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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, claim 1, “wherein the projection of the heel on said longitudinal axis has a length from 7 to 14% with respect to the total height of the bottle along the longitudinal axis” H and H1 are never drawn in the same picture with the same ratio, the drawing of (fig. 2) is does not clearly show where the start and stop of the curve are to support the ratio of 7-14%. Also, it appears that (H) is drawn as the height of the central dome (7), not “the projection of the heel” The current drawing do not show a total height compared to projection of the heel, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-14, 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 1, defines “the projection of the heel”. This is not understood. The specification does not show where the projection starts of stops. The projection of the heel is not shown in the drawing the heel shown as (H) in (fig. 2) but there are no defined boundaries or anchor points where the projection of the heel starts or stops. Currently it is understood to be somewhere outside the standing ring extending somewhere along the sidewall. There is currently no way to measure or compare to other prior art.
Claim 10, 11, the term “trans conformation” is not understood. It appears to be a directed toward a certain material mixture.
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) 1-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (US Pub No 2021/0197996).
With respect to claim 1, Nakayama shows a reusable bottle (1) made of plastic (-synthetic resin material- is plastic), defining a longitudinal axis (O) (fig. 1), comprising, an upper portion (12) defining an opening (open top, not labeled) extending about said longitudinal axis (o); a side wall (13); a lower portion (14), defining a closed bottom (19); wherein the lower portion (14) comprises: a heel (17), an annular heel; a standing ring (18), extending from the heel (17) and defining the lower standing surface of the bottle (1); a central dome (24), in particular concave outwards; wherein said heel (17) is concave towards the outside of the bottle (1);
Nakayama discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the projection of the heel on said longitudinal axis has a length from 7 to 14% with respect to the total height of the bottle along the longitudinal axis. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the height of the bottle compared to the height of the projection of the heel, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The size and height change with the desired volume and width.
Claims 2, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama.
Nakayama discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However Nakayama does not disclose the projection (H) of the heel (5) on said longitudinal axis (X) has a length from 8 to 11% with respect to the total height (H1) of the bottle (1) along the longitudinal axis (X)].
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the height of the bottle compared to the height of the projection of the heel, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The size and height change with the desired volume and width.
Claim 3, Nakayama discloses the claimed invention except for the heel (17) has a radius of curvature (R) from 100 to 1000 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to this radius of curvature, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 4,5, Nakayama discloses the claimed invention except for claim 4, wherein the projection (H) of the heel (5) on said longitudinal axis (X) has a length from 20 to 45 mm, claim 5,wherein the projection (H) of the heel (5) on said longitudinal axis (X) has a length from 20 to 38 mm, Claim 5,wherein the a tangent line (T) an inner surface of the heel (5) forms an acute angle from 300 to 400, or from 350 to with said longitudinal axis (X). claim 15, wherein the heel has a radius of curvature from 300 to 600 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Applicant has not provided a critical reason for these claimed sizes in the specification. These sizes would be based on desired volume and storage space size.
With respect to claim ,6 Nakayama discloses the claimed invention except for a tangent line to an inner surface of the heel forms an acute angle from 30-40 or from 35-39, with said longitudinal axis. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the angle of Nakayama, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). A lower angle make for a stronger base with more storage volume.
With respect to claim 7, Nakayama further shows wherein an inflection point (F) is present between the heel (17) and said standing ring (18).
With respect to claim 8, Nakayama further shows wherein the standing ring (18) is convex towards the outside of the bottle (1).
Claims 9,10,11,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama.
Nakayama discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However Nakayama does not disclose claim 9,made of PET, claim 10, wherein the percentage of PET in the Trans conformation in the standing ring (6) is at least 29%, claim 11, wherein the percentage of PET in the Trans conformation of the inner surface of the standing ring (6) is at least 45%, claim 16, wherein the percentage of PET in the Trans conformation in the standing ring is from 29% to 32% claim 17, wherein the percentage of PET in the Trans conformation of the inner surface of the standing ring is from 45 to 49%.
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use PET or the other mixture of material that is not understood, (see 112 rejection above) in order to have a strong durable container that will last a certain period of use.
It has been 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 12, Nakayama further shows wherein said lower portion (14) comprises an annular portion (19), convex towards the outside of the bottle (1), extending from the heel (17) upwards; in particular, arranged between the heel (17) and said side wall (13).
With respect to claim 13, Nakayama further shows A mold component (paragraph 21 discloses molding) (molding is evidence that a mold is used),
With respect to claim 14, Nakayama shows a The mold component (the disclosed molding operation of paragraph 21) having a molding surface (mating surface of bottom ) comprising: a first surface portion (mating with the 1st surface portion), which is annular, convex and adapted to mold said heel (17); a second surface portion (next mating surface of the mold), which is annular, concave and adapted to mold said standing ring (18); a third surface portion (of the disclosed mold) adapted to mold said central dome (24); in particular, wherein said first annular surface portion (matching portion of disclosed molding operation) and said second annular surface portion are adjacent to each other. (this is interpreted as a product by process limitation)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The drawings, correcting the longitudinal axis (x) is appreciated.
The Issue with the drawings remains, the limitation including the ratio of 7-14% is still not shown , yes (H1) total height is shown in (fig. 1) from a first perspective and H is shown in (fig. 2) in a zoom of the bottom section only. To have a comparison as required for a ratio of 7-14% they need to be shown in comparison in the same perspective. None of the drawings show (H) being 7-14% of the total height. The start and stop of the concave towards the outside of the bottle are not clearly shown, (H) in fig. 2 appears to be chosen at will since not start or stop is defined or clearly shown.
Next to address the 112 arguments, correcting the antecedence issue is appreciated.
Next, Page 7 paragraph 3, applicant states “ Claim 1 requires that the heel is concave towards the outside of the bottle; the heel is therefore the outwardly-concave portion of the lower portion”. Ok, applicant has defined the heel, at (H), this has not been defined as the height of the heel, it has been defined loosely as “ heel is concave towards the outside of the bottle”, this has no correlation to projecting anywhere and it is not clear what is meant in the limitation. Is applicant saying the height of the heel? If the heel is referencing the curve, would a projection of the heel keep following the concave curve? Examiner interprets projection as copied below.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s next argument, “the heel being concave” applicant has not defined a start or stop for the heel. We can agree that the heel in the claims is defined as an annular heel, and that at some point the heel is concave towards the outside of the bottle. As shown in Examiner annotated drawing below.
PNG
media_image2.png
242
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant states that the claimed ratio of 7-14% of a height, that has not been clearly defined, has a critical effect of greater resistance to washing cycles with sodium hydroxide. Copied below is the specification discussing the limitation of 7-14%,
- a central dome, in particular concave outwards;
wherein said heel is concave towards the outside of the bottle;
and wherein the projection of the heel on said longitudinal axis has a length from 7
to 14% with respect to the total height of the bottle along the longitudinal axis.
A bottle according to the invention offers numerous advantages including
those set out below, in particular by virtue of the heel concave towards the outside
and of the aforesaid length of the projection of the heel on said longitudinal axis.
A greater resistance to washing cycles, in particular with sodium hydroxide:
tests have been carried out which have shown that a bottle according to the invention is capable of undergoing at least 40 washing cycles, i.e., a very high
number of cycles.
Better distribution of the polymer material. In particular, in a bottle according to the invention, versus a conventional bottle, given the same amount of material
used, the thickness of the side wall and the wall thickness of the standing ring are
greater.
This paragraph does not really define the specific ratio of 7-14% as being the critical reason for improved cycles, It stands to reason this paragraph is stating that the sidewall thickness and standing ring being greater for the better durability from washing cycles. How does this slight broadly defined curve near the bottom of the bottle result in a greater resistance to washing cycles?
In response to applicant’s next argument “Trans conformation” Applicant can be their own lexicographer, but this is not the case. Applicant states these are well understood structural characterizations of PET polymer. The cited Wikipedia article does not mention “Trans conformation” a , google search does not match applicants’ description and applicant specification does not clearly correlated to the specially referenced limitations of the claimed standing ring. If this is a material property claim, the 103 is still proper. Applicant has not invented a new material of even a new material used to make PET bottle? It appears applicant is using a known material for its intended purpose. See MPEP below discussing claimed properties.
PNG
media_image3.png
392
942
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Top summarize, the projection of the heel in not clearly understood, the ratio of the heights has not been shown in the drawings, and further the specific range of 7-15% is not critical, Trans conformation is not an standard term that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAWN M BRADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E Aviles-Bosques can be reached at 571 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAWN M BRADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights