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 Species I in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is an “unsupported conclusory statement” and “no prior art whatsoever in support of the allegation”. Applicant further cites MPEP 1893.03(d). This is not found persuasive because this applies to a shared special technical feature making a contribution over prior art. The restriction as set out states that the groups do not share the same technical feature. The features are as stated in each of the species and subspecies groupings set forth in the restriction requirement from 05/06/2026 and are not just conclusionary statement. This type of restriction does not require any prior art. Prior art is provided when a shared technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025 and 09/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-2 and 8-13 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “the feet and the valleys together forming a petaloid foot formation having axial symmetry around the longitudinal axis of the bottle”, this is unclear. How is this measured (frame of reference)? Does this mean there is an even amount of feet? As shown in figure 2 there is not symmetry of the feet and valley using the longitudinal axis x. When looking at figure 3 there is no symmetry when looking at the center of the petaloid. Does this mean the feet and valleys extend the same distance from the center line? It is unclear what structure will meet this limitation.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “a maximum foot depth being the maximum normal distance from the underlying geometrical form to a surface of a foot”, this is unclear. As shown in Fig. 2 the length F is denoted as the maximum foot depth, but the maximum foot depth would be from the underlying geometrical form (S1) meets the bottom of the sidewall, shown at the bottom left side in Fig. 2. How is that a maximum foot depth? Does the applicant mean a foot depth where a line normal to the underlying shape is the longest?
It is unclear is the structure of the petaloid is the one disclosed by the figures and what structure is required to meet the limitations as claimed.
Claims not specifically mentioned are included due to their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights