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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are related. This is not found persuasive because although the claims are related in that they involve a container and its manufacture, the inventions are independent and distinct. Claims 1–17 are directed to a container defined by structural features, including an interior undercut and a specified maximum wall thickness, whereas claims 18–19 are directed to a method and apparatus requiring a collapsible core molding technique to form and remove the undercut. A search directed to the claimed container structure would not reasonably be expected to disclose or suggest the specific collapsible core mechanism, and a search directed to collapsible core molding techniques would not reasonably be expected to disclose the claimed container structure, including the recited wall thickness. Accordingly, examination of both groups would require searches in different fields of art, resulting in a serious search burden, and restriction is therefore proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nemoto (US8,567,625).
1. Nemoto teaches a container for pharmaceutical, medical, cosmetic, dietetic and/or food products (Fig. 13), comprising: an interior surface with at least one undercut (43) section, wherein at least one portion of the container has a maximum average wall thickness of 0.8 mm (column 9, lines 28-30).
3. The container according to claim 1, wherein the at least one portion is a closed
bottom, a body portion extending between the closed bottom and an open top, a neck portion extending between the body portion and the open top, a safety-lock portion (thread) extending between the body portion and the neck portion, or a shoulder portion extending between the body portion and the neck portion (Fig. 13).
7. The container according to claim 1, wherein the interior of the container is at
least partially rotationally shaped along a longitudinal axis and comprises a closed bottom at one end of the longitudinal axis and an open top at an opposite end of the longitudinal axis (Fig. 13).
8. The container according to claim 7, wherein the undercut section is located
between a smallest diameter of the interior and a largest diameter of the interior between the smallest diameter and the closed bottom (Fig. 13).
10. The container according to claim 7, further comprising: a body portion extending from the closed bottom towards the open top; a neck portion extending between the body portion and the open top; and a mouth portion extending between the open top and the neck portion (Fig. 13).
12. The container according to claim 10, further comprising a safety-lock portion (threads) extending between the neck portion (upper portion of the neck) and the body portion.
15. The container according to claim 10, wherein: the at least one undercut section is realized by: a portion between a shoulder portion and the mouth portion, and/or the shoulder portion; the container comprises at least two undercut sections being realized by: the portion between the neck portion and the mouth portion and at least a part of the shoulder portion, or an upper and lower part of the shoulder portion; or the container comprises at least three undercut sections being realized by a portion between the neck portion and the mouth portion, the upper part of the shoulder portion, and the
lower part of the shoulder portion (Fig. 13).
16.The container according to claim 1, wherein an exterior of the container
comprises: threads at an exterior of a neck portion configured to threadedly close the container; and/or a safety-lock configured to restrict removable of a closure from the container (Fig. 13).
17. The container according to claim 1, wherein the container comprises a
Polymer (Fig. 13).
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) 2, 4-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto.
2. The container according to claim 1, Nemoto DIFFERS in that it does not disclose wherein the wall thickness has a standard deviation of less than 0.02 mm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Nemoto, by employing such a wall thickness, in order to have a desired weight for the container.
4. The container according to claim 1, Nemoto DIFFERS in that it does not disclose wherein at least two portions of the container have an average wall thickness differing from each other by less than 0.07 mm, the at least two portions are selected from the group consisting of a body portion extending between a closed bottom and an open top of the container, a neck portion extending between the body portion and the open top, a safety-lock portion extending between the body portion and the neck portion, and a shoulder portion extending between the body portion and the neck portion. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Nemoto, by employing such a wall thickness, in order to have a desired weight for the container.
5. The container according to claim 1, Nemoto DIFFERS in that it does not disclose wherein the container is an injection-molded container, the container being produced by a two-step injection molding method comprising: providing a cavity member defining an exterior surface of the container; providing a core member defining an interior surface of the container with at least one undercut section; bringing the cavity member and the core member into a position, in which a molding chamber is formed between the cavity member and the core member; injecting material into the molding chamber to mold the container; and removing the core member from the interior of the container. Regarding the term “injection molded”, such limitation is being treated as the product-by-process claim, and the determination of patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir.1985). See MPEP § 2113. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Nemoto, by employing such a method of making the container, in order to have an alternative cost effective way of making the container.
6. The container according to claim 5, wherein the core member collapses to
facilitate passing the undercut section (this occurs when the reference has been modified).
9. The container according to claim 8, Nemoto DIFFERS in that it does not disclose wherein the largest diameter divided by the smallest diameter defines an undercut ratio of at least 1.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Nemoto, by employing such a wall thickness, in order to have a desired weight for the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13 and 14 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights