the curving portion. If Applicant wishes to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in this manner, the relevant structure(s) must be further delineated in the claim language.
Finally, Applicant argues that “extracting from the Duffy patent only the specific internal and external curvature-radius relationship required by Applicant’s claim 1 and applying that to the arrangement in the Mackal patent is merely hindsight claim reconstruction” (Remarks, Page 14, first paragraph). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Duffy clearly teaches a motivation for modifying the curvature of an inner wall for the purpose of cleanability, as noted in the below rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, and no other knowledge is needed to make the modifications necessary to meet the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant additionally poses several questions related to the combination of Mackal and Duffy at the end of Page 14 of the Remarks. Examiner considers these questions to be answered to the extent necessary to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, and in the comments above. It is further noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, Examiner refers again to MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B regarding the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art to employ changes of shape based on a variety of design considerations. At minimum, it has been established that one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the lower portion of the bottle of Mackal, in view of the teachings of Duffy, such that the resulting modified bottle would meet the requirements of claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 21a in Fig. 7A; 23c in Fig. 8C.
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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackal (US 3,189,223) in view of Duffy (US 1,146,313).
Regarding claim 1, Mackal discloses a liquid storage bottle (Figs. 1-3) comprising: a bottle main body (11) that stores a liquid (12); a nozzle (10) from which the liquid stored in the bottle main body is ejected; and a cap (38) that seals the nozzle. Mackal further discloses a curving portion between a bottom surface and a side surface of the bottle main body (see rounded bottom of bottle in Fig. 1), but is silent regarding any radius of curvature in this portion.
Duffy teaches a liquid storage bottle (see the Figure) wherein in a first curving portion (see curve starting at 9 in the Figure; Page 2, lines 34-39) between a bottom surface (2) and a side surface (1) of a bottle main body in a cross section of the bottle main body in a vertical direction, a curvature radius of an inner wall (see 7 in the Figure) is greater than a curvature radius of an outer wall (see rounded bottom edge of 13). Duffy teaches that this configuration facilitates cleaning of the interior of the bottle (Page 2, lines 29-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the first curving portion of the bottle of Mackal with an inner wall having a greater curvature radius than an outer wall, as taught by Duffy, in order to facilitate cleaning of the bottle for reuse or recycling.
Regarding claim 2, Mackal further discloses that in another curving portion between a top surface (16) and the side surface (see 11 in Fig. 1) of the bottle main body, a curvature radius of the inner wall is greater than a curvature radius of the outer wall (see inner wall curvature radius Rinner and outer wall curvature radius Router in annotated Fig. 1 below). Though Mackal doesn’t describe this feature in terms of curvature, the bottle is configured this way as a transition between the thinner flexible sidewall and thicker threaded neck (see annotated Fig. 1 below and Col. 2, lines 15-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Mackal, annotated with detail view by Examiner
Regarding claim 3, Mackal-Duffy in combination disclose the liquid storage bottle according to claim 1. Duffy further teaches a cavity (12) into which the curving portion extends to a low point (14 in the Figure), wherein the bottom of the liquid storage bottle (the segment of parabolic portion 15 that extends into cavity 12) is thicker than a side of the liquid storage bottle (at 8 in the Figure). Duffy teaches that this configuration insulates the liquid from the surface on which the bottle is placed (Page 2, lines 46-54).
Having modified the bottle of Mackal in view of Duffy in accordance with claim 1, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide a greater thickness at the bottom of the bottle, as taught by Duffy, in order to incorporate the hollow cavity described by Duffy (either for insulating effect or merely to achieve the curving interior structure using less material than a solid flat-bottomed surface). Alternatively, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to cause the bottom surface to be thicker for general strength/rigidity in comparison to the side surface, which is intended to be flexible.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackal in view of Duffy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhat et al. (US 2023/0166882).
Regarding claims 4-5, Mackal-Duffy in combination disclose the liquid storage bottle according to claim 1. Mackal further discloses that the bottle main body is formed of plastic (Col. 2, lines 15-18), but is silent regarding the type.
Bhat et al. teach a plastic liquid storage bottle having a base (100) and a body (600) taking a similar form to the combined invention, wherein the bottle main body is formed of a mixture including recycled PET (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to form the bottle main body of the combined invention of Mackal-Duffy from a mixture including recycled PET, as taught by Bhat et al., since Bhat et al. teaches that this material would be suitable for use in a bottle having a similar structure and intended use.
Regarding claim 6, Mackal-Duffy in combination disclose the liquid storage bottle according to claim 1. As described above regarding claims 4-5, the combined invention would be obvious to form with a mixture including recycled plastic material in view of Bhat et al. Bhat et al. do not specify a weight percentage of the mixture, but the court has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to form the bottle main body of the combined invention with five weight percent or more of recycled plastic material. Applicant has placed no criticality on any particular percentage of recycled plastic in the mixture, and it appears that the combined invention would work appropriately if formed with the claimed percentage.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackal in view of Duffy as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Gutekunst et al. (US 2018/0265243).
Regarding claims 7-8, Mackal-Duffy in combination disclose the liquid storage bottle according to claim 1, but are silent regarding the curvature radii of the inner wall and the outer wall of the curving portion.
Gutekunst et al. teach a liquid storage bottle (Paragraph 0015; Fig. 1) with a curving portion (70 in Fig. 1) having an outer wall with a curvature radius of approximately 3 mm (RH is about 0.1 - 0.2 inches; Paragraph 0018). Gutekunst et al. teach this dimension as an example of a rounded configuration intended to “transition between areas or locations of various widths or diameters, to reduce stress concentrations, and/or for any other reason or combination thereof” (Paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the outer wall of the combined invention of Mackal-Duffy with a curvature radius in the claimed range, as taught by Gutekunst et al., in order to transition between the side and bottom, and/or to reduce stress concentrations at the first curving portion. Examiner further notes that Gutekunst et al. also teaches that the first curving portion may have varying thickness for structural reinforcement (see Paragraphs 0008-0009), which would be consistent with the modification described above regarding claim 1. Since Mackal and Duffy are silent regarding the curvature radii of the walls, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, with Gutekunst et al. providing a suitable example.
Having done so, at least one corresponding area of the inner wall would have a curvature radius in the range claimed by claim 7 as well, since Duffy teaches a smooth parabolic transition between the side and bottom of the bottle main body (i.e., the inner wall would have a range of curvature radii that would fall within the claimed range of 1 - 50 mm, given the outer wall curvature radius of approximately 3mm taught by Gutekunst et al.; see annotated Figure of Duffy below). Thus, the combined invention of Mackal-Duffy, modified in view of Gutekunst et al., renders obvious the inventions of claims 7 and 8.
PNG
media_image2.png
333
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure of Duffy, annotated by Examiner
Regarding claims 9-10, Mackal-Duffy in combination disclose the liquid storage bottle according to claim 2, but are silent regarding the curvature radii of the inner wall and the outer wall of the other curving portion.
Gutekunst et al. teach a liquid storage bottle (Paragraph 0015; Fig. 1) with another curving portion (50 in Fig. 1) having an inner wall with a curvature radius of approximately 11 mm, and an outer wall with a curvature radius of approximately 6 mm (RS1 is about 0.2 - 0.3 inches; RS2 is about 0.4 - 0.5 inches; Paragraph 0018). Gutekunst et al. teach these dimensions as an example of a rounded configuration intended to “transition between areas or locations of various widths or diameters, to reduce stress concentrations, and/or for any other reason or combination thereof” (Paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the other curving portion of the combined invention of Mackal-Duffy with curvature radii in the claimed ranges, as taught by Gutekunst et al., in order to transition between the side and top (as described above regarding claim 2 with respect to the threaded neck), and/or to reduce stress concentrations at the second curving portion. Since Mackal and Duffy are silent regarding the curvature radii of the walls, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, with Gutekunst et al. providing a suitable example.
Regarding claims 11-12, Mackal-Duffy in combination disclose the liquid storage bottle according to claim 1, but are silent regarding the thickness of the bottom and the side of the bottle main body.
Gutekunst et al. teach a liquid storage bottle (Paragraph 0015; Fig. 1) with a bottle main body (60 in Fig. 1) having bottom with a thickness of approximately 0.53 mm, and a side with a thickness of approximately 0.48 mm (thickness at location 6 is about 0.0208 inches; thickness at location 5 is about 0.0191 inches; Paragraph 0048). Gutekunst et al. teach these dimensions as exemplary thicknesses in a bottle having a similar structure to that of the combined invention (see concave floor 35 in Fig. 1 corresponding to the cavity described by Duffy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Mackal-Duffy with thicknesses in the claimed ranges, as taught by Gutekunst et al., since Gutekunst et al. teaches these dimensions as being suitable for a device with a similar structure and intended use. Since Mackal and Duffy are silent regarding the curvature radii of the walls, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, with Gutekunst et al. providing a suitable example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for several examples of bottles having curving portions relevant to claim 1 of the instant invention.
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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 25, 2026
