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 Amendment
Claims 1-17, 19-20 are pending.
Claims 15, and 19 are amended.
Claim 18 is canceled.
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, 8-11, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekine (JP 2013203409 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sekine discloses, A container comprising: a base (See annotated fig. below);a neck (See annotated fig. below) defining an outlet (11); and a body positioned between the base and the neck, the body including: a plurality of ribs (See annotated fig. below) extending around a periphery of the body and along at least a portion of a height of the body; a plurality of channels (See annotated fig. below; channels are going all around the bottle as annotated ) extending around the periphery and positioned between the plurality of ribs; and a plurality of support columns (See annotated fig. below) spaced about the periphery and extending along at least a portion of the height of the body; wherein: each of the plurality of support columns includes a plurality of protrusions (22b) that are vertically aligned; each of the plurality of protrusions is disposed within a respective one of the plurality of channels; and the plurality of protrusions include a first plurality of protrusions having a first size (See annotated fig. below) and a second plurality of protrusions having a second size (See annotated fig. below) different from the first size.
PNG
media_image1.png
868
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Sekine discloses, the body includes: an upper portion; a lower portion; and an intermediate portion positioned between the upper portion and the lower portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
871
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Sekine discloses none of the plurality of protrusions are positioned along the intermediate portion. (See annotated figs above).
Regarding claim 10, Sekine discloses, the plurality of ribs include a plurality of upper ribs (See annotated fig. below) defined along the upper portion and a plurality of lower ribs (See annotated fig. below) defined along the lower portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
836
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sekine discloses, each of the plurality of upper ribs has at least one of (a) a different height than each of the plurality of lower ribs each of the plurality of upper ribs has at least one of (a) a different height than each of the plurality of lower ribs (the ribs are at different height as shown in annotated fig. of claim 10) or (b) a different diameter than each of the plurality of lower ribs.
Regarding claim 13, Sekine discloses, the upper portion has a first height (See annotated fig. below) and the lower portion has a second height (See annotated fig. below), and wherein the first height is greater than the second height .
Regarding claim 19, Sekine discloses, A single use plastic water bottle comprising: a base (See annotated fig. below) ;an outlet (11) ; and a body positioned between the base and the outlet, the body including: a plurality of channels (See annotated fig. below) extending around a periphery of the body and along at least a portion of a height of the body; a plurality of ribs (See annotated fig. below) extending around the periphery and positioned between the plurality of channels; and a plurality of support columns (See annotated fig. below) spaced about the periphery, each of the plurality of support columns including a plurality of vertically aligned protrusions having different sizes (first and second size as annotated below) that alternate along the body.
PNG
media_image4.png
868
487
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dorrmann (DE 102019105005).
Regarding claim 2, Sekine discloses, the plurality of protrusions are a plurality of support column protrusions (22b in the upper portion ).
However, Sekine does not disclose wherein the body includes a support ring positioned below the plurality of support columns, wherein the support ring includes a plurality of support ring protrusions spaced about the periphery and disposed within a lowermost one of the plurality of channels, and wherein the plurality of support ring protrusions are offset from the plurality of support columns such that each of the plurality of support ring protrusions is positioned between an adjacent pair of the plurality of support columns.
Dorrmann discloses, wherein the body includes a support ring (ring in which 45b,c are placed) positioned below the plurality of support columns, wherein the support ring includes a plurality of support ring protrusions (45b. c) spaced about the periphery and disposed within a lowermost one of the plurality of channels, and wherein the plurality of support ring protrusions are offset from the plurality of support columns (45b,c is offset from 43b, 44b) such that each of the plurality of support ring protrusions is positioned between an adjacent pair of the plurality of support columns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sekine to incorporate wherein the body includes a support ring positioned below the plurality of support columns, wherein the support ring includes a plurality of support ring protrusions spaced about the periphery in the support ring, wherein the plurality support ring protrusions are offset from the plurality of support columns such that each of the plurality of support ring protrusions is positioned between an adjacent pair of the plurality of support columns. as taught by Dorrmann for the purpose of improving the reinforcement of the body.
Regarding claim 3, Sekine as modified discloses, the plurality of support ring protrusions (45b,c) but does not disclose, support ring protrusions have the first size.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sekine to incorporate plurality of support ring protrusions have the first size, motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Regarding claim 4, Sekine discloses, the first size is larger than the second size (See annotated fig. of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Sekine as modified does not disclose, the base includes a plurality of feet with a plurality of recesses positioned between the plurality of feet, and wherein a first one of the plurality of support column protrusions aligns with a first one of the plurality of feet and a first one of the plurality of support ring protrusions aligns with a second one of the plurality of feet.
Dorrmann discloses a base including a plurality of feet with a plurality of recesses positioned between the plurality of feet (21, 23), wherein a first one of the plurality of support column protrusions aligns with a first one of the plurality of feet and a first one of the plurality of support ring protrusions aligns with a second one of the plurality of feet (21, 23 aligns with 45b, 45b; middle of 21 and 23 feet aligns with 43b, 44b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sekine to incorporate base includes a plurality of feet with a plurality of recesses positioned between the plurality of feet, and wherein a first one of the plurality of support column protrusions aligns with a first one of the plurality of feet and a first one of the plurality of support ring protrusions aligns with a second one of the plurality of feet as taught by Dorrmann for the purpose of improving the strength of the bottom.
Regarding claim 6, Sekine as modified does not disclose the base includes a plurality of feet with a plurality of recesses positioned between the plurality of feet, and wherein none of the plurality of support columns align with the plurality of recesses.
Dorrmann discloses a base includes a plurality of feet (21, 23)with a plurality of recesses (space between 21, and 23) positioned between the plurality of feet, and wherein none of the plurality of support columns align with the plurality of recesses (42b, 43b,44b aligns with feet and not recess; Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sekine to have base that includes a plurality of feet with a plurality of recesses positioned between the plurality of feet, and wherein none of the plurality of support columns align with the plurality of recesses as taught by Dorrmann for the purpose of improving the strength of the bottom.
Claim(s) 7, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine as applied to claim 1, 8, and 19 above respectively.
Regarding claim 7, and 20, Sekine discloses, an arrangement of the plurality of support columns, the first plurality of protrusions, and the second plurality of protrusions.
The limitation “facilitate providing a height expansion of the container that is less than or equal to 3.5% of an overall height thereof when pressurized at 0.75 bar above atmospheric pressure for one hour while at a temperature of 22o C.” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Sekine has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Sekine discloses, the container has a first outermost diameter along the lower portion, a second outermost diameter along the upper portion, a third outermost diameter along the neck, and a fourth outermost diameter along the base but does not appear to disclose the second outermost diameter is less than the first outermost diameter, the third outermost diameter, and the fourth outermost diameter, and wherein the third outermost diameter is less than or equal to the first outermost diameter and the fourth outermost diameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sekine to incorporate disclose the second outermost diameter is less than the first outermost diameter, the third outermost diameter, and the fourth outermost diameter, and wherein the third outermost diameter is less than or equal to the first outermost diameter and the fourth outermost diameter, motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the office action fail to disclose, support column that are within respective channels. The applicant alleges that the channels as annotated are empty and the support column are next to the channel. The examiner respectfully disagrees, and replies that the channels are all around the bottle in between ribs and support columns are within each respective channels. The annotated fig as below shows channels that are going around while support column of different sizes are within respective channel
PNG
media_image5.png
868
487
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The applicant further argues that, the office action equates circumferential groove 21 of Sekine to be the claimed channel to which the examiner respectfully disagrees. Element 21 is not the channel but channel is what is annotated above in the figure above. The annotated fig. as above clearly shows support column with protrusions of different sizes that are within respective channels as claimed.
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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights