Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/171,831

Bottle for containing liquid

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Examiner
CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Kyung Il Jung
OA Round
2 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
790 granted / 1217 resolved
-5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1256
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1217 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 1-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mero (US 6666001) in view of Chisholm (US 2006/0108318). Mero discloses a single-piece bottle comprising: a cap-engaging portion (top portion with external threads capable of engaging the internal threads of a cap) defining an opening of the single-piece bottle and configured to engage with a bottle cap; a body portion (shoulder portion 14, body portion 16 and including midsection 40 of bottom portion 20) coupled to the cap-engaging portion and comprising a body inner surface defining a liquid-containing space therein; and at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide (IPSG) (one of the exterior grooves 46 forms an inwardly protruding rib or IPSG) formed on the body inner surface, wherein the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide is configured to guide the flow of the fluid as it is discharged from the interior space through the cap-engaging portion, wherein the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide extends from a first position (position of top end of IPSG) proximate to the cap-engaging portion toward a second position (any lower position of IPSG) located below the first portion within the body portion, wherein a diameter of the body portion at the first position is smaller than a diameter of the body portion at the second position, wherein the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide generally spirally extends about a central axis of the bottle that passes through the liquid-containing space. Mero fails to disclose that the IPSG extends circumferentially about the central axis about 180 degrees or more. Chisholm teaches a bottle with an IPSG (the inwardly extending rib formed on the interior which is the reverse surface of the exterior depression formed between rib portions of rib 22). Chisholm’s IPSG extends circumferentially about the central axis about 180 degrees or more. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circumferential extension of the IPSG to about 180 degrees or more to provide enough spiral flow or swirling flow to decrease the turbulence of fluid flow which speeds the flow of liquid. Re claim 2, the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide of Mero extends between the top end of the body portion and the bottom end of the body portion (the body portion coextends with the rib 22 and the IPSG). Re claim 3, Mero discloses a rim at the bottom of the cap-engaging portion (below threads). Re claim 4, Chisholm teaches a distance between adjacent peaks formed by the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide at the first position is smaller than a distance between adjacent peaks formed by the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide at the second position. A tapered portion of the rib 22 defines a smaller vertical distance between peaks of the IPSG than a wider portion of the rib 22 which defines a larger vertical distance between peaks of the IPSG. PNG media_image1.png 268 432 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify a distance between adjacent peaks formed by the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide at the first position is smaller than a distance between adjacent peaks formed by the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide at the second position to enhance the flow performance and support laminar flow characteristics. Re claims 5 and 7-10, the body portion of Mero comprises an outer surface and at least one depression on the outer surface that spirally extends and corresponds to the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide. Re claim 6, Mero teaches a rim (rib 22) at the top end of the body portion. Note that applicant uses the term “rim” as synonymous with “rib.” Re claim 11, the at least one inwardly-protruded spiral guide of Chisholm in a first position of the body portion is inclined more in a horizontal direction (more horizontal portion) than in a second position (more vertical portion) of the body portion, wherein the second position is located below the first position. PNG media_image2.png 392 870 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the incline of IPSG to be more horizontal in the first position and more vertical in the second position to enhance the flow performance and support laminar flow characteristics. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding 112(b) rejection and the 102 rejection 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 Mero. 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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday. 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. sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 20, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603485
UNDERGROUND ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLY AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578061
SEALED AND THERMALLY INSULATING TANK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571219
DRYWALL MUD PAN CONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571502
WALL FOR A LEAKTIGHT AND THERMALLY INSULATING VESSEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570141
VEHICLE FUEL STORAGE SYSTEM INCLUDING BLADDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1217 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month