DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 22, 2025 has been entered.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graff et al. (2018/0105447) in view of Jaenecke (EP 2679548 machine translation provided) and Dannoux (2014/0102142). Regarding claim 1, Graff discloses a component for forming a glass container comprising a blank mold 10, the blank mold comprising an opening at an upper end for receiving a gob of molten glass and an opening at a lower end for receiving a neck ring, wherein the blank mold defines a blank mold cavity, a plunger 20 adjacent to the lower end of the blank mold, the plunger moveable between a retracted position out of the blank mold and an extended position in the mold cavity (figures 1-3, [0022]), and a blow mold 48 defining a blow mold cavity and configured to receive a parison (figure 5, [0025]). Graff further teaches the plunger is tapered such that the container neck is formed to be wider than a closed end of the cavity (see figures 2-4, especially dotted line 37 in fig. 4). However, Graff doesn’t specify a square shaped cavity in the parison. Like Graff, Jaenecke similarly discloses a component for forming a glass container comprising a blank mold (preformer 12), a neck ring (muzzle tool 14 and neck ring 15), a plunger (level head 7 and level 6, bottom paragraph on page 3), and a blow mold defining a blow mold cavity and configured to receive a parison that has formed in the blank mold (“transfers … preform 28 … to an adjacent processing station…at which the hollow glass body 30 is produced by blow molding” at middle of page 4). Jaenecke further teaches the neck ring is substantially square in cross-sectional shape and configured to produce a substantially square container neck, and the plunger comprises a plurality of sections that are shaped and sized to produce a substantially square container neck of the parison (figures 3a and 4 and their descriptions on page 4). More specifically, Jaenecke teaches the plunger has a dome-shape section up top, a square-shaped section in the middle and flange section 6 below that (see figure 4). Jaenecke teaches various shaped for the neck and mouth of the bottle can be formed, as a matter of choice (see figures 3a-3d). Dannoux similarly teaches a component for forming a glass container comprising a blank mold (parison mold 1203), a plunger (parison form 1205), and a blow mold (1603) defining a blow mold cavity and configured to receive a parison that has been formed in the blank mold (figures 12, 14, 16, and 18 [0079]-[0083]). Dannoux further teaches the plunger comprises a plurality of sections, including section 1217 that is shaped and sized to produce the desired shape in the container wall ([0081]), wherein the plunger has a horizontal planar surface at the tip end (figures 12 and 14). Dannoux teaches the shaping portion 1217 is designed to closely follow the interior surface of the parison mold ([0081]). Additionally, Dannoux teaches the shaped of the container is a matter of choice and exemplifies various examples (figures 23-25), including a square shaped cavity in figure 25 ([0090]). Thus, for producing a square-shaped cavity (as seen in figure 25) having a horizontal, planar surface (figures 14 and 16), section 1217 of the plunger would have a shape and size for producing a substantially square shaped cavity defining at least a horizontal, planar surface within the cavity in the parison formed in the blank mold. Additionally, as can be seen in figures 12 and 14, the plunger is shaped to produce a substantially square container neck of the parison. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for an alternative shape to the a tapered plunger of Graff, such as square shaped, and hence a neck ring that is substantially square in cross-sectional shape and a plunger having a corresponding square-shaped section to produce the square shaped cavity with a horizontal, planar surface, and a square container neck, as a matter of design choice, as suggested by Jaenecke and Dannoux.
In applying the modifications of Jaenecke and Dannoux to the tapered plunger of Graff, the modified plunger would comprise of an upper section that is shaped and sized to produce a square-shaped cavity defining at least a horizontal, planar surface formed within the cavity in the parison, and a lower section configured to produce a square container neck of the parison. Furthermore, the tapering of the plunger, as taught by Graff, to allow easier removal of the plunger from the parison, would be maintained such that a middle section that is tapered between the upper section and a lower section is provided for.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graff et al. (2018/0105447), Jaenecke (EP 2679548 machine translation provided), and Dannoux (2014/0102142) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Augeri (3,973,941). Augeri teaches a similar glass manufacturing apparatus comprising a blank mold, a neck ring, a plunger, and a blow mold (col. 1 lines 49-68). Augeri further teaches bottles can have a square shape and providing for a blow mold having a substantially square cross-sectional shape so as to produce a square shaped bottle (figure 6, col. 4 lines 34-36). As bottles come in all shapes and sizes as a matter of design choice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a square shaped blow mold so as to produce a bottle having the desired shape of a square.
Regarding claim 3, Augeri shows in figure 6 the square shaped container has rounded corners.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Jaenecke teaches the neck ring is substantially square in cross-sectional shape and configured to produce a substantially square container neck (figure 3a and the description therefor on page 4).
Regarding claim 5, Jaenecke teaches producing a retention feature on the neck of the container (description of figure 2c “inner contour of necking tool” on page 4). Augeri also teaches producing a retention feature on the neck of the container, such as threaded section 27 for retaining a cap (col. 4 lines 17-33). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a neck ring that is configured to produce a retention feature on the neck of the container, as it would allow for the closure of the container.
Regarding claim 10, Graff further teaches the component is part of an Individual Section machine ([0040]).
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graff et al. (2018/0105447), Jaenecke (EP 2679548 machine translation provided), Dannoux (2014/0102142), and Augeri (3,973,941) as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Willis et al. (7,832,578). Augeri teaches the retention feature, such as a threaded section for retaining a cap, but does not specify if it’s child resistant. Willis teaches it is well known to provide for a child resistant closure upon a neck portion of a container (col. 1 lines 17-25, 38-39). Willis a retention feature on the neck of the container comprising a child resistant feature, located in plurality of spots along the circumference of the container. More specifically, the receiving notches (160) on the container thread aligns with lugs on a closure that requires simultaneous pushing and turning to remove the closure (col. 4 lines 1-13). Willis teaches containers as such are utilized for holding drugs, food, or drink. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have additionally provided for a retention feature that is child resistant on the neck of the container of Augeri, in order to provide for the extra feature of a child resistant closure, especially if the container is used for packing drugs. In modifying the component of Graff, Jaenecke, Dannoux, Augeri, and Willis, the neck ring would be configured to provide the thread and notches feature on the glass container.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graff et al. (2018/0105447), Jaenecke (EP 2679548 machine translation provided), Dannoux (2014/0102142), Augeri (3,973,941), and Willis et al. (7,832,578) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Lopez et al. (2019/0330093). Graff teaches the component produces glass containers using a press-blow method, but doesn’t specify the storage volume of the container. Lopez similarly teaches a press-blow technique for producing glass containers ([0001]-[0002], [0070]). Lopez further teaches a controlled pressure blowing system ([0013]) that produces containers having straight sides (figure 10, [0128]) and an internal distribution of glass that provides for glass containers having a volume in the range of 10 ml and 200ml ([0129]-[0131]), making it suitable for use as perfume bottles. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a component that is configured to produce glass containers having a volume of 10 ml - 200 ml as a matter of design choice, especially if the container is used as a perfume bottle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims have been to amended to reflect the plunger shape as shown in figure 16, wherein the plunger is tapered only in the middle section. In response, the limitation “a middle section tapered only between the upper section and a lower section” does not limit the taper to just the middle section. Instead, the limitation is interpreted as a middle section that is tapered from the upper section to the lower section.
Applicant argues the plunger of Graff is tapered continuously, which makes it impossible to produce a square-shaped neck, the plunger 6 in figure 2c of Jaenecke is incapable of producing the glass body 30 as shown in figure 3A of Jaenecke, the mold of Dannoux does not produce a tapered cavity. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed in the rejection, it was the combination of feature suggested by Graff, Jaenecke and Dannoux that suggests the plunger of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741