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 § 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) 1-4, 8-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (JP 2009286457 (A)) which in figures 4 and 5 disclose the following claimed invention:
PNG
media_image1.png
558
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1: a container 1 formed from a polymeric (PET) parison 11 by injection blow molding, the container 1 comprising: a finish 2 defining an opening (opening in2); a body 3 defining an internal volume of the container 1; and a base 4 including a standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4) configured to support the container 1 upright when seated on a flat surface (see figure 4), an inner surface of the base 4 defines a lower end (adjacent 5) of the internal volume, the inner surface slopes downward from a sidewall to a radial center of the base 4 such that the radial center (adjacent 5) is a lowermost portion of the inner surface of the base 4 and the inner surface provides a funnel directing contents of the internal volume down to the radial center of the base 4 (see figure 4 directly above).
It should be noted that, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Takahashi et al. further discloses:
In re claim 2: the standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4) has a thickness that is greater than a remainder of the base 4 (see figure 4 directly above).
In re claim 3: the standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4) has a thickness that is greater than a sidewall thickness of the body 3 (see figure 4 directly above).
In re claim 4: the standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4) has a thickness that is greater than any other thickness of the container 1 (see figure 4 directly above).
In re claim 8: the container is a monolithic container 1 formed entirely by injection blow molding a parison (see [0006]-[0007]).
It should be noted that, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
In re claim 9: the base 4 is monolithic (see figures 4 and 5).
In re claim 12: the base 4 includes an outer surface surrounded by the standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4), the outer surface is angled outward such that a lowermost portion of the outer surface is at the radial center (adjacent 5) of the base 4 (see figure 4 directly above).
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) 5-7, 10-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP 2009286457 (A)) in view of Dhuppad et al. (US 2021/0220574). Takahashi et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations that are taught by Dhuppad et al.:
In re claim 5: a container 210 that is a spray bottle (see figure 2 and [0022] of Dhuppad et al.).
In re claim 6: a spray tip in cooperation with the finish; and a tube 250 extending from the spray tip nearly to the radial center 230 of the base 220 (see figure 2 and [0022] of Dhuppad et al.).
In re claim 7: the tube 250 extends along a longitudinal axis of the container 230, the longitudinal axis extending through a radial center of the finish and the radial center of the base 230 (see figure 2 and [0072]-[0073] of Dhuppad et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the pump tip assembly of Takahashi et al. with a spray tip assembly as taught by Dhuppad et al. in order to allow for the liquid to be removed in a desired way depending on the liquid being stored (see figure 2, [0022] and [0072]-[0073] of Dhuppad et al.).
In re claim 10: the inner surface of the base 220 has a V-shape in cross-section (see figure 2 of Dhuppad et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the U-shaped cross-section of Takahashi et al. with the V-shaped cross-section as taught by Dhuppad et al. as a slightly improved means to direct contents to the center of the base when in use (see figure 2 of Dhuppad et al.).
In re claim 11: the container 210 is formed from high-density polyethylene (see [0082] of Dhuppad et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the PET material of Takahashi et al. with the HDPE material as taught by Dhuppad et al. as an equivalent material in order to provide the correct protection for the liquid that will be stored within the container (see [0082] of Dhuppad et al.). Furthermore, 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.
In re claim 13: Takahashi et al. discloses a container 1 formed from a polymeric material (PET), the container 1 comprising: a finish 2 defining an opening (opening in 2); a pump tip 22 in cooperation with the finish 2; a body 3 defining an internal volume of the container 1; a base 4 including a standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4) configured to support the container 1 upright when seated on a flat surface (see figure 4), an inner surface of the base 4 defines a lower end (adjacent 5) of the internal volume, the inner surface slopes downward from a sidewall to a radial center (adjacent 5) of the base 4 such that the radial center (adjacent 5) is a lowermost portion of the inner surface of the base 4 and the inner surface provides a funnel directing contents of the internal volume down to the radial center (adjacent 5) of the base 4; and a tube 23 extending from the pump tip 22 nearly to the radial center (adjacent 5) of the base 4, the tube 23 extending along a longitudinal axis of the container 1, the longitudinal axis extending through a radial center of the finish 2 and the radial center of the base 4; wherein the finish 2, the body 3 , and the base 4 including the standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4) are monolithic (see figure 4 of Takahashi et al. above).
Takahashi et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by :
a container 210 that is a spray bottle with a spray tip (see figure 2 and [0022] of Dhuppad et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the pump tip assembly of Takahashi et al. with a spray tip assembly as taught by Dhuppad et al. in order to allow for the liquid to be removed in a desired way depending on the liquid being stored (see figure 2, [0022] and [0072]-[0073] of Dhuppad et al.).
In re claim 14: the finish 2, the body 3, and the base 4 are formed entirely from a parison 11 by injection blow molding (see [0006]-[0007] of Takahashi et al.).
It should be noted that, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
In re claim 15: the inner surface of the base 220 has a V-shape in cross-section (see figure 2 of Dhuppad et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the U-shaped cross-section of Takahashi et al. with the V-shaped cross-section as taught by Dhuppad et al. as a slightly improved means to direct contents to the center of the base when in use (see figure 2 of Dhuppad et al.).
In re claim 16: the container 210 is formed from high-density polyethylene (see [0082] of Dhuppad et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the PET material of Takahashi et al. with the HDPE material as taught by Dhuppad et al. as an equivalent material in order to provide the correct protection for the liquid that will be stored within the container (see [0082] of Dhuppad et al.). Furthermore, 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.
In re claim 17: the base 4 includes an outer surface surrounded by the standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4), the outer surface is angled outward such that a lowermost portion of the outer surface is at the radial center (adjacent 5) of the base 4 (see figure 4 above of Takahashi et al.).
In re claim 18: the standing ring has a thickness that is greater than a remainder of the base the standing ring (ring at the perimeter of the base 4) has a thickness that is greater than a remainder of the base 4 (see figure 4 above of Takahashi et al.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for prior art that teaches and suggest structural limitations of the claimed and disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 EST.
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 Stashick can be reached at (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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights