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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of Applicant’s arguments and amendments, Examiner maintains that the instant invention as presently claimed is unpatentable over Glover, modified as described below in the rejections of the amended claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant acknowledges that “Glover is aware of the thinning issue that exists in conventional blow molded, rectangular containers. To overcome this, Glover provides its own solution to the problem. It does so by eliminating the right angled or rounded corners of otherwise conventional containers”, but argues that Glover’s discussion of a “maximum radial extent” from the center point represents “a very general principle” (Remarks, Page 12, last paragraph) and that “the present claims recite a precisely defined shape that not suggested by Glover” (Remarks, Page 13, first paragraph).
Examiner agrees that Glover discloses a general principle, while the present claims recite a specific dimensional relationship of the instant invention. However, it is noted that Glover describes the particular applicability of this principle for a container having an elongated “generally octagonal” shape (see Paragraphs 0025-0026), which appears to also be the basis for the instant invention, and that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the principle could be embodied over a range of dimensions within that general shape. One would further expect that a certain range of dimensions related to the general principle noted by Glover would produce optimized results, especially considering that the general principle represents a balancing act between material usage and container strength (i.e., a range of shapes that produce such a balance would be expected to naturally occur). Thus, the conclusion of obviousness applied in the previous Office Action has been supplemented in the below rejections of the amended claims with an analysis with respect to routine optimization.
As further support for this conclusion, it is noted that the instant specification appears to attribute the performance of the instant invention to the same effect described by Glover. For example: see Paragraph 0082 of the specification, describing the top load capability as “believed to be in part the result of the present design enabling the molding process to provide a more consistent, yet similar minimum, wall thickness about the body 12 of the container”; and Paragraph 0013 of Glover, noting that “a footprint in accordance with this aspect of the invention [. . .] result[s] in more even distribution of plastic within the wall thickness. Moreover, the overall weight of a plastics container may be reduced by adopting this footprint, whilst maintaining storage capacity and the structural integrity necessary to meet the 60N top load force test requirement”.
Applicant refers to this top load test in describing the performance of the instant invention as “more than three times the top load capacity of Glover” and argues that this is evidence that a container having the geometry disclosed by Glover could not achieve the same results (Remarks, Page 13, last full paragraph). Examiner notes that Glover only discloses that a container with the disclosed features would be capable of meeting an industry standard top load test, and does not disclose or speculate as to the top load capacity of a container made in accordance with the disclosed principle. Examiner asserts that it is not reasonable to conclude that a patentable distinction exists on this basis.
Applicant additionally argues that “There is no reason (no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Glover) that a person of ordinary skill would seek to modify Glover's solution to arrive at the specific geometry claimed” and that improper hindsight was used in the rejection (Remarks, Page 13, first full paragraph).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the reference, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Glover places no limits on the particular dimensions of the container and discloses at least one embodiment that appears to demonstrate the claimed relationship (as described in the below rejection of claims 1 and 3-5). Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the size and shape of the container merely based on the particular design requirements of its application, and could easily arrive at a shape that meets the present claims.
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). In this case, no design principles or knowledge beyond what is disclosed in Glover would be required for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a shape that meets the present claims.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the claimed subject matter “the handle being located offset from the intermediate wall” was not found in the original filed specification, making it difficult for one to interpret Applicant’s intent with respect to the scope of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 20-23, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and claim 3 appear to be substantially identical except that claim 1 recites “the first length is within +/- 10% of the second length” (in the last two lines) and claim 3 recites “the ratio of the first length to the second length is in the range of 0.900 to 1.100” (in the last line). Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
In claims 1, 3, and 20, each claim recites “a top end the bottle” and “closing of a bottom end” in lines 3-4. According to Examiner’s best understanding, these should read --a top end of the bottle-- and --closing off a bottom end--, respectively.
In claim 1, all instances of “first and second major sidewalls” and “first and second minor sidewalls” should be separately recited for clarity (e.g., --the first major sidewall and the second major sidewall--).
In claims 1, 23, and 26 the terms “side walls”, “major wall”, and “minor wall” should read --sidewalls--, --major sidewall--, and --minor sidewall--, respectively, for clarity wherever they appear.
In claims 4-5 and 21-22, each dependent claim recites “wherein the first length and the second length define a ratio” after already reciting the same in an independent claim (claims 3 and 20, respectively).
In claim 20, line 11, “greater than dimension” should read --greater than a dimension--.
In claims 23 and 26, “being is” in the final line of each claim should read either --being-- or --is-- for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8, 15-16, 20-28, and 30-31 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.
Regarding claims 8, the term “substantially” 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. Therefore, the scope of “substantially the same” in line 12 is unclear.
Regarding claim 15, each claim recites “the first endwall” and/or “the second endwall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claim 16 is dependent upon the instant claim and thus inherits its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “the wall thickness of the intermediate walls” and “the wall thicknesses of either the major or minor sidewalls” in lines 24-25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since only one intermediate wall is recited in the claim, and no wall thickness or wall thicknesses were previously introduced in the claim. Claims 21-28 and 30-31 are dependent upon the instant claim and thus inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claims 23 and 26, given that no particular shape is defined in claim 20, the term “opposing” is ambiguous, as it is unclear whether Applicant intends for this term to further limit the shape of the bottle (i.e., it is unclear whether two sides of a triangular bottle would be considered “opposing” sides). Claims 24-25 are dependent upon the instant claim and thus inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites “the minor sidewall” in line 12. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the first minor sidewall or the second minor sidewall. Claims 27-28 are dependent upon the instant claim and thus inherit its deficiencies.
In light of the above indefiniteness issues, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US 2013/0001234).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Glover discloses a bottle for containment of a pourable material (see the Abstract), the bottle (see especially the embodiment of Figs. 10-15; Paragraphs 0087-0099) comprising: a spout (166) defining an opening into a top end the bottle; a base (bottom of body; see Fig. 15) located opposite of the spout and closing of a bottom end of the bottle; a hollow body (162) defined about a central axis extending between the top and bottom ends of the bottle (Paragraph 0088); a transition section (164) located between and connecting the body to the spout (Examiner notes that 162 and 164 appear to be mislabeled in Figs. 10-13);
in at least one transverse cross-section taken in a plane perpendicular to the central axis, the body having an elongated rectangular shape, the elongated rectangular shape being defined by four sidewalls and four corners (see Fig. 14), the four sidewalls including first and second major side walls and first and second minor sidewalls, the first and second major sidewalls having dimensions in the transverse cross-section that are greater than dimensions of the first and second minor sidewalls in the transverse cross-section, each of the four corners being defined by two rounded sub-corners and an intermediate wall located between the sub-corners (this shape is described in Paragraphs 0090-0093 and illustrated in Fig. 14, but the description includes incorrect reference numbers; see annotated Fig. 14 below);
wherein a transverse axis (axis GG in Fig. 14, misidentified as BB in Paragraph 0090) is defined between the midpoints of the first and second minor sidewalls in the plane of the transverse cross-section (aligned with part line 112, which bisects the body; Paragraphs 0063-0065).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14 of Glover, annotated by Examiner
Glover does not explicitly disclose a first normal having a first length or a second normal having a second length as claimed, and thus does not explicitly disclose the first length being substantially the same as the second length. However, Glover describes the shape of the container such that the midpoint of each intermediate wall is not farther away from the center of the bottle than the midpoint of an adjacent minor wall (“the maximum radial extent of the footprint from its centre point is greatest at a point of intersection of the part line, rather than away from the part line [as would be the case for conventional rectangular or square containers]”; Paragraph 0012). Glover teaches that truncating the corners in this way leads to more uniform wall thickness in the corners with reduced overall container weight (see Paragraphs 0009-0014 and 0099).
Examiner further notes that Fig. 8 of the instant application is considered to demonstrate a container geometry wherein the first length is equal to the second length, and Fig. 14 of Glover is considered to demonstrate a container geometry meeting the requirements taught in the written description of Glover, as cited above. As evidenced by the overlay of the two drawings below, Glover discloses a container with corner geometry that is substantially the same as that illustrated in the instant application (with consideration for minor variations in drawing style/quality of drawings). Though the drawings of Glover are not disclosed to be drawn to scale, the similarity in shapes demonstrated below is significant to the assessment of nonobviousness.
PNG
media_image2.png
373
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14 of Glover, cropped and overlaid on Fig. 8 of the instant application
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Examiner acknowledges that the instant claims define dimensions from an intersection point on the transverse axis, rather than the center point described by Glover. However, it is noted that the recited dimensions are not understood by the Examiner to represent any particular design principle known in the art, and no explanation is provided for why these dimensions have a stronger association with wall thickness than the dimensions discussed in Glover. Further, though not dispositive, Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would find it more obvious to measure a distance from an intermediate wall to a parting line (rather than the center point) as the size/elongation of the shape increases. Thus, this difference in definition is considered to be an optimization that could be achieved through routine experimentation based on the principles taught by Glover (i.e., reduced stretching of the parison results in more consistent wall thicknesses). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) regarding routine optimization, in particular: In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bottle of Glover such that the first length is within +/- 10% of the second length, satisfying the limitations of both claims 1 and 3, since claim 3 requires no different structure from claim 1. Furthermore, Applicant appears to have demonstrated no criticality of any particular dimension (see Table 1A of the Specification wherein a range of geometries are considered to be in accordance with the claimed invention, with no correspondence to a particular principle placing boundaries on such a range) and it appears that the bottle of Glover would work appropriately if made such that the first length and the second length are within any of the ratio ranges claimed in claims 3-5. For example, a container having a regular octagonal shape would have a first normal and a second normal with equal lengths meeting at an intersection point at a center point in accordance with the teachings of Glover. Elongating the major sidewalls of such a container by a small amount while maintaining the requirements of Glover would place the container in the scope of the instant claims with only a slight change in angle of the intermediate wall, and thus the difference and/or ratios required by the instant claims would still be satisfied over a measurable range of elongation amounts.
Regarding claim 6, Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 3, and further discloses that “the footprint is symmetrical about the part line of the container” (Paragraph 0040; the part line being axis GG in annotated Fig. 14 above). A bottle according to claim 3 in which the intermediate walls on either side of the first minor sidewall are symmetric about the transverse axis would meet the limitation “a third normal having a third length is defined in the plane of the transverse cross-section from the midpoint of another one of the intermediate walls adjacent to said first minor sidewall to the intersection point, wherein the third length and the second length define a ratio and the ratio of the third length to the second length is in the range of 0.900 to 1.100”, thus Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 6, and further discloses an embodiment in which “the footprint is also symmetrical about an axis orthogonal to the part line of the container, since this has advantage in storage/transportation and filling line purposes” (Paragraph 0040). A bottle according to claim 6 in which the intermediate walls are symmetric about an axis orthogonal to the transverse axis would meet the limitation “a fourth normal having a fourth length is defined in the plane of the transverse cross-section from the midpoint of a further one of the intermediate walls, located adjacent to the second minor sidewall, to a second intersection point on the transverse axis; a fifth normal having a fifth length is defined in the plane of the transverse cross-section from the midpoint of the second minor sidewall to the second intersection point; the fourth length is within +/- 10% of the fifth length and is within +/- 10% of the first length; a sixth normal having a sixth length is defined in the plane of the transverse cross-section from the midpoint of an additional one of the intermediate walls, located adjacent to the second minor sidewall, to the second intersection point; and wherein the sixth length is within +/- 10% of the fourth length”, thus Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 6, and further discloses an embodiment in which the footprint “is asymmetrical about a transverse axis extending in a direction perpendicular to said part line” (Paragraph 0011). Glover teaches this asymmetry as being related to the inclusion of a handle at one end (see Paragraph 0071; exemplified in the embodiment of Fig. 3 having rounded corners at the end opposite the handle, but applicable as well to the embodiment of Figs. 10-15 which is also shown with a handle). Glover further teaches that a “substantially rounded front end of the footprint provides improved resistance to bulging, than is the case with square or rectangular containers” (Paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the embodiment of Figs. 10-15 of Glover to have the asymmetry described in the embodiment of Fig. 3 in order to accommodate the handle at one end and provide improved resistance to bulging at the opposite end. Since a range of geometries are capable of meeting the limitations as claimed, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making minor adjustments to the widths of the minor sidewall and intermediate walls at the end opposite of the handle to improve resistance to bulging (i.e., to better approximate a fully rounded end) while maintaining the relationship claimed in claim 8 (i.e., the fourth length is within +/- 10% of the fifth length and the fourth length is different from the first length; and wherein the sixth length is substantially the same as the fourth length).
Regarding claim 10, the bottle according to claim 7 contains all of the features required by the limitations of claim 10. Thus, Glover renders obvious claim 10 in the same manner described above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, the bottle according to claim 8 contains all of the features required by the limitations of claim 12. Thus, Glover renders obvious claim 12 in the same manner described above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 3 and, as described above regarding claim 8, further discloses that the bottle may be configured to be asymmetrical between the two ends. Glover illustrates this configuration in Fig. 3 with two rounded corners (122), a first minor sidewall (130) defining a first width and a second minor sidewall (124) defining a second width. In this embodiment, Glover describes the endwalls as being of equal width (Paragraphs 0070-0072). However, one having ordinary skill in the art could configure the container to have four truncated corners as described above regarding claim 8.
When doing so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the bottle such that the first width is less than the second width, in order to maintain the overall shape of the bottle shown in Fig. 14 while accommodating a chosen handle geometry and improving resistance to bulging, as described above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 3, and further discloses that a first minor sidewall defines a first width and the intermediate walls adjacent thereto each defines a second width (see annotated Fig. 14 of Glover above). Glover does not disclose that the first width is substantially the same as the second width (interpreted here to mean “within +/- 10%” in accordance with Paragraph 0062 of the specification), but it is evident from the figures that the dimensions would be similar.
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bottle of Glover such that the first width is substantially the same as the second width. Applicant appears to have demonstrated no criticality of any particular dimension (only that it is preferred to be substantially the same; see Paragraph 0062 of the specification) and it appears that the bottle of Glover would work appropriately if made such that the first width is substantially the same as the second width.
Regarding claims 15-16, Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 3, and further discloses that a first endwall defines a first width and the intermediate walls adjacent thereto each respectively define a second width and a third width (see annotated Fig. 14 of Glover above), and that the second width is the same as the third width (intermediate walls are equal in length; see Paragraph 0093; Examiner notes that the intermediate walls are described as “minor sides 166”, but labeled 176 in the figures). Glover does not disclose that the first width is less than at least one of the second width and the third width in the embodiment of Figs. 10-15, but does disclose such a relationship in the embodiment of Fig. 3 (width of 130 is less than width of 126 or 128).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bottle of Glover such that the first width is less than at least one of the second width and the third width. Applicant appears to have demonstrated no criticality of any particular dimension and it appears that the bottle of Glover would work appropriately if made such that the first width is less than at least one of the second and third widths (especially since another embodiment of the bottle is shown to have this relationship). As noted above, the second and third widths are disclosed to be equal, thus meeting the requirement of claim 16 as well.
Claims 20-24, 26-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover in view of Eibner (WO 97/04944). All references to the written description of Eibner are made to the attached machine translation into English (WO-9704944-MT).
Regarding claims 20-22, Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claim 3, which includes all of the structural features recited in claim 20, except Glover does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the wall thickness of the intermediate wall to the wall thickness of either the major or minor sidewalls.
Eibner teaches a similar bottle (see Figs. 5-9) having an intermediate wall (103) and a sidewall (40) with wall thicknesses that are equal (Page 24, first full paragraph; see 134 and 135 in Fig. 9). Eibner teaches this as a result of a final forming process designed to achieve uniform wall thicknesses for reusable containers (see Page 3, fifth paragraph; Page 15, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the bottle of Glover with an intermediate wall and at least one sidewall having wall thicknesses such that a ratio of the wall thickness of the intermediate wall to the wall thickness of either the major or minor sidewalls is equal (and thus greater than 0.60), for example by using the process taught by Eibner (or a variation thereof) to achieve uniform wall thicknesses for reusable containers. Having done so, the bottle of the modified invention would meet the limitations of claims 20-22, as described above regarding claims 3-5.
Regarding claims 23-24, according to Examiner’s best understanding, the bottle according to claim 6 contains all of the features required by the limitations of claims 23-24 except the modification described above regarding claim 20, which does not impact the geometric relationships required by claims 23 and 24. Thus, Glover modified in view of Eibner as described above, renders obvious claims 23-24 in the same manner as described above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claims 26-27, according to Examiner’s best understanding, the bottle according to claim 7 contains all of the features required by the limitations of claims 26-27 except the modification described above regarding claim 20, which does not impact the geometric relationships required by claims 26 and 27. Thus, Glover modified in view of Eibner as described above, renders obvious claims 26-27 in the same manner as described above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 30, Glover further discloses a handle (e.g., see 108 in Fig. 3), the handle being located offset from the intermediate wall when viewed from a top view of the bottle, according to Examiner’s best understanding (Glover discloses embodiments having handles that do not intersect with or overlap with at least one intermediate wall).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US 2013/0001234) in view of Manderfield, Jr. et al. (US 11,117,721).
Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claims 3 and 10, and further discloses that the bottle is symmetrical about the transverse axis, as described above regarding claim 6. Thus, Glover meets all of the limitations of the instant claims, except the third length being different from the first length and the fifth length being different from the first length (i.e., according to Examiner’s best understanding, the instant claim requires the bottle to be asymmetrical about the transverse axis).
Manderfield, Jr. et al. teach a container (104; see Figs. 2-8) having a similar shape (Col. 6, lines 13-19) with four chamfered corners (220), and further teaches that each corner may be different (e.g., reinforcing ribs may or may not be included in any particular corner, and the corners “may have varying sizes, shapes, and/or configurations”; Col. 4, line 62 - Col. 5, line 15). Manderfield Jr. et al. teach this as part of a stackable system (102; see the Abstract; Fig. 1) in which the container is housed in a box with similarly chamfered corners to provide structural support for both the box and the container, and to provide surfaces for marketing material (Col. 4, lines 54-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the bottle of Glover with varying corner configurations matching an associated box, as taught by Manderfield Jr. et al., in order to provide greater structural support and/or to accommodate marketing materials on one side of the box. For example, shipping or storage arrangements may require one side of the box to include ribs in the corners associated with the third length and the fifth length, or display arrangements may necessitate different angles in these corners to accommodate marketing or labeling materials. Additionally, it is well known in the art to shape an item asymmetrically to prevent the item from being inserted into a box in the wrong orientation (see Fig. 1 of Manderfield Jr. et al., in which a spout is arranged on a particular side of the box). Manderfield Jr. et al. teach that these corners may have different dimensions from the corners on the opposite side, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such modifications to the bottle of Glover while maintaining the other structural limitations of claims 9 and 11.
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover in view of Eibner, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Manderfield, Jr. et al.
The bottle according to claim 9 contains all of the features required by the limitations of claims 25 and 28 except the modification described above regarding claim 20, which does not impact the geometric relationships required by claims 25 and 28. Thus, Glover, modified in view of Eibner and Manderfield, Jr. et al. as described above, renders obvious claims 25 and 28 in the same manner as described above regarding claim 9.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover in view of Eibner, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Garcia (US 2017/0190473).
Glover-Eibner in combination render obvious the bottle according to claim 20, but do not explicitly disclose a top load capacity of the bottle. Glover discloses a bottle that is designed to meet a standard 60N (13.5 lbf) top load test for use in the milk bottle industry, but notes that the bottle is not limited to this particular intended use (see Paragraph 0001). Although Glover does not disclose a top load capacity of the bottle, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that this capacity would depend upon several factors such as wall thickness, material choice, and the addition of structural features (ribs, grooves, etc.) that would substantially increase top load capacity.
Garcia teaches a similar bottle having structural features designed to improve the top load capacity of the bottle (e.g., minimal spout height, grooves, curved shape; see Paragraphs 0031, 0037-0040) and describes multiple embodiments having a top load capacity greater than 45 lbf (see Table 1). Garcia further teaches that increased top load strength increases the number of bottles that can be placed on a pallet (Paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the bottle of Glover-Eibner with features such as the grooves taught by Garcia in order to increase the top load capacity for packing/shipping efficiency. Applicant appears to have demonstrated no criticality of any particular top load capacity or related features and it appears that the bottle of Glover would work appropriately if made such that the top load capacity is greater than 45 lbf.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Garcia.
Glover renders obvious the bottle according to claims 1 and 3, which differs from the bottle according to claim 20 only with respect to the wall thickness ratio claimed in claim 20, which is not understood to impact the modification described above regarding claim 31. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the bottle of Glover according to claim 1 or claim 3 in the same manner and for the same reasons described above regarding claim 31.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of containers relevant to the instant application.
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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights