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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114A 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 (2 – 2 – 2025) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on (2 – 2 – 2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Neter et al. (US 6475415 B1, hereinafter Neter) does not teach the newly amended feature(s) of a conveyance mechanism configured to sequentially convey the preform to the injection molding unit, the temperature adjusting unit, and the blow molding unit while holding a neck portion of the preform with a neck mold applied in the injection molding unit and in the temperature adjusting unit, the neck mold that holds the preform is disposed between the core mold and the cavity mold.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Neter / Neter as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As detailed below Neter teaches on (Col. 4, lines 16 – 20) that the preforms are ejected from the mold and are retained external to the mold by means independent of the mold such as for example a movable take-off plate. As such, the take-off plate is understood to be a conveyance mechanism is a neck mold applied in the injection molding unit. (Col. 11, lines 4 – 8) teaches that as shown in FIGS. 6(c) and 6(d), the cooling frame 98 is provided with a plurality of spaces 112. The spaces 112 allow finally cooled molded articles or preforms ejected from the take-off plate 60 to be dropped onto a conveyor 114 for transportation away from the system. (Col. 5, lines 3 – 7) teaches that the cooling method and apparatus of the present invention can be integrated into an injection-blow molding machine where the cooled preforms with no crystallinity are further temperature conditioned and blown into bottles. As such, the take-off plate 60 is understood to provide conveyance from the injection molding unit to the cooling unit then taking the cooled preforms with no crystallinity for further temperature conditioning and finally blown into bottles. Accodignly, the take-off plate 60 provides for sequentially convey the preform from the injection molding unit to the temperature adjusting unit, and onto the blow molding unit. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 5, 15 – 16 & 23) shows a close ups of the take-off plate 60, which comprise holders 62 & 62‘’ found to hold a neck portion of the preform with a neck mold applied in the injection molding unit. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the conveyance mechanism implemented to sequentially convey the preforms from the injection molding unit to the temperature adjusting unit, and the blow molding unit while holding a neck portion of the preform with a neck mold applied in the injection molding unit is understood to be disclosed. However, the case law for the intended use of the apparatus may be recited. Where, It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.Additionally, Neter goes on to teach on (Col. 14, lines 61 – 66) that (Fig. 15) which shows novel air-cooling means attached to the take-off-plate 60. As illustrated in (Fig. 15), the holders 62 / neck mold is found holds the preform is disposed between the pins 174 / core mold and the cavity mold in which the preforms 48 are found within in the temperature adjusting unit. Furthermore, (Col. 12, lines 64 – End) teaches that the holders 62″ are preferably stiff enough to retain the preforms and have perforations or other openings 242 and 244 where the holders do not have any direct contact with the preforms. As illustrated in (Fig. 15) the holders 62″, are found to act as the neck mold holds the preform is disposed between the core mold / cooling pins 252 and the cavity mold of the take off plate 60 in which the preforms are resting.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Neter / Neter as modified.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also
commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification
when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when
the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption
that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation
recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the
recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A conveyance mechanism configured to sequentially convey the preform, in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
(Pgs. 7 – 10, 31 – 33 & 37 – 39) of the instant application’s specifications teaches more details regarding the conveyance mechanism.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neter et al. (US 6475415 B1, hereinafter Neter) in view of Frank Delfer (US 4721452 A, hereinafter Delfer) and in further view of Shawn McAuley (US 7216581 B2 hereinafter McAuley)Regarding claim 1,
A blow molding apparatus comprising:
an injection molding unit configured to injection-mold a preform having a bottomed shape and made of a resin;
a temperature adjusting unit configured to flow cooling air into the preform that has been released from the injection molding unit to cool the preform with the cooling air;
a blow molding unit configured to blow-mold the preform after the temperature adjustment to manufacture a container made of the resin, and
a conveyance mechanism configured to sequentially convey the preform to the injection molding unit, the temperature adjusting unit, and the blow molding unit while holding a neck portion of the preform with a neck mold applied in the injection molding unit,
wherein the temperature adjusting unit includes:
a first drive unit configured to drive a core mold, from which the cooling air is supplied, in a first direction to insert the core mold into the preform;
a second drive unit configured to drive a cavity mold that accommodates the preform in a second direction opposite to the first direction to accommodate the preform in the cavity mold;
wherein the cavity mold has substantially the same shape as the preform at the time of injection molding and
is configured to define a temperature adjusting space in which the preform is accommodated,
a first lock portion configured to restrict a movement of the first drive unit in the second direction at a first position where the core mold is inserted into the preform;
a second lock portion configured to restrict a movement of the second drive unit in the first direction at a second position where the preform is accommodated in the cavity mold; and
in the temperature adjusting unit, the neck mold that holds the preform is disposed between the core mold and the cavity mold.
Neter teaches the following:
(Col. 5, lines 1 – 13) teaches that in accordance with one aspect of the present invention, the apparatus for forming a de-crystallized, injection molded article comprises a mold having two mold halves which can be moved between a mold closed position and a mold open position. (Col. 13, lines 42 – 45) teaching that it is well known that the temperature of the molten resin flowing through a mold varies quite substantially for a various of reasons. Highlighting, that the preforms fabricated are shown in (Figs. 5 – 6) which are shown to comprise a bottomed shape. As such, an injection molding unit configured to injection-mold a preform having a bottomed shape and made of a resin is understood to be disclosed.
(Col. 13, lines 1 – 5) teaches that cooling pins 74 blowing cold air inside the preform immediately adjacent the sprue gate area is a novel operation that prevents in a very efficient manner the formation of crystallized areas in the preform. In this case, the cooling step comprises the transfer of the preforms from the mold to the take-off plate 60. As such, the take-off plate 60 in conjunction with the cooling pins 74 and corresponding structure acts as applicant’s temperature adjusting unit configured to flow cooling air into the preform that has been released from the injection molding unit to cool the preform with the cooling air.
(Col. 5, lines 3 – 6) teaches that the cooling method and apparatus of the present invention can be integrated into an injection-blow molding machine where the cooled preforms with no crystallinity are further temperature conditioned and blown into bottles.
& k.) (Col. 4, lines 16 – 20) teaches the preforms are ejected from the mold and are retained external to the mold by means independent of the mold such as for example a movable take-off plate. As such, the take-off plate is understood to be a conveyance mechanism is a neck mold applied in the injection molding unit. (Col. 11, lines 4 – 8) teaches that as shown in FIGS. 6(c) and 6(d), the cooling frame 98 is provided with a plurality of spaces 112. The spaces 112 allow finally cooled molded articles or preforms ejected from the take-off plate 60 to be dropped onto a conveyor 114 for transportation away from the system. (Col. 5, lines 3 – 7) teaches that the cooling method and apparatus of the present invention can be integrated into an injection-blow molding machine where the cooled preforms with no crystallinity are further temperature conditioned and blown into bottles. As such, the take-off plate 60 is understood to provide conveyance from the injection molding unit to the cooling unit then taking the cooled preforms with no crystallinity for further temperature conditioning and finally blown into bottles. Accodignly, the take-off plate 60 provides for sequentially convey the preform from the injection molding unit to the temperature adjusting unit, and onto the blow molding unit. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 5, 15 – 16 & 23) shows a close ups of the take-off plate 60, which comprise holders 62 & 62‘’ found to hold a neck portion of the preform with a neck mold applied in the injection molding unit. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the conveyance mechanism implemented to sequentially convey the preforms from the injection molding unit to the temperature adjusting unit, and the blow molding unit while holding a neck portion of the preform with a neck mold applied in the injection molding unit is understood to be disclosed. However, the case law for the intended use of the apparatus may be recited. Where, It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
(Col. 10, lines 60 – 63) teaches that a frame 98 is moved using hydraulic cylinders 110. According to the present invention, the number of cooling pins 74 can be the same or less than the number of receptacles 62 in the take-off plate 60. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 6a) the hydraulic cylinders 110 provides for a first hydraulic drive unit configured to drive frame and pins 74 / core mold, from which the cooling air is supplied.
(Col. 14, lines 55 – 60) teaches that as shown in (Fig. 14), the take-off plate 60 or other means for holding the performs is translated along the axis X towards the cooling frame 98. After the cooling step, the take-off plate 60 is rotated by 90° so that it faces the conveyor 114 and thus the cooled preforms are ejected. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 14), the translation along the axis X is found to be opposite to the first direction to accommodate the preform in the cavity mold.Additionally, (Fig. 23) provides for a take-off plate 60 comprised of a cavity mold for accommodating the preforms. As such, the take-off plate 60 or other means for holding the performs is found to provide for a second drive unit configured to drive a cavity mold that accommodates the preform in a second direction opposite to the first direction to accommodate the preform in the cavity mold.
& h.) As shown in (Fig. 23) the take-off plate 60 is comprised of a cavity mold for accommodating the preforms, where the cavity provided is found to be substantially the same shape as the preform at the time of injection molding and is configured to define a temperature adjusting space in which the preform is accommodated.
(Col. 14, lines 61 – 66) teaches that (Fig. 15) which shows novel air-cooling means attached to the take-off-plate 60. As illustrated in (Fig. 15), the holders 62 / neck mold is found holds the preform is disposed between the pins 174 / core mold and the cavity mold in which the preforms 48 are found within in the temperature adjusting unit. Additionally, (Col. 12, lines 64 – End) teaches that the holders 62″ are preferably stiff enough to retain the preforms and have perforations or other openings 242 and 244 where the holders do not have any direct contact with the preforms. As illustrated in (Fig. 15) the holders 62″, are found to act as the neck mold holds the preform is disposed between the core mold / cooling pins 252 and the cavity mold of the take off plate 60 in which the preforms are resting.
Regarding Claim 1, Neter teaches utilizing a cavity mold for the take-off plate 60 comprising additional translation means 150 attached to the mold plates 32, (Fig. 14). Neter is silent on details regarding the second drive unit for the mold plates and the take-off plate comprising a lock portion configured to restrict a movement of the second drive unit in the first direction at a position where the preform is accommodated in the cavity mold. In analogous art for parison injection molding apparatus (Abstract), Delfer suggest details regarding the locking mechanism for the take-off plate, and in this regard, Delfer teaches the following:
(Col. 4, lines 9-12) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 1) the first and second mold portions in a mold-open position. The mold portions reciprocate on tie rods 15 powered by any convenient motive means, as by hydraulic cylinder 16, in a pre-determined cycle. As such, the tie rods 15 of the mold portion portions are understood to be moved by a hydraulic cylinder. Noting, that the mold portions are also found to comprise a carrier plate with additional translation means.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing preform which includes the steps of injection molding a preform, temperature treating the preform and then blow molding the preform into an article, of Neter. By modifying the movement of the mold portions reciprocate on tie rods 15 powered by any convenient motive means, as by hydraulic cylinder, where the mold portion movement is also responsible for the movement of carrier plate with additional translation means, as taught by Delfer. Highlighting, one would motivated in include implementing a hydraulic cylinder as a means for movement of the mold portions as it provides for moving the mold portions in determined cycle, (Col. 4, lines 9-12). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Regarding Claim 1, Neter as modified by Delfer teaches utilizing actuating hydraulic cylinders 110 as a means for moving parts during cooling operations. Neter as modified by Delfer is silent on details regarding actuating hydraulic cylinders comprising a locking mechanism when positioned such the core mold is inserted into the preform. In analogous art for hydraulic actuators, (Abstract), McAuley suggest details regarding actuating hydraulic cylinders comprising a locking mechanism, and in this regard, McAuley teaches the following:
& j.) (Claim 16) teaches a locking actuator comprising at least one locking mechanism held by the strut, the at least one locking mechanism adapted to move into a first position when the actuator is locked and adapted to move to a second position when the actuator is unlocked. As shown in (Fig. 2A-B) the locking mechanism is shown in to be in the unlocked and locked positions, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing preform which includes the steps of injection molding a preform, temperature treating the preform and then blow molding the preform into an article, of Neter as modified by Delfer. By further modifying the actuating hydraulic cylinders to include a locking mechanism, as taught by McAuley. Highlighting, implementation of a locking mechanism provides for keeping the piston type actuator in a first and/or a second position, (Claim 17 & Figs. 2A-B).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first drive unit includes:
a first movable plate configured to support the core mold; and
a first rod configured to extend in the second direction from the first movable plate to move together with the first movable plate,
the first lock portion includes a lock piece configured to move forward and backward in a direction intersecting the second direction, and
the lock piece interferes with the first rod that has moved in the first direction when extending, and restricts a movement of the first movable plate in the second direction.
Neter teaches the following:
As shown in (Fig. 6) the cooling frame 98 is translated towards the take-off plate 60 and the cooling pins 74 enter the molded articles or preforms 48. Where the frame 98 acts as applicant’s first movable plate configured to support the core mold.
As shown in (Fig. 6) the cooling frame 98 is translated towards the take-off plate 60 and the cooling pins 74 98 is moved using hydraulic cylinders 110. As such, the pole of the hydraulic cylinders 110 acts as a first rod configured to extend in the second direction from the first movable plate to move together with the first movable plate.
Regarding Claim 2, Neter as modified by Delfer teaches utilizing actuating hydraulic cylinders as a means for moving parts during cooling operations. Neter as modified by Delfer is silent on details regarding the actuating hydraulic cylinders comprising a locking mechanism. In analogous art as applied above, McAuley suggest details regarding the locking mechanism for actuating hydraulic cylinders, and in this regard, McAuley teaches the following:
(Col. 3, lines 11-16) teaches that the locking mechanism 50 includes locking keys 60 that engage key slots or a groove 26 within the piston 20 and extending outward from the recess 24 substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 27. As detailed, and illustrated in (Fig. 2A-B) the direction of the locking keys is understood to be intersecting with the second directionAlternatively, and/or additionally, (Col. 4, lines 34-39) teaches that another locking system can comprise a foot 53 of the shaft 55 defines a pawl slot 58 along a side of the locking piston 52. An oblong pawl 70 extends through the body 80 into the pawl slot 58. Moving the pawl 70 suitably moves the shaft 55 towards the tip 41 and away from the tip 41, thus engaging and disengaging the locking mechanism 50.
(Fig. 2A-B) as shown the locking keys 60 as demonstrated to prevent the movement of the pistons rod from moving once in the extend position. After the locking keys 60 move, the piston 20 can regress back into the cylinder 30.Alternatively, and/or additionally (Col. 4, lines 42-46) teaches that the lever 72 suitably is activated by hand through a clevis 77 linked to a pushrod 76. Thus, it will be appreciated that the system 10 may be unlocked manually using the pawl 70 to move the shaft 55
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the second drive unit includes:
a second movable plate configured to support the cavity mold; and
a second rod configured to extend in the first direction from the second movable plate to move together with the second movable plate,
the second lock portion includes a lock piece configured to move forward and backward in a direction intersecting the first direction, and
PNG
media_image1.png
470
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the lock piece interferes with the second rod that has moved in the second direction when extending, and restricts a movement of the second movable plate in the first direction.
Neter as teaches the following:
(Figs. 14 & 23) and recreated here, the take-off plate 60 comprising a cavity mold (bottom arrow) is found to be on a second movable plate (top arrow) of the additional translation means 150 that allows for moving the take-off plate 60 comprising a cavity mold along the axis X.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As provided in (Fig. 14) and recreated here tie rod of the mold halves 32, 36 are found to provide for a second rod configured to extend in the first direction from the second movable plate to move together with the second movable plate .
Regarding Claim 3, Neter as modified by Delfer teaches utilizing actuating hydraulic cylinders as a means for moving parts during cooling operations. Neter as modified by Delfer is silent on details regarding the actuating hydraulic cylinders comprising a locking mechanism. In analogous art as applied above, McAuley suggest details regarding the locking mechanism for actuating hydraulic cylinders, and in this regard, McAuley teaches the following:
(Col. 3, lines 11-16) teaches that the locking mechanism 50 includes locking keys 60 that engage key slots or a groove 26 within the piston 20 and extending outward from the recess 24 substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 27. As detailed and illustrated in (Fig. 2A-B), the direction of the locking keys is understood to be intersecting with the second directionAlternatively, and/or additionally, (Col. 4, lines 34-39) teaches that another locking system can comprise a foot 53 of the shaft 55 defines a pawl slot 58 along a side of the locking piston 52. An oblong pawl 70 extends through the body 80 into the pawl slot 58. Moving the pawl 70 suitably moves the shaft 55 towards the tip 41 and away from the tip 41, thus engaging and disengaging the locking mechanism 50.
(Fig. 2A-B) as shown the locking keys 60 as demonstrated to prevent the movement of the pistons rod from moving once in the extend position. After the locking keys 60 move, the piston 20 can regress back into the cylinder 30.
Alternatively, and/or additionally (Col. 4, lines 42-46) teaches that the lever 72 suitably is activated by hand through a clevis 77 linked to a pushrod 76. Thus, it will be appreciated that the system 10 may be unlocked manually using the pawl 70 to move the shaft 55
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3,
Wherein the second lock portion further includes a receiving portion configured to convert a movement of the lock piece in an extending direction into force in the second direction.
Regarding Claim 4, Neter as modified by Delfer is silent on details regarding the piston type actuator locking means. In analogous art as applied above, McAuley suggest details regarding the locking mechanism for a piston type actuator, and in this regard, McAuley teaches the following:
(Col. 3, lines 28-31) teaches that by way of example but not limitation, the locking keys 60 are moved into the groove 26 by a lock/unlock shaft 55 movably held within a bore 42 through the center of the strut 40. (Col. 3, lines 47-48) teaches that the locking piston is biased towards a locked position by a coil spring 57.Highlighting as shown in (Fig. 2A-B) when the locking keys 60 are moved from an unlocked position (Fig. 2A) to the locked position (Fig. 2B). As shown, as the lock piece moves back and forth the shaft of the actuator is moved back and forth, holding the saft up with up in place, after being locked and the shaft moving back / released after being unlocked, respectively.Alternatively, and/or additionally, as shown in (Fig. 1) the piston if found in the extended position with the pawl is found in pawl slot 58. (Col. 4, lines 44-46) teaches that it will be appreciated that the system 10 may be unlocked manually using the pawl 70 to move the shaft 55.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshinori Nakamura (US 4946367 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) A rotary type molding machine for molding preforms and hollow molded products from the preforms includes a circular transfer plate with depending on lip molds. The transfer plate is disposed above a machine bed and is suspended from a plate body which is itself supported at its edges on the machine bed. The transfer plate is rotatable and movable up and down.
Brun et al. (US 4721452) – teaches in the (Abstract) that plurality of injection cores are inserted by a movable platen into corresponding injection cavities defined by mold inserts within a stationary platen, and the cores extend through corresponding split transfer mold cavities. After hollow preforms with threaded neck portions are molded within the cavities, the preforms are removed from the mold cavities, separated from the injection cores,
Gessner et al. (US 5447426 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the present invention relates to an improved take-off plate device for removing molded articles from a molding machine and delivering them to a transfer or receiving station. The device of the present invention includes a plate, one or more tubes mounted to the plate for receiving molded articles, and one or more ejector bars for engaging portions of the molded articles to remove or eject them from the tubes.
Emery I. Valyi (US 4382905 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) the method for the preparation of oriented hollow articles of moldable organic plastic material which is characterized by a rapid operating cycle and a final article free from objectionable capacity. The disclosure teaches an injection molding station for controlled removal of parisons after altering the heat content thereof under conditions avoiding crystallization and thereby freeing the injection station for the formation of a second parison.
Marastoni et al. (US 20170203493 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a device for unloading and storing preforms for the production of containers made of plastics includes, comprising at least one cooling plate that defines a plurality of receptacles for respective preforms and means a component for transferring the still-hot preforms from an injection molding device to the cooling plate. The device includes pick-up components adapted to pick up the preforms from the cooling plate and place them inside at least one accommodation container.
Dewey Rainville (US 4239475 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the injection blow molding machine of this specification moves oriented containers. Parisons applied to core rods move from an injection mold to a conditioning station that provides time for the full thickness of the parison to come to the same temperature. The parisons are then transferred, by a transfer device, to other core rods on a second indexing head of the machine which carries the parisons to a stretch-blow station at which they are stretched to obtain orientation
Krishnakumar et al. (US 4449913 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that this relates to an apparatus for injection molding preforms for beverage bottles wherein a minimum cycle time is involved. Cores over which thermoplastic material is injection molded to form preforms for use in the blow molding of bottles are provided in sets and carried by a rotary turret so that as soon as the injection molded thermoplastic material has sufficiently set to permit its transfer with its associated core out of an injection mold cavity,
Williamson et al. (US 5114327 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) the rapid cooling of molded workpieces formed in an injection molding machine such as PET parisons is provided by a receiver receiving molded workpieces upon ejection from the molding machine, the receiver being transported out of the molding machine to an adjacent position where a cooling head coupled to a source of cooling fluid such as liquid CO2 directs the fluid toward the surfaces of each workpiece.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)-272-1000.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743