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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 October 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Selina et al. (US 2015/0203238) (Selina).
Selina discloses a container comprising: a bottom comprising a bottom surface and a bottom perimeter, the bottom perimeter at a first distance from a central axis of the bottom surface; a sidewall extending vertically from the bottom perimeter at the first distance from the central axis that is perpendicular to the bottom surface to a container bead at a second distance from the central axis of the bottom surface, wherein the sidewall comprises: an outside surface of the sidewall, the outside surface comprising a smooth surface; and an interior surface of the sidewall, the interior surface comprising a plurality of vertical ribs (columns 38) extending vertically from the bottom perimeter, wherein each vertical rib of the plurality of vertical ribs comprises: a first vertical arc cut (cut made by one of the adjacent concavities 28 of a rib) in the sidewall that forms a first side of the vertical rib; and a second vertical arc cut (cut made by other adjacent concavity 28 of a rib) in the sidewall that forms a second side of the vertical rib opposite the first side of the vertical rib.
Re claims 1 and 16, each vertical rib of the plurality of vertical ribs further comprises: a vertical rib peak (indicated by arrow A in the annotated Fig. 5) positioned between the first vertical arc cut (indicated by arrow B in the annotated Fig. 5) and the second vertical arc cut (indicated by arrow C in the annotated Fig. 5); a first vertical blended section (indicated by arrow X in the annotated Fig. 5) positioned between the vertical rib peak and the first vertical arc cut; and a second vertical blended section (indicated by arrow Y in the annotated Fig. 5) positioned between the vertical rib peak and the second vertical arc cut, wherein the first and second vertical blended sections blend connections between the first and second vertical arc cuts and the vertical rib peak to form an undulating surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claims 3 and 19, the sidewall at a minimum thickness of the first vertical arc cut is at least 15 mil thinner than the sidewall at the vertical rib peak. See paragraph [13], lines 9-14, and Fig. 5, maximum thickness of concavity of 0.092 inches as compared to minimum center thickness of concavity or 0.070 inches and the difference of 0.022 inches or 22 mils.
Re claim 16, Selina discloses a container comprising: an interior bottom perimeter; an exterior bottom perimeter; a top container edge; a first sidewall section extending from the exterior bottom perimeter to the top container edge, wherein the first sidewall section comprises a smooth surface; and a second sidewall section extending from the interior bottom perimeter to the top container edge, wherein the second sidewall section comprises a plurality of vertical ribs (38) extending vertically from the interior bottom perimeter toward the top container edge, wherein each vertical rib of the plurality of vertical ribs comprises: a first vertical arc cut in the second sidewall section that forms a first side of the vertical rib; a second vertical arc cut in the second sidewall section that forms a second side of the vertical rib opposite the first side of the vertical rib; a vertical rib peak positioned between the first vertical arc cut and the second vertical arc cut; a first vertical blended section positioned between the vertical rib peak and the first vertical arc cut; and a second vertical blended sections positioned between the vertical rib peak and the second vertical arc cut, wherein the first and second vertical blended sections blend connections between the first and second vertical arc cuts and the vertical rib peak to form an undulating surface.
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.
Claim(s) 4-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selina in view of Nemitz et al. (US 4245685) (Nemitz).
Selina discloses a horizontal rib on the underside of the bottom but fails to disclose a plurality of horizontal ribs. Nemitz teaches horizontal bottom ribs 13 extending inwardly from the top side of the bottom. Each horizontal rib of the plurality of horizontal ribs comprises: a first horizontal arc cut (one-quarter of circle shape or pie-shape, see Fig. 3 of exterior and interior will be pie-shaped indentation between ribs) in the bottom surface that forms a first side of the horizontal rib; and a second horizontal arc cut (one-quarter of circle shape or pie-shape, see Fig. 3 of exterior and interior will be pie-shaped indentation between ribs) in the bottom surface that forms a second side of the horizontal rib opposite the first side of the horizontal rib. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bottom of Selina to have bottom ribs as taught by Nemitz to provide a reinforced bottom and to protect the content of the container from impact.
Re claims 5 and 17, each horizontal rib of the plurality of horizontal ribs further comprises: a horizontal rib peak (the flat, horizontal, peak portion of rib 13) positioned between the first horizontal arc cut and the second horizontal arc cut; a first horizontal blended section (sloped rib sidewall) positioned between the horizontal rib peak and the first horizontal arc cut ; and a second horizontal blended section (sloped rib sidewall) positioned between the horizontal rib peak and the second horizontal arc cut, wherein the first and second horizontal blended sections blend connections between the first and second horizontal arc cuts and the horizontal rib peak to form an undulating surface.
Re claim 6, a first horizontal rib of the plurality of horizontal ribs aligns with the first vertical arc cut of the sidewall at an intersection of the bottom surface and the interior surface of the sidewall as shown in Nemitz.
Re claim 7, each horizontal rib of the plurality of horizontal ribs aligns with a vertical rib of the plurality of vertical ribs at an intersection of the bottom surface and the interior surface of the sidewall as shown in Nemitz.
Re claim 8, the first horizontal arc cut and a portion of the bottom perimeter between sides of the first horizontal arc cut form a circular sector shape (pie-shape as discussed and shown by Nemitz).
Re claim 17, the exterior bottom surface or underside of the bottom comprises a smooth surface.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selina in view of Nemitz as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pulliam et al. (US 3627170) (Pulliam).
The combination fails to disclose a plurality of fins. Pulliam teaches a plurality of fins (radial ribs 44). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the underside of the bottom to include fins as taught by Pulliam such that the fins extend from the bottom perimeter in a radial, horizontal direction perpendicular to the central axis.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selina in view of Koefelda et al. (US 5292024).
Selina fails to disclose that the sidewall forms a conical frustrum. Koefelda teaches a sidewall that forms a conical frustrum (see column 4, lines 36-37 which discuss that the sidewall 62 has a small draft angle of 1.6 degrees). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall to form a conical frustrum to allow nesting of pails for compact storage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has concluded that Selina fails to disclose the blended sections. Applicant makes this determination based upon his assessment that there is a sharp edge disposed between the vertical rib peak and the arc cuts as shown in Fig. 5. However, there is no evidence supporting this conclusion of a sharp edge. The blended sections are configured to smooth transitions from a cut and the rib peak. The transition is not stepped and therefore, the transition is smoother than a stepped transition. There is no definition or other evidence which applicant presents to support the arbitrary conclusion of sharp transitions, therefore, not smooth transitions. Paragraph [57] of the present application state both “smooth transition” and “undulating” which are both interpreted by their plain, ordinary definition to mean smooth. “Smooth” and “undulating” are relative terms and there is no other evidence submitted to further distinguish the degree of smoothness. There is no comparable cross section of the present invention to that of Fig. 5 of Selina which can be used to make a comparison. It is clear that the transition edge in Selina shown in Fig. 5 has an obtuse angle (> 90 degrees and < 180 degrees) and is smoother than a stepped configuration or a transition edge of 90 degrees or lower. The Office states that Selina’s surface is smoother when compared to transition edges of 90 degrees or lower.
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights