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 Amendment
The Amendment filed Oct. 31, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-7 and 9-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations (as amened) "a step of cooling a mold bottom of a finished container" in lines 2-3. The claim is a method of manufacturing containers using a mold. The mold bottom cannot be part of the finished container. In general, a container is not considered to be “finished” until it has been removed from the cooled mold. Claim 1 is indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, in the art rejection below the limitation is interpreted as requiring a step of cooling the mold before the container is removed from the mold.
Claims 2-7 and 9-20 depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2-5, 9, 7, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mero et al. (US 5,411,698) in view of Kunz et al. (CH 716011, English version based on US2022/0234274).
Regarding claim 1, 2-5, 9, Mero discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a method for manufacturing containers by blow-molding or stretch-blow-molding from plastic preforms (Fig. 1, item 1 (col. 4, line 3)), the method comprising a step of cooling a mold bottom of a finished container (Fig. 2, item 24 (col. 5, lines 11-17); It is noticed that, at least during the heat treatment of the second mold (col. 2, lines 49-58), the finished/final bottle/containers are obtained) by circulation of a heat transfer fluid (for example, water (col. 5, line 14 (cold water))) inside a cavity (as shown in Fig. 2 (col. 4, lines 38-41)) of the mold bottom, wherein the step of cooling a mold bottom is carried out with a non-refrigerated heat transfer fluid (i.e., water) at a temperature lower than or equal to 30 C (for example, below 70 C (col. 5, line 17) (overlapping the claimed range of below or equal to 30 C)). It is noticed that, based on the arrangement of heat transfer in Fig. 2, the cold water to cool the thermoplastic wall of the bottle wall below 70 C should have a temperature lower than 70 C. It is also noticed that, in the disclosure of Applicant, water is one of the non-refrigerated heat transfer fluid ([0029] in PGPub US 2022/0339848).
Mero et al. and the claims differ in that Mero et al. do not teach the exact same range such as between 18 °C and 30 °C for the temperature of the cold water as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Mero et al. (below 70 C) overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Kunz discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, the cooling medium such as water ([0073]) is supplied at a temperature of 5 °C to 40 °C ([0075], lines 4-5) (i.e., overlapping the claimed range of 18 °C and 30 °C including lower than or equal to 25°C, higher than or equal to 18°C, and higher than or equal to 21°C (related to claims 2-5, 9)).
It is noticed that, the temperature range of 5 °C to 40 °C is falling within the room/ambient temperature such as 25 °C. It is noticed that, the cooling medium such as water with the room temperature does not require extra energy to cool or heat it.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mero to incorporate the teachings of Kunz to provide the cooling medium in the temperature range of 18 °C and 30 °C. Doing so would be possible to provide relatively cost-effectively cooling to the blow mold, as recognized by Kunz ([0076]).
Regarding claims 7, 11-15, Mero discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the heat transfer fluid (i.e., warm water (col. 4, line 52) or cold water (col. 5, lines 11-13)) is also used for a step of cooling shells of the mold (i.e., through channels 30 in the mold body 26 (col. 4, lines 52-56)).
Claims 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mero et al. (US 5,411,698) and Kunz et al. (CH 716011, English version based on US2022/0234274) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Olaru (US 2017/0239875).
Regarding claims 6, 10, Mero or Kunz does not disclose the heat transfer fluid is also used for a step of cooling means for protecting the necks of the preforms in a heating unit. In the same field of endeavor, tempering preforms, Olaru discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 5A, 5B, temperature control channels 563 are formed in the tempering inserts 560 through which a temperature control liquid such as e.g., water flows to regulate the temperature of the tempering inserts (i.e., being direct contact 565 with the neck portion 508 of the preform 502 as shown in Fig. 5B) ([0051], lines 10-17; [0052]). Here, the tempering inserts can be considered as the heating units.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Olaru to provide the heat transfer fluid is also used for a step of cooling means for protecting the necks of the preforms in a heating unit. Doing so would be possible to protect the shape of the neck end region of the preforms against deformation both during tempering, as well during transporting, as recognized by Olaru ([0024]).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz et al. (CH 716011, English version based on US2022/0234274).
Regarding claims 16-20, Kunz discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, a method for manufacturing containers by blow-molding or stretch-blow-molding from plastic preforms (as shown in Fig. 1 or 2), the method comprising a step of cooling a mold bottom by circulation of a heat transfer fluid inside a cavity of the mold bottom (as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the temperature control channels 54 are assigned to each region 511 ([0083], lines 1-5 from bottom)), wherein the step of cooling a mold bottom is conducted using a non-refrigerated heat transfer fluid at a temperature of about 24 °C provided that the temperature may vary between ±60C (or between 18 °C to 30 °C) (i.e., Kunz discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, the cooling medium such as water ([0073]) is supplied at a temperature of 5 °C to 40 °C ([0075], lines 4-5) (i.e., overlapping the claimed range of 18 °C and 30 °C)) ((i.e., overlapping the claimed range of 18 °C and 30 °C including lower than or equal to 25°C, higher than or equal to 18°C, and higher than or equal to 21°C (related to claims 17-20))).
Kunz and the claims differ in that Kunz does not teach the exact same range for the temperature of the cooling medium (i.e., water) as recited in the instant claims.
It is noticed that, the temperature range of 5 °C to 40 °C (i.e., overlapping the claimed range of 18 °C and 30 °C) is falling within the room/ambient temperature such as 25 °C. It is noticed that, the cooling medium such as water with the room temperature does not require extra energy to cool or heat it.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Kunz (a temperature of 5 °C to 40 °C) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (between 18 °C to 30 °C) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Mero dies not teach a temperature range of fluid at all, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed that, based on the arrangement of heat transfer in Fig. 2 in the teachings of Mero et al., at least for one embodiment, the cold water to cool the thermoplastic wall of the bottle wall below 70 C should have a temperature lower than 70 C (col. 5, line 17). Because it is a cooling process through the mold by the cooling/flowing water, it will be impossible to achieve the temperature goal (i.e., lower than 70 C) if the cooling/flowing water is higher than 70 C.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that Mero needs a second mold to fully cool the finished bottles instead of the instant claims being directed to cool a finished container, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed that, at least during the heat treatment of the second mold (col. 2, lines 49-58), the finished/final bottle/containers are obtained.
As indicated by Mero, at least a portion of the bottle wall is heat treated at a temperature of 110 C to 220 C. and decorative and other wall surface indicia is formed. The second mold is larger in volume, in height and diameter and has all the decorative and other surface detail desired in the final container (col. 2, lines 50-56). In other words, in the second mold, the bottom of the finished container may maintain the same heat treatment due to the lack of decorative.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) that the reference Kunz does not have the cooling channels through its solid steel bottom and Kunz’s cooling temperature range is being directly to container walls instead of the bottom of the mold, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed that, the teachings of Mero et al., and Kunz are in the same technology for making containers from preforms. The Examiner is relying on the teachings of Mero to disclose the cooling channels through the bottom of the mold.
Specifically, Kunz discloses that, it is known that the blow molding tool can be heated or cooled by means of a suitable fluid, for example water, which is circulated under pressure in channels, milled grooves and holes in the blow molding tool ([0010], lines 7-10).
Again, because it is a cooling process in both Mero and Kunz, it will be impossible to achieve the temperature goal (e.g., such as 15 C to the container walls) if the cooling/flowing water is higher than 15 C.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claims 6, 10 that the reference Olaru is directed to preform forming/cooling instead of cooling the necks of already-formed preforms, it is not persuasive.
It is clear that, in the cooling process of the preforms of Olaru, the preforms are formed first then being cooled.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741