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 § 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yourist et al (Yourist) (US2023/0064902).
20. A container (Figs. 1-16) for pharmaceutical, medical, cosmetic, dietetic and/or food products (where the container can be used for such), comprising: an interior surface (below Fig. 9) with at least one undercut section (below Fig. 9), at least one portion of the container having a maximum average wall thickness (thickness of the wall), wherein the interior of the container is at least partially rotationally shaped (Fig. 3) along a longitudinal axis and comprises a closed bottom (base) at one end of the longitudinal axis and an open top (in the below Fig. 9) at an opposite end of the longitudinal axis; a body portion (Fig. 3 at 12 and in the below Fig. 9) extending from the closed bottom towards the open top; a neck portion (in the below Fig. 9) extending between the body portion and the open top; a mouth portion (in the below Fig. 9) extending between the open top and the neck portion; and a shoulder portion (in the below Fig. 9) extending between the neck portion and the body portion (Fig. 9), an inside of the shoulder portion having a truncated cone shape (slanted shape) tapering towards the open top (Fig. 9), wherein the shoulder portion is separable into two parts by a safety-lock portion (in the below Fig. 9), a lower part (in the below Fig. 9) of the shoulder portion facing the closed bottom being configured to connect the body portion with the safety-lock portion (Fig. 9) while an upper part (in the below Fig. 9) of the shoulder portion facing the open top is configured to connect the safety-lock portion with the neck portion (Fig. 9). Yourist DIFFERS, in that it does not disclose at least one portion of the container having a maximum average wall thickness (thickness of the wall). 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 Yourist, by employing the thickness to be 0.8mm, in order to have an alternative thickness that can provide superior wall strength.
PNG
media_image1.png
779
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendment of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 15-17 define over the prior art, Examiner agrees. Applicant argues new claim 20 is allowable, Examiner disagrees. Please see the updated rejection above, on how the prior art reads on the new claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Amended claims 1-6, 8-9, and 12-17 are allowable. Regarding claim 21, lines 11-15 are not obvious, in light of the other claim limitations of claim 21.
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