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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Because of the Applicant’s amendment, the original objections to the abstract and specification, in the Office action filed May 7, 2026, are hereby withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-28 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. (WO 2012/029487) [Kurihara] in view of Denner et al. (2008/0047964) [Denner].
Re Amended Claim 21, Kurihara – a resin bottle with movable bottom wall – discloses a container [1] comprising: a top wall [shoulder 3]; a bottom wall [5] opposite the top wall; and a side wall [4] between the top wall and the bottom wall, wherein the bottom wall comprises a panel [12] configured to move relative to the side wall during pressure application, the panel comprising a center portion and a plurality of spaced apart radial segments [14] disposed circumferentially about the center portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kurihara does not expressly disclose that the bottom wall comprises a first portion extending axially inwardly into the chamber at an angle relative to the side wall, the bottom wall comprising a second portion extending at an angle relative to the first portion, with the first portion being angled away from the side wall. However, Denner – a plastic container with an invertible base – discloses the base wall [Denner, 20] comprises a first portion [Denner, 32] extending axially inwardly into the chamber at an angle relative to the side wall [Denner, Fig. 3, Paragraph 35 Lines 7-14], the bottom wall comprising a second portion [Denner, 40] extending at an angle relative to the first portion, with the first portion being angled away from the side wall [Denner, Figs. 2 and 3, Paragraph 35 Lines 7-14]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses the base wall has two angled portions at the bottom of the container inwardly into the container chamber. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the base portion of the Kurihara container to have the first and second portions to be angled away from the side wall, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, “in order to reduce the volume of the container and accommodate for vacuum forces within the container.” [Denner, Paragraph 9 Lines 5-6] “to compensate for a change of pressure inside the container.” [Denner, Paragraph 10 Lines 10-11]
PNG
media_image2.png
384
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 22, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the first portion extends transverse to the side wall [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Denner, 32, Paragraph 35 Lines 7-14]
Re Claim 23, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to Claim 22 above; further, the combination discloses the second portion extends transverse to the first portion [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Denner, Fig. 3].
Re Claim 24, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the second portion is spaced apart from the side wall by the first portion [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Denner, Fig. 3]
Re Claim 25, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the bottom wall is a circumferential wall [Kurihara, Fig. 1b] [Denner, Fig. 4]
Re Claim 26, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the panel is in direct communication with the bottom wall [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Denner, Fig. 2].
Re Claim 27, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the panel extends inwardly from the second portion [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Denner, Fig. 3].
Re Claim 28, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the center portion is concave [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Denner, Fig. 3].
Re Claim 30, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the first portion and the second portion define a gap [Kurihara, 16] that separates the bottom wall from the side wall [Kurihara, Fig. 1a].
Re Claim 31, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to Claim 30 above; further, the combination discloses the gap prevents the bottom wall from rubbing against the side wall during movement of the panel relative to the side wall during the pressure application [Kurihara, Fig. 3].
Re Claim 32, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the panel is angled [Kurihara, Figs. 1 and 3].
Re Claim 33, Kurihara in view of Denner discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the center portion is circular [Kurihara, Fig. 1b].
Claims 21-28 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. (WO 2012/029487) [Kurihara] in view of Silvers (6,595,380).
Re Amended Claim 21, Kurihara – a resin bottle with movable bottom wall – discloses a container [1] comprising: a top wall [shoulder 3]; a bottom wall [5] opposite the top wall; and a side wall [4] between the top wall and the bottom wall, wherein the bottom wall comprises a panel [12] configured to move relative to the side wall during pressure application, the panel comprising a center portion and a plurality of spaced apart radial segments [14] disposed circumferentially about the center portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kurihara does not expressly disclose that the bottom wall comprises a first portion extending axially inwardly into the chamber at an angle relative to the side wall, the bottom wall comprising a second portion extending at an angle relative to the first portion, with the first portion being angled away from the side wall. However, Silvers – a container base responsive to vacuum forces – discloses the bottom wall [Silvers, 14] comprises a first portion [Silvers, 32] extending axially inwardly into the chamber at an angle relative to the side wall [Silvers, Fig. 2, Col. 4 Lines 57-59], the bottom wall comprising a second portion [Silvers, 34] extending at an angle relative to the first portion, with the first portion being angled away from the side wall [Silvers, Fig. 2]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses the base has two angled portions inwardly projecting from the sidewall. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the Kurihara base portion to have a first and second inwardly projecting portions for the base, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, “for a plastic container which maintains aesthetic and mechanical integrity during any subsequent handling after being hot filled and cooled to ambient.” [Silvers, Col. 3 Lines 20-23], to improve the structure [Silvers, Col. 5 Lines 7-9 and 12-17].
PNG
media_image3.png
448
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 22, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the first portion extends transverse to the side wall [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Silvers, Fig. 2]
Re Claim 23, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to Claim 22 above; further, the combination discloses the second portion extends transverse to the first portion [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Silvers, Fig. 2].
Re Claim 24, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the second portion is spaced apart from the side wall by the first portion [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Silvers, Fig. 2].
Re Claim 25, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the bottom wall is a circumferential wall [Kurihara, Fig. 1b] [Silvers, Fig. 1].
Re Claim 26, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the panel is in direct communication with the bottom wall [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Silvers, Fig. 2].
Re Claim 27, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the panel extends inwardly from the second portion [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Silvers, Fig. 2].
Re Claim 28, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the center portion is concave [Kurihara, Fig. 1a] [Silvers, Fig. 2].
Re Claim 30, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the first portion and the second portion define a gap [Kurihara, 16] that separates the bottom wall from the side wall [Kurihara, Fig. 1a].
Re Claim 31, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to Claim 30 above; further, the combination discloses the gap prevents the bottom wall from rubbing against the side wall during movement of the panel relative to the side wall during the pressure application [Kurihara, Fig. 3].
Re Claim 32, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the panel is angled [Kurihara, Figs. 1 and 3].
Re Claim 33, Kurihara in view of Silvers discloses the invention according to amended Claim 21 above; further, the combination discloses the center portion is circular [Kurihara, Fig. 1b] [Silvers, Fig. 2].
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Kurihara in view of Denner, or Kurihara in view of Silvers as applied to amended claim 21 above, and further in view of Steinke (6,065,624).
Neither the Kurihara/Denner nor the Kurihara/Silvers combination expressly discloses that at least one of the segments is tapered toward the center portion. However, Steinke – a plastic blow molded water bottle – discloses one of the segments [Steinke, near 48, Fig. 4] toward the center portion. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses the segments for the bottom panel are tapered toward a center of the panel. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the strengthening ribs of the Kurihara panel to have a tapered portion toward the center, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, “having an improved construction for withstanding internal pressure.” [Steinke, Col. 1 Lines 24-25]
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 8 Line 10 to Page 9 Line 10, filed June 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 21 under §102(a)(1) anticipating Kurihara, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amended Claim 21 rejected under §103 as obvious over either Kurihara in view of Denner, or Kurihara in view of Silvers, as mentioned above.
In response to applicant's argument that Claim 29 is allowable {Remarks, Section V}, the Applicant adds no new arguments other than Kurihara does not meet the claim limitations according to amended Claim 21.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 34-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, and there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 7, 2026.
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 ROBERT J HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1893. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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 Aviles-Bosques 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.
/ROBERT J HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights