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
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (e.g. mold base), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/24/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the radial undulations comprising at least one facet must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 3-7, and 10 are 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 3 currently states “the radial undulations comprise at least one facet”. Facets are defined as “a small plane surface”. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, which states the undulations comprise “a concave face and a convex face” which implies that the undulations are curved, i.e. do not have planar surfaces. Further Applicant’s specification seems to imply that these two embodiments are mutually exclusive (Paragraphs [0081] and [0082]). Based on this lack of clarity, claims 3-5 are unable to be examined further such that prior art is able to be applied.
Claim 6 currently states “a mean radius of curvature of the concavities of the undulations is less than or equal to a mean radius of curvature of the convexities of the undulations” and claim 7 currently states “the mean radius of curvature of the concavities and/or of the convexities of the undulations is not constant along a radius of the base, from the central zone toward the seat”. With the mean radius not being constant, it is unclear where the measurements are being taken. It is further unclear if the mean radius of curvature for the concave/convex portions change at the same rate or different rates. The drawings do not point out these different radius portions. Based on this lack of clarity, claims 6 and 7 are unable to be examined further such that prior art is able to be applied.
Claim 10 currently states “the depth of an undulation in the seating plane is between 0.2 and 0.45 times the height of the arch.” The seating plane appears to be a flat, horizontal plane that the container rests on. It’s unclear how a “depth of an undulation” can be measured “in the seating plane” when the plane is located below the “undulations”. Based on this lack of clarity, claim 10 is unable to be further examined such that prior art is able to be applied.
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 10 and 15 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the seating plane" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 currently states “a width of the seat is between 0.1 and 2 mm.” It is unclear where this width is being taken.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lynn et al. (US 5603423) (hereinafter Lynn).
Regarding Claim 1
Lynn teaches a container made from plastic (below – Fig. 1, 2, and 5), the container comprising: a body (12) comprising a shoulder (11) and a neck (shown between 15 and 16) at an upper end; and a base (13) extending from a lower end of the body, the base comprising at least one peripheral heel (shown at 27) defining a seat (22), and an arch (20) that extends from a central zone (e.g. the top ~10% of the arch, shown at 29) to said heel, said heel rising up a connecting wall (shown at 12 – Fig. 5) connecting with a wall of the body of the container, wherein said base comprises a plurality of radial undulations (23/26) extending from at least the central zone to the vicinity of the seat, wherein an undulation comprises a concave face (26) and a convex face (23) facing outward, a depth of said undulations increasing from the central zone to the vicinity of the seat, wherein the depth is a distance between the peak of a convexity and the trough of a concavity, as can be seen in Fig. 5 below (Col. 5, Ln. 1-63).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
235
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
261
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
344
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Lynn teaches the radial undulations (23/26) have continuity of tangency, inasmuch as Applicant shows.
Regarding Claim 8
Lynn teaches the base comprises between three and fifteen (e.g. 10) radial undulations (23/26), as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding Claim 11
Lynn teaches the depth of an undulation in the central zone (e.g. the top 10% of the arch) is between 0.03 and 0.15 times the height of the arch (in that the undulations appear to extend from the top of the arch), as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 12
Lynn teaches said undulations extend beyond the seat, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 13
Lynn teaches an outer radius of curvature of the heel (@ 38 [.558”]) is between 0.7 and 0.2 times the seat diameter (@ 40 [2.8”]), wherein the outer radius of curvatures is between the seat and the connecting wall (Col. 7, Ln. 43 – Col. 8, Ln. 41).
Regarding Claim 14
Lynn teaches an inner radius of curvature of the heel (@ 30 [.446”]) is between 0.6 and 1.4 times the outer radius of curvature of said heel (@ 38 [.558”]), wherein the inner radius of curvature is between the distal end of the convex face of the undulations and the seat (Col. 7, Ln. 43 – Col. 8, Ln. 41).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9
Lynn teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Lynn further teaches a height of the arch (@24 [.375”]) is 0.13 times a diameter of the seat (@40 [2.8”]), wherein the height is the distance separating the seat from an upper end of the arch. Lynn does not teach a height of the arch is between 0.15 and 0.35 times a diameter of the seat.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to slightly increase the height of the arch, 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). As such, the claim of the height of the arch being between 0.15 and 0.35 times a diameter of the seat does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 15
Lynn teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Lynn does not specifically teach a width of the seat is between 0.1 and 2 mm. However, based on the outer radius of the curvature of the heel shown being 0.558” (14.17mm), it would appear obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a width of the seat, taken horizontally, is more than capable of being between 0.1 and 2 mm (towards the lowermost end of the seat). As such, the claim of the width of the seat being between 0.1 and 2 mm does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
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
/LAURA E. PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
