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 filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the modification improperly changes Mero’s principles of operation. The Office does not understand this argument because there is no reasoning whatsoever applied to applicant’s analysis. Applicant first notes that the grooves 46 and 50 have three purposes: (1) to facilitate forming of the bulges 22 and 24: (2) to reinforce; and (3) to facilitate gripping and handling the container. The Office doesn’t understand how changing the grooves by extending them to reach 180 degrees or more in the circumferential direction would nullify any of these purposes. The Office does agree that the modification would alter the operation by adding a function of enhancing spiral flow. However, the grooves are still grooves and still facilitate the formation of the bulges, reinforce and provide grip.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
There is no requirement that the Office must use a teaching reference that states the same specific purpose stated in the claim. That neither Mero or Chisholm teaches for spiral flow does not preclude the obviousness rejection.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
Prosecution Insights