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 .
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: R2w in Fig. 6; 21a, 21b, and 22c 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 § 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 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a thickness of a wall of the bottom surface” and “a thickness of a wall of the side surface” in lines 2-3. Claim 1 appears to use the term “wall” to refer to a 2-dimensional surface (the “inner wall” and “outer wall” of the first curving portion), so it is unclear if the term is being used differently in the instant claim to refer to a 3-dimensional feature having a thickness. See also claims 11 and 12 reciting “a thickness of the bottom surface” and “a thickness of the side surface”, respectively, for consistency.
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 first 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 a second 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. The first curving portion of Duffy is further taught to extend into a cavity (12) formed by the bottom surface of the bottle (see the Figure), wherein a thickness of a wall (at 15 in the Figure) of the bottom surface of the liquid storage bottle is thicker than a thickness of a wall of the side surface (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 in the bottom surface, 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 5 wt% 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 first curving portion.
Gutekunst et al. teach a liquid storage bottle (Paragraph 0015; Fig. 1) with a first 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 second curving portion.
Gutekunst et al. teach a liquid storage bottle (Paragraph 0015; Fig. 1) with a second 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 second 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 surface and the side surface 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 surface with a thickness of approximately 0.53 mm, and a side surface 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. In particular, Wolak et al. (US 10,486,891) discloses a liquid storage bottle that appears to disclose at least claims 1-2 of the instant application.
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 March 19, 2026