Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/215,270

Method Of Inverting Container Base Prior To Cooling

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 21, 2025
Examiner
RUSHING-TUCKER, CHINYERE J
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Amcor Rigid Packaging Usa LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 491 resolved
+3.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
515
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 491 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This Action is in response to the Application filed 05/21/2025. The status of the Claims is as follows: Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 05/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Melrose (US 20220324630) Regarding Claim 1 Melrose discloses a method for hot-filling a container made of a polymeric material (par 87) with heated product (par 70) comprising: hot-filling the container with the heated product, during the hot-filling the heated product heated to a temperature within a range of 165*F to 205*F (par 7); capping the container after the container has been hot-filled with the heated product by screwing a cap onto a threaded finish of the container (par 66); after the container has been hot-filled and capped, mechanically inverting a center inversion area of a base of the container from an as-blown configuration to an inverted configuration to create a positive pressure within the container the center inversion area of the base is inward of a standing surface in both the as-blown configuration and the inverted configuration (par 55, 83); and cooling the container and product by conveying in a cooling tunnel subsequent to mechanically inverting the base (par 70), wherein: the positive pressure reinforces the container during conveying and cooling of the container and product to decrease occurrences of denting as the container cools below a heated product temperature, and a negative pressure is present within the container after conveying and cooling the container. (par 70-71) Regarding Claim 2 Melrose discloses the invention as described above. Melrose further discloses the polymeric material is PET having a glass transition temperature within a range of 152*F to 178*F. (par 87) Regarding Claim 4 Melrose discloses the invention as described above. Melrose further discloses the container is hot-filled with product heated to 185*F. (par 7, 83) Regarding Claim 8 Melrose discloses the invention as described above. Melrose further discloses the center inversion area of the base is less than 50% of a total projected surface area of the base. (pare 55-57; 60-61) Regarding Claim 9 Melrose discloses the invention as described above. Melrose further discloses mechanically inverting the base after filling and capping the container resulting in an internal pressure spike prior to the container and product being conveyed and cooled. (par 71, 76, 86) 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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melrose (US 20220324630) in view of Kelley et al. (US 20070051073) Regarding Claim 3 Melrose discloses the invention as described above. Melrose dose not expressly disclose the product is a beverage or food. Kelley teaches a method for hot filling a container of polymetric material (abstract).Kelley further teaches the product is a beverage or food providing self-stable food products for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. (par 7) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method for hot filling a container as taught by Melrose to include hot filling the container with a food or beverage product as taught by Kelley since par 7 of Kelley suggests that such a modification provides self-stable food products for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. Regarding Claim 7 Melrose discloses the invention as described above. Melrose dose not expressly disclose labeling and packing the container subsequent to cooling the container. Kelley teaches a method for hot filling a container of polymetric material (abstract).Kelley further teaches labeling and packing the container subsequent to cooling the container providing smooth label placement for the purposes of improving the method. (par 7, 34-35) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method for hot filling a container as taught by Melrose to include labeling and packing the container subsequent to cooling the container as taught by Kelley since par7, 34-35 of Kelley suggests that such a modification provides smooth label placement for the purposes of improving the method. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melrose (US 20220324630) in view of Melrose (US 20060138074; Mel) Regarding Claim 11 Melrose discloses the invention as described above. Melrose dose not expressly disclose mechanically inverting the base before the conveying and the cooling requires less inversion force than inverting the base after the conveying and the cooling. Mel teaches a method for hot filling a container made of a polymeric material (abstract). Mel further teaches mechanically inverting the base before the conveying and the cooling requires less inversion force than inverting the base after the conveying and the cooling providing control over the internal pressure of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. (par 30, 68, 73) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Melrose to include mechanically inverting the base before the conveying and the cooling requires less inversion force than inverting the base after the conveying and the cooling as taught by Mel since par 30, 68 and 73 of Mel suggests that such a modification provides control over the internal pressure of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 , 6 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 5, the Prior Art does not expressly teach the base is mechanically inverted with a force within a range of 40 lbs. to 80 lbs. in addition to the limitations included in Claim 1 Regarding Claim 10 the Prior Art does not expressly teach after filling and capping the container, the container and the product therein are in a positive pressure state for about 50% of a period of the conveying and cooling. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. VAN DIJCK US 20170190097: hot filled, invert Howell US 20130082024; hot filled, invert Melrose US 20190330038; hot filled; invert; glass temperature; positive pressure Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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. /CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 21, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600546
PACKAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600517
AUTOMATIC PACKAGER FOR PHARMACEUTICALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595085
BOX-PACKING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583645
MEDICATION CONTAINER INFEED LOOP SYSTEM AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582399
STAPLE CARTRIDGE AND METHODS FOR SURGICAL STAPLERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+11.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 491 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