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 Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim currently says “A method for manufacturing the plurality of identical molded containers according to claim 17, the method comprising the steps of, for each of the plurality of identical molded containers:…”. This wording is awkward. The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “A method for manufacturing the plurality of identical molded containers according to claim 17, the method, for each of the plurality of identical molded containers, comprising the steps of, [[for each of the plurality of identical molded containers]]:…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 36 states “the proximal end of the first handle portion is connected to a ring section surrounding the container neck by a pivot.” This is not described anywhere in the specification and there is no pivoting shown in the figures. The claim has been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
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) 17, 18, 20-27, and 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunohara (US 2020/0270023) in view of Thompson (US 4372454).
Regarding Claim 17
Sunohara (below – Fig. 2a-c and 5) teaches a plurality of identical molded containers capable of containing a medical and/or pharmaceutical preparation and for vertical stacking during transport and/or storage, each of the plurality of identical molded containers defining a respective container interior and comprising: a trunk section (23) extending along a vertical axis, the vertical axis extending in an upwards direction and a downwards direction opposite the upwards direction; a bottom portion (24) at a first end of the trunk section; a shoulder portion (22) at a second end of the trunk section that is spaced in the upwards direction from the bottom portion, the shoulder portion having load contact areas (22a) facing in the upwards direction; a container neck (21) extending from the shoulder portion in the upwards direction; the bottom portion comprising a bottom surface (24a/b/c) and a bottom hollow (shown below), the bottom hollow extending from the bottom surface along the upwards direction to be axially recessed into the container interior, the bottom hollow being configured to contactlessly accommodate therein a respective container neck of a second one of the plurality of identical molded containers, the bottom surface comprising bottom load contact segments (24a) facing in the downwards direction, and at least one bottom recess segment (24b/c) between at least two bottom load contact segments, the at least one bottom recess segment being spaced from the bottom load contact segments along the upwards direction; and a handle (10) (Paragraphs [0057]-[0059]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom hollow)]
PNG
media_image1.png
780
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
520
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
327
273
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sunohara does not teach a T-shaped handle secured to the container neck and having a single first handle portion extending away from the vertical axis from a proximal end at the container neck to a distal end, a single second handle portion extending in a first direction away from the distal end of the first handle portion to a free end of the second handle portion, and a single third handle portion extending in a second direction away from the distal end of the first handle portion to a free end of the third handle portion, the second direction being opposite the first direction.
Thompson (Fig. 1B) teaches a molded container capable of containing a medical and/or pharmaceutical preparation comprising: a body portion (2); a container neck (shown before) extending from the body portion in the upwards direction; and a T-shaped handle (3) secured to the container neck and having a single first handle portion (shown below) extending away from the vertical axis from a proximal end at the container neck to a distal end, a single second handle portion (shown below) extending in a first direction away from the distal end of the first handle portion to a free end of the second handle portion, and a single third handle portion (shown below) extending in a second direction away from the distal end of the first handle portion to a free end of the third handle portion, the second direction being opposite the first direction, as can be seen in the figure below (Col. 3, Ln. 5-21, and Col. 4, Ln. 30-58).
[AltContent: textbox (Second portion)][AltContent: textbox (Third portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First portion)]
PNG
media_image4.png
347
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sunohara and Thompson are analogous inventions in the field of containers with handles secured to the neck. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the handle of Sunohara with the teachings of T-shaped handle of Thompson as Thompson teaches a handle having the shape of Sunohara (Fig. 1a – Sunohara & Fig. 3 – Thompson) is a functional equivalent of the handle of Thompson (Fig. 1B), to achieve the predictable result of carrying the container. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 18
Sunohara in view of Thompson (hereinafter “modified Sunohara”) teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches the bottom load contact segments (24a) are configured to contact respective load contact areas (22a) of a respective shoulder portion of the second one of the plurality of identical molded containers, with the at least one bottom recess segment (24b/c) being contactlessly spaced from the respective shoulder portion of the second one of the plurality of identical molded containers by a gap dimension, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Thompson further teaches the first handle portion extends substantially radially away from the container neck, as can be seen in Fig. 1B above.
Regarding Claim 21
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches the at least one bottom recess segment (24b/c) extends radially away from the bottom hollow; and the container neck (21) is arranged in a radially inner region of the shoulder portion around the vertical axis, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 22
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches the shoulder portion comprises at least one convex portion (shown at 20, below) extending in the upwards direction between at least two of the load contact areas (22a), wherein the at least one convex portion is configured to contactlessly extend into a respective bottom recess segment of a third one of the plurality of identical molded containers, as can be seen in to the figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
346
549
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches the load contact areas (22a) are flat in a cross-sectional plane of the shoulder portion perpendicular to the vertical axis, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 24
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches the at least one convex portion (shown above) is configured to engage the respective bottom recess segment (24b/c) of the third one of the plurality of identical molded containers in a form-locking manner, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 25
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches the bottom portion (24) comprises a polyhedral shape with a plurality of corners in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the vertical axis, and wherein some or all of the corners comprise the bottom load contact segments (24a).
Regarding Claim 26
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches the bottom hollow tapers to reduce in diameter along the upwards direction, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 27
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Sunohara further teaches each of the plurality of identical molded containers comprises at least one rib (23) extending at least in portions around the trunk section, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 30
Modified Sunohara teaches a stacking arrangement comprising at least two of the plurality of identical molded containers according to claim 17; being stacked along the vertical axis.
Regarding Claims 31 and 32
Modified Sunohara further teaches a method for manufacturing the plurality of identical molded containers according to claim 17, the method, for each of the plurality of identical molded containers, 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 material 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 material 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 modified Sunohara is more than capable of being filled with medical and/or pharmaceutical preparations, as a matter of intended use. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 33
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Modified Sunohara further teaches the at least one bottom recess segment (24c) is dimensioned to contactlessly accommodate therein a respective T-shaped handle of the second one of the plurality of identical molded containers, as can be seen in Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 34
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Modified Sunohara does not teach the distal end of the first handle portion extends to an outer perimeter of the trunk section.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to have teach the distal end of the first handle portion extend to an outer perimeter of the trunk section, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that having the distal end of the first handle portion extending to an outer perimeter of the trunk section provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the distal end of the first handle portion extending to an outer perimeter of the trunk section does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 35
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Thompson further teaches the second handle portion is connected to the third handle portion only at the distal end of the first handle portion, as can be seen in Fig. 1B above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sunohara as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lane (US 2007/0114200).
Regarding Claim 19
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as shown above. Modified Sunohara does not teach at least one bottom load contact segment comprises a concave structure element configured to receive a corresponding convex structure element of the respective shoulder portion of the second one of the plurality of identical molded containers.
Lane (Fig., 1, 3, and 4) teaches a plurality of identical molded containers capable of containing a medical and/or pharmaceutical preparation and for vertical stacking during transport and/or storage, each of the plurality of identical molded containers defining a respective container interior and comprising: a trunk section (12/14/16/18) extending along a vertical axis, the vertical axis extending in an upwards direction and a downwards direction opposite the upwards direction; a bottom portion (42/44/46) at a first end of the trunk section; a shoulder portion (4/28) at a second end of the trunk section that is spaced in the upwards direction from the bottom portion, the shoulder portion having load contact areas (4) facing in the upwards direction; a container neck (8) extending from the shoulder portion in the upwards direction; the bottom portion comprising a bottom surface (42) and a bottom hollow (44), the bottom hollow extending from the bottom surface along the upwards direction to be axially recessed into the container interior, the bottom hollow being configured to contactlessly accommodate therein a respective container neck of a second one of the plurality of identical molded containers (Fig. 4), the bottom surface comprising bottom load contact segments (42) facing in the downwards direction; wherein the bottom load contact segments (42) are configured to contact respective load contact areas (4) of a respective shoulder portion of the second one of the plurality of identical molded containers; and wherein at least one bottom load contact segment (42) comprises a concave structure element (46) configured to receive a corresponding convex structure element (28) of the respective shoulder portion of the second one of the plurality of identical molded containers, as can be seen in the figures below (Paragraphs [0028], [0029], [0032], and [0033]).
PNG
media_image6.png
564
399
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
490
393
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
602
334
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Modified Sunohara and Lane are analogous inventions in the field of stackable containers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the bottom load contact segments and shoulder portion of modified Sunohara with the teachings of the concave and convex structure elements of Lane in order to allow for more secure interlocking of the stacking containers (Paragraph [0028]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sunohara as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Chalekian et al. (US 8047387) (hereinafter Chalekian).
Regarding Claim 36
Modified Sunohara teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as shown above. Thompson further teaches the proximal end of the first handle portion is connected to a ring section (4) surrounding the container neck, as can be seen in Fig. 1B above. Modified Sunohara does not specifically teach the proximal end of the first handle portion is connected to a ring section surrounding the container neck by a pivot.
Chalekian (Fig. 1A and 1B) teaches a molded container having a neck (240) with a handle (70) having a proximal end of a first handle portion connected to a ring section (40) surrounding the container neck by a pivot (98) (Col. 6, Ln. 64 – Col. 7, Ln. 17).
PNG
media_image9.png
289
414
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Modified Sunohara and Chalekian are analogous inventions in the field of containers having handles connected to their necks. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container of modified Sunohara with the teachings of the handle being connected to a ring section by a pivot of Chalekian in order to allow for the handle to be moved between a storage position and a use position (Col. 6, Ln. 3-8 and 42-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 9 September 2026
Prosecution Insights