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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/22/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
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 and 6-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US20170137199A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a base for a beverage container, the base comprising (fig.1 shows the bottom 5 for a container 1):
a standing ring that defines a plane normal to a longitudinal axis of the base, wherein a surface of the standing ring extends in a continuous, uninterrupted circle on the plane (fig.2 below of Tanaka shows the bottom 5 and the standing ring that defines a plane normal to the longitudinal axis, see annotated fig.3 below, of the standing ring and ring extends continuous and uninterpreted on the plane); and
ribs extending radially inward from the standing ring (fig.2 below shows the ribs extending radially inwards from the standing ring), each rib comprising a first curved segment, a second curved segment, and a straight segment extending radially between the first curved segment and the second curved segment at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the base such that each rib defines an S-shape on respective cross-sectional plane that includes the longitudinal axis(see annotated fig.2 of Tanaka below for the 3 segments 1st,2nd and flat segment where the flat segment is extending at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the bottom 5 between the first and second segments and the flat segment is extending radially between the first and second curved segment and the rib is capable of defining S-shape and it has two curved segment and a flat segments; it is noted that curvature are not defined and the prior art shows the curves and a straight portions on the ribs and applicant fails to claim the S-shape positively due to such that limitation and the structure of S-shape).
Annotated fig.2 of Tanaka
PNG
media_image1.png
761
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.3 of Tanaka
PNG
media_image2.png
574
857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches a central portion; and an isolation ring surrounding the central portion and disposed between the central portion and the ribs (fig.2 shows the central portion and isolation ring that surrounds the central portion and its disposed between the ribs at the central portion).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein the ribs do not extend radially inward to the central portion (fig.2 and 3 show the ribs do not extend inward to the central portion 11, see annotated fig.4 above).
Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein each rib comprises: a height measured from a horizontal plane defined by the standing ring; and a width, wherein the height is greater than the width (annotated fig.2 above shows the rib comprising height and width and height is greater than the width where height is measure from the horizontal plane defined by the standing ring).
Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches a central portion positioned radially inward of the standing ring, wherein the base is configured to permit the central portion to move longitudinally while the standing ring remains stationary (fig.2 above shows central portion that is positioned radially inward of the standing ring and the base is capable of permitting the central portion to move longitudinally while the ring remains stationary; it is noted that “configured to” limitation is not positively claimed and holds no patentable weight)
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches an isolation ring between the central portion and the standing ring, wherein the isolation ring is configured to flex to permit the central portion to move longitudinally while the standing ring remains stationary (fig.2 above isolation ring that is between the central portion and the standing ring and wherein the isolation ring is capable of flexing to permit the central portion to move longitudinally while standing ring remains stationary).
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 6 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein the ribs are configured to tilt relative to the longitudinal axis to permit the central portion to move longitudinally while the standing ring remains stationary (see annotated fig.4 above the ribs are capable of tilting relative to the longitudinal axis to permit the central portion to move while standing ring is stationary).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 6 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches a skirt located radially outward of the standing ring, wherein the standing ring is configured to remain stationary relative to the skirt while the central portion moves longitudinally (annotated fig.3 above the skirt is the portion right above standing ring that protrudes outward of the standing ring).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka teaches a beverage container comprising (fig.1 shows the container 1):
a body extending along a central longitudinal axis (fig.1 shows the body 5 extending along central longitudinal axis i.e. x axis); and
a base comprising (fig.1 shows the bottom 5):
a standing ring (see annotated fig.2 of Tanaka above for standing ring);
a skirt located radially outward of the standing ring (see annotated fig.3 of Tanaka for the skirt located radially outward of the standing ring);
a central portion (fig.2 above shows the central portion); and
an isolation ring between the standing ring and the central portion, wherein (fig.2 above shows isolation ring between the standing ring and the central portion):
the isolation ring is configured to flex to permit the central portion to move longitudinally relative to the standing ring while the standing ring remains stationary relative to the skirt (annotated fig.2 above shows the isolation ring that is capable of flexing to permit the central portion to move longitudinally relative to the standing ring while the standing ring remains stationary; it is noted that “configured to” language is a capable to language and prior art is capable of performing that function depending on the given pressure and elements stored in the container ),
the isolation ring comprises a radially inner wall and a radially outer wall (see annotated fig.2 above that shows the isolation ring that shows the outer radial wall and the inner radial wall would be on the inside or opposite of it), and
the isolation ring is configured to flex such that an interior angle defined between the radially inner wall and the radially outer wall changes when the central portion moves longitudinally relative to the standing ring (see annotated fig.2 above for the isolation ring that is capable of flexing such that an interior angle defined between the inner and outer wall changes when the central portion moves longitudinally relative to the standing ring; it is noted that “configured to” language is a capable to language and the prior art is capable of performing such function).
Regarding claim 11, the references as applied to claim 10 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein the base comprises a flexible portion that is configured to flex such that the central portion moves longitudinally relative to the standing ring in response to changes in pressure within the beverage container, and wherein the flexible portion comprises the isolation ring (see annotated fig.3 above for the flexible portion that is capable of flexing such that central portion moved longitudinally relative to the standing ring in response to pressure changes in the container 1).
Regarding claim 12, the references as applied to claim 11 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein the isolation ring is configured to flex to increase the interior angle defined between the radially inner wall and the radially outer wall when pressure within the beverage container falls below neutral relative to atmospheric pressure (fig.2 above shoes the isolation ring capable of flexing to increasing the interior angle defined between the inner and outer wall when pressure within the container falls).
Regarding claim 13, the references as applied to claim 10 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches comprising ribs between the standing ring and the central portion, wherein each of the ribs comprises a radially inner end, and the radially inner ends are configured to move radially as the isolation ring flexes to permit the central portion to move longitudinally (fig.2 above shows the ribs between the standing ring and the central portion and the rings comprising radial inner ends and capable of moving radially as the isolation ring flexes to permit central portion longitudinally).
Regarding claim 14, the references as applied to claim 13 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein the base is configured to transition between a neutral state and an under-pressured state in response to changing in pressure within the beverage container, and wherein the radially inner ends of the ribs are configured to move radially outward when the base transitions from the neutral state to the under-pressured state (see annotated fig.2 above where the base 5 is capable of transitioning between a neutral state and an under-pressure stage and the radial inner ends of the ribs are capable to move radially outward when the base transitions from the neutral state to under-pressure state).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches a beverage container comprising (fig.1 shows the container 1):
a base comprising (fig.1 shows the bottom 5):
a skirt (annotated fig.3 above shows the skirt);
a rigid portion located radially inward of the skirt and comprising a standing ring and ribs extending radially inward from the standing ring (see annotated fig.3 and 2 above for the rigid portion located radially inward of the skirt and comprises standing ring and ribs extending inward form the standing ring); and
a flexible portion located radially inward of the rigid portion and configured to act as a diaphragm to accommodate pressure differentials, wherein the flexible portion comprises a central portion and an isolation ring located between the central portion and the ribs (see annotated fig.3 and 2 above for the flexible portion located radially inward of the rigid portion and capable of acting as a diaphragm to accommodate pressure differentials and flexible portion comprising the central portion and the isolation ring located between the central portion and the ribs); and
wherein the beverage container is configured to transition between an over-pressured state and an under-pressured state, and the central portion of the flexible portion of the base is configured to travel a greater distance in the transition between the over-pressured state and the under-pressured state than the rigid portion of the base and wherein the standing ring is configured to act as a surface-contacting portion of the base in the over-pressured state and under-pressured state (fig.1 and annotated fig.2-3 above show the container 1 that is capable of transitioning between an over and under pressure state and the central portion of the flexible portion of the bottom 5 is capable of traveling greater distance in transition between the upper and the over pressure state than the rigid portion of the bottom and the standing ring is capable of acting as a surface contacting portion of the base in over and under pressured state depending on what kind of substance is stored in eh container; it is noted that “configured to” language is a “capable to” language that the prior art is capable of performing such function).
Regarding claim 16, the references as applied to claim 15 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein the over-pressured state of the beverage container has a greater volume than the under-pressured state of the beverage container (fig.1 the over pressure state of the container 1 has a greater volume than the under-pressure state).
Regarding claim 17, the references as applied to claim 15 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein the isolation ring is configured to transition from first radial cross-sectional shape to a second radial cross-sectional shape when the beverage container transitions from the over-pressured shape to the under-pressured shape (annotated fig.2 above shows the isolation ring is capable of transitioning from first radial cross-sectional shape to a second radial cross sectional shape when the container 1 is at different pressures).
Regarding claim 18, the references as applied to claim 17 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein the isolation ring comprises a radially inner wall and a radially outer wall, and an interior angle defined between the radially inner wall and the radially outer wall is greater in the first radial cross-sectional shape than in the second radial cross-sectional shape (see annotated fig.2 above for the isolation ring that has inner and outer wall and an interior angle is defined between the walls and creates cross sectional shape and one can be greater than the other).
Regarding claim 19, the references as applied to claim 15 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein each rib comprises a straight segment extending in a direction with a radial component and a longitudinal component relative to a central longitudinal axis of the beverage container (see annotated fig.2 above for the straight segment).
Regarding claim 20, the references as applied to claim 19 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein each rib comprises a first curved segment located radially inward of the straight segment and a second curved segment located radially outward of the straight segment (see annotated fig.2 above for the first and second curved portion located radially outward and inward of the straight segment).
Regarding claim 21, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches wherein, within each rib, the straight segment is straight on the respective cross-sectional plane, and the first curved segment and the second curved segment are curved on the respective cross-sectional plane (see annotated fig.2 above for the flat segment that will be straight on the cross-sectional plane and the first and second segments curved; applicant has not defined the cross-sectional plane i.e. what is it respective to).
Regarding claim 22, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka further teaches a skirt located radially outward of the standing ring (annotated fig.3 above the skirt is the portion right above standing ring that protrudes outward of the standing ring), wherein :the skirt comprises a cylindrical portion above the standing ring (see annotated fig.3 above where the skirt had a cylindrical portion 4a above the standing ring), the skirt defines a circular horizontal cross section that maintains a circular shape as it tapers radially inward from the cylindrical portion to the standing ring such that a lower end of the skirt meets the standing ring (see annotated fig.3 above where the skirt has a circular horizontal cross section and maintains a circular shape as it tapers inwardly to the standing ring and capable of having a lower end of the skirt meet the standing ring).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Tanaka does not teach wherein the base comprises between 20 and 30 ribs. Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for quantity of ribs being between 20 and 30. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate ribs between 20 and 30 in order to reinforce the bottom so it has good resistance to inversion, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant failed to change the scope of the claims hence the same rejection with response to arguments. Applicant states that Tanaka does not disclose that its alleged ribs having foregoing features such as the S-shaped this is not persuasive as applicant has not positively claimed that shape as the claim states “such that” which is a capable of term and applicant does not even define the S-shape structure. If the S-shape structure is just the two curved sections with a flat/straight segment then Tanka discloses that feature if that is applicant definition of the S-shape. Applicant also argues claim 6-8 stating that “configured to” limitation and state the Tanaka specifically configured not to function in the ways claims but offers no evidence of why it is not. Under “B. claim 10 and claims depending from claim 10” section applicant recites a summery of rejection and an applicant response where the subsection “a” is just case law with so specific reason how that applies to this application. Under subsection “b” applicant states Tanaka does not disclose an isolation ring configured to flex to permit the central potion move longitudinally relative to the standing ring however fig.3 clearly shows the “protruding ridge 13” being moved relative to the walls. It is still maintained that it is capable of limitation and the prior art simply has to be capable of performing that function which it clearly can. Applicant states that “movement is intentional” and agrees that there is a change which is what claim 10 requires there is nowhere in the claim that states that that movement cannot be due to change in pressure or not absorb the changes in pressure. Claim requires that isolation ring is “configured to” flex when the central portion moves and the prior art is capable of performing that function whether it is through pressure or through the intervention of a user physically moving it which none of that is defined in the claim. Applicant arguments that it moves which the trunk 4 remains stationary is not persuasive as the claim recites that flex creates an interior angle defined the radially inner wall and radially outer wall changes when the central portion moves the claim does not require if the walls move or not and fig.3 of Tanaka shows the ridge 13 moving and changing the angle between the inner and outer walls as it goes up or down. Regarding the intended use of the claimed invention “configured to.....”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Applicant also argues claim 15 stating the new amendments require the surface-contact and see the rejection above for that limitation being rejected. Once again applicant has refused to positively claim the surface contact portion positively because that means when the ridge 13 moves up can the contact surface be a user’s hand? Because claim does not recite any structure to how that happens. If a user is holding the bottle during the first stage and the ridge 13 contact portion is the outer surface and its contacting the user finger and the same surface can be contacted by user’s fingers when its stage 2. Furthermore, the surface contacting portion is not even a separate structure according the claim it’s just standing ring so it can be any contact to the standing ring either the same contact that was in stage 1 or stage 2 when the central portion moves up. See the new claims rejection above. No specific arguments were made against 103.
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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights