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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title appears to be a literal translation into English.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 6b appears to be distorted on the right-hand side.
Reference character “20” has been used to designate both a bottom portion and a shoulder elevation molded segment.
They do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 89.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 21, 23, 25, and 29-31 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19, 21, 23, 25, 29 and 30 all include a limitation drawn to an “axial axis”. This limitation appears to be redundant. Does the Applicant intend to claim a longitudinal axis? A vertical axis? etc. Further clarification is required.
Claim 19 currently states “…a shoulder form structure element is molded which is respectively contoured vice versa to the bottom form structure element.” This limitation is unclear. The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state something along the lines of “…a shoulder form structure element is molded which is respectively contoured [[vice versa]] complementary to the bottom form structure element.”
Claim 25 currently states “…the bottom portion is molded polyhedral…” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “…the bottom portion is a molded polyhedral…”
Claim 31 references the container being made from a “thermoplastic plastic”. This is redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17-32 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The claims have been interpreted as best the Examiner can understand below. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. For example, the “bottom-side” and “shoulder-side” limitations do not appear to make sense in the claim. It is unclear exactly what the Applicant is attempting to claim in claim 19. Due to this lack of clarity, claim 19 is unable to be examined further such that prior art is able to be applied.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected for being indefinite as they appear to directly contradict claim 17, which they indirectly depend from. Claim 17 has a first container being above the second container, and then claims 22 and 24 state that the second container is above the first container. Further clarification is required. The claims have been interpreted below as best the Examiner can understand.
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) 17, 18, 20-27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunohara (US 2020/0270023).
Regarding Claim 17
Sunohara teaches a molded container (below – Fig. 2a-c and 5) capable of containing a medical and/or pharmaceutical preparation and for vertical stacking during transport and/or storage, the molded container defining a container interior and comprising: a bottom portion (24) at a first end of a trunk section; and a shoulder portion (22) at a second end of the trunk section that is axially opposite the first end of the trunk section, the shoulder portion having an axial extension and comprising a container neck (21) in the axial extension; the bottom portion comprising a bottom hollow (shown below) axially recessed in an end of the bottom surface of the bottom portion, the bottom hollow being axially recessed into the container interior, the bottom hollow being configured to contactlessly accommodate a second container neck of a second molded container for stacking the molded container and the second molded container, the end of the bottom surface being molded as a relief-like bottom contour surface outside the bottom hollow, the relief-like bottom contour surface comprising at least one bottom recess molded segment (24b) that is axially recessed, the relief-like bottom contour surface further comprising bottom load contact segments (24a) adjacent to the at least one bottom recess molded segment and axially protruding from the at least one bottom recess molded segment so that the at least one bottom recess molded segment is exempted from a base area of the molded container (Paragraphs [0057]-[0059]).
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom hollow)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
780
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
520
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18
Sunohara teaches the at least one bottom recess molded (24b) segment is configured to be spaced from a second shoulder portion of the second molded container by a gap dimension so that the bottom load contact segments form a load contact area exclusively at the second shoulder portion, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 20
Sunohara teaches a molded handle (below – Fig. 1a, 10) that is dimensionally stable and attached to the container neck (Fig. 5), wherein a distal molded handle grab section (13) of the molded handle extends substantially radially from the container neck (21); and at least one bottom recess molded segment (24b) is configured to be spaced from the second shoulder portion by at least a minimum gap dimension, wherein the minimum gap dimension exceeds a maximum axial molded handle outer dimension of the distal molded handle grab section, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above (Paragraph [0063]).
PNG
media_image3.png
358
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21
Sunohara teaches the at least one bottom recess molded segment (24b) extends radially; and/or the container neck (21) is arranged in a radially inner shoulder region of the shoulder portion around a central axis, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 22
Sunohara teaches the shoulder portion (22) is convexly molded outside of the container neck (21) with at least one shoulder elevation molded segment (Fig. 1b - shown at 22) between shoulder load contact segments (22a), the at least one shoulder elevation molded segment is configured to face, in a spaced manner, a third bottom recess molded segment (24b) of a third molded container so that a load contact area is divided between the shoulder load contact segments, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 23
Sunohara teaches the load contact area, in the shoulder load contact segments (22a), is formed flat in a cross-sectional plane of the shoulder portion perpendicular to the central axis, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 24
Sunohara teaches the at least one shoulder elevation molded segment is configured to engage in at least one third bottom recess molded segment (24b) in a form-locking manner.
Regarding Claim 25
Sunohara teaches the bottom portion (24) is a molded polyhedral with a plurality of corners in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to a central axis, and wherein all of the corners comprise the bottom load contact segments (24a).
Regarding Claim 26
Sunohara teaches the bottom hollow (shown above) tapers in a direction of the container interior from an opening end, first bottom hollow diameter to a base, second bottom hollow diameter of the inner bottom hollow ground across a bottom hollow depth, as can be seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding Claim 27
Sunohara teaches the molded container comprises at least one rib (shown at 23) extending at least in portions around the trunk section, as can be seen in Fig. 1a above.
Regarding Claim 30
Sunohara teaches a stacking arrangement comprising at least two molded containers according to claim 17, with the at least two molded containers being stacked vertically, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosko et al. (US 2011/0100856) (hereinafter Rosko).
Regarding Claim 17
Rosko teaches a molded container (below – Fig. 1, 5, 9, and 9a) capable of containing a medical and/or pharmaceutical preparation and for vertical stacking during transport and/or storage, the molded container defining a container interior and comprising: a bottom portion (16) at a first end of a trunk section; and a shoulder portion (18) at a second end of the trunk section that is axially opposite the first end of the trunk section, the shoulder portion having an axial extension and comprising a container neck (30) in the axial extension; the bottom portion comprising a bottom hollow (56) axially recessed in an end of the bottom surface of the bottom portion, the bottom hollow being axially recessed into the container interior, the bottom hollow being configured to contactlessly accommodate a second container neck of a second molded container for stacking the molded container and the second molded container, the end of the bottom surface being molded as a relief-like bottom contour surface outside the bottom hollow, the relief-like bottom contour surface comprising at least one bottom recess molded segment (42a-d) that is axially recessed, the relief-like bottom contour surface further comprising bottom load contact segments (40a-d, and at the corners) adjacent to the at least one bottom recess molded segment and axially protruding from the at least one bottom recess molded segment so that the at least one bottom recess molded segment is exempted from a base area of the molded container, as can be seen in the figures below (Paragraphs [0027] – [0036]).
PNG
media_image4.png
325
419
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
268
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
498
619
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
506
505
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18
Rosko teaches the at least one bottom recess molded segment (42a-d) is configured to be spaced from a second shoulder portion of the second molded container by a gap dimension so that the bottom load contact segments form a load contact area exclusively at the second shoulder portion, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 21
Rosko teaches the at least one bottom recess molded segment (42a-d) extends radially; and the container neck (30) is arranged in a radially inner shoulder region of the shoulder portion around a central axis, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 25
Rosko teaches the bottom portion (16) is a molded polyhedral with a plurality of corners in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to an axial axis, and wherein all of the corners comprise the bottom load contact segments, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 26
Rosko teaches the bottom hollow (56) tapers in a direction of the container interior from an opening end, first bottom hollow diameter to a base, second bottom hollow diameter of the inner bottom hollow ground across a bottom hollow depth, as can be seen in Fig, 9a above.
Regarding Claim 28
Rosko teaches a handhold handle (44) with two opposing handhold handle ends tangentially adjacent to two connection points (50a-b) of two opposing outer lateral surfaces of the molded container to form a handhold handle middle section (46) extending in a, arch-shape between the two opposing handhold handle ends and axially beyond the shoulder portion, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 29
Rosko teaches the handhold handle (44): is attached eccentrically with respect to the two connection points (50a-b); and/or is slanted in the two connection points respectively obliquely to a central axis.
Regarding Claim 30
Rosko teaches a stacking arrangement comprising at least two molded containers according to claim 17 with the at least two molded containers being stacked vertically, as can be seen in the figures 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) 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunohara as applied to claim 17 above.
Regarding Claims 31 and 32
Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches a method for manufacturing the molded container according to claim 17, the method comprising the steps of: molding of a thermoplastic that is suitable and/or inert with respect to the medical and/or pharmaceutical preparation (Paragraph [0057]).
Sunohara does not specifically teach molding of a thermoplastic in a thermoplastic flow state within a divisible molding tool formed and configured complementarily to the molded container; and cooling the molded container for removal in a solidified state, or filling of the molded container with the medical and/or pharmaceutical preparation.
Regarding the method including molding of the thermoplastic in a thermoplastic flow state within a divisible molding tool formed and configured complementarily to the molded container; and cooling the molded container for removal in a solidified state, these are commonly known method steps of blow-molding containers, and as such the limitations do not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding the method step of filling the molded container, the step of filling a container after it is molded is exceptionally well known in the art. The container of Sunohara is more than capable of being filled with medical and/or pharmaceutical preparations, as a matter of intended use. See MPEP 2114.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733
27 March 2026
Prosecution Insights