The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
General Information
The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicants’ response received on 07/10/2025.
The objections to the drawings and specification have been overcome and hereby withdrawn.
In addition, the Examiner has found applicant’s arguments partially convincing regarding the rejection of record under 35 USC § 103, specifically the square shape of Reynolds. Therefore, a new rejection under 35 USC § 103 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
The scope of the claim is indefinite due to an inconsistency between the reproductions. A designer of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether to make the article as shown in one figure or the other when a significant inconsistency exist.
There is an inconsistency between reproductions 6.3-6.6. The side parameter of the shaded area of the neck (pointed by solid arrows) in reproduction 6.3 is shown bounded by broken lines; however, the same area is shown bounded by solid lines in reproductions 6.4-6.6. See the illustration below for comparison.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
1651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that if applicants decide to remove the area from the claim as shown in reproduction 6.3, the shade lines shown within the indefinite area must be removed as well.
To overcome this rejection, applicants may amend the reproductions to be consistent throughout the drawings.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC §103
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the U.S Patent No. D016864 of Hurley with publication date of 08/24/1886 (hereafter Hurley) in view of the prior arts as demonstrated by the Spanish Patent No. D0516374 of Carvajal with publication date of 03/01/2013 (hereafter Carvajal) and the United Kingdom Patent No. 6160099 of Grant with publication date of 10/17/2021 (hereafter Grant).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.
Hurley (shown below) discloses a bottle with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design, in showing the cylindrical body, the rounded shoulders, the in-sweep, the circular plan appearance, and the overall proportions.
See next page.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed design differs from Hurley by having a thicker neck and a rounded push-up.
Carvajal (shown below) discloses a bottle that has a thicker neck similar to the claimed design.
PNG
media_image3.png
156
1111
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Grant (shown below) discloses a bottle that has a rounded push-up similar to the claimed design.
PNG
media_image4.png
471
1361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In addition, in the illustration below, the examiner has combined the three references next to the claimed design for comparison.
PNG
media_image5.png
375
710
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Hurley with Carvajal and Grant by modifying the neck to be thicker and to add a rounded push-up at the bottom of the bottle because modifications to these ornamental features are a commonplace in the field of designing containers and bottles which would therefore have been an obvious design choice.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112 (b) and 35 USC § 103.
The references not relied upon are cited as cumulative prior art.
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Truong, whose telephone number is (571) 272-9794. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 8:00 AM till 5:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Primary Examiner Omeed Agilee can be reached at (408) 918-7681, and the examiner’s supervisor, Richard Edgar can be reached on Monday thru Friday at (571) 272-4816. 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.
Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at: David.truong@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicant may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2931
/RICHARD EDGAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2931