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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Dec. 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 5-11 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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 ), first 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 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 5, lines 7-9, Applicant adds amended claimed languages of “the temperature adjustment unit including an axially movable penetrating needle having a retracted position separated from a bottom portion of the first layer and an extended position extending through the bottom of the first layer during temperature adjustment” which are not supported by the disclosure of Applicant. For example, as illustrated in Fig. 5 of the Applicant, the perforating portion 54 penetrates the bottom portion of the first layer 11 when the core mold 52a is inserted into the first layer 11 ([0050], lines 1-6 (USPGPub2023/0321889)). It is unclear that the amended retracted position and the extended position of the penetrating needle 54a are the outcome of the moving core mold or not.
Claims 6-11 depended on claim 5 are rejected as well.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 5-8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyoshi et al (JP2000043126, English translation provided) in view of Kawamiura et al. (US 2019/0337218), further in view of Horigome et al. (US 2012/0189727) and Atance Orden et al. (US 8,551,592).
Regarding claims 5, 10, Kiyoshi discloses as illustrated in Figs. 3 (b), 6, 9, a blow-molding apparatus comprising:
a first injection-molding unit (items 40, 41, Fig. 3(b) (page 7, lines 387-388)) configured to injection-mold a first layer (item A, Fig. 6 or 9 (page 7, line 382 (outer preform))) of a bottomed cylindrical preform from a first resin material using a first injection molding mold (items 21, 33, Fig. 3(b) (page 7, lines 384-386));
a temperature adjustment unit (for example, the molding die is cooled to solidify the resin R in the space a (page 4, lines 184-185)) configured to accommodate the first layer manufactured in the first injection molding unit in a temperature adjustment mold (items 36, 61, 20, Fig. 6 (page 7,lines 384-388)) different from first injection molding mold, adjust a temperature of the first layer manufactured by the first injection-molding unit and form an opening portion (item 2a, Fig. 7(a) (page 7, line 383)) in a bottom portion of the first layer (as shown in Figs. 7(a), (b) (page 7, lines 367-369));
a second injection-molding unit (items 50, 51, Fig. 6 (page 7, line 388)) configured to inject a second resin material from the opening portion to an inner peripheral side of the first layer to laminate a second layer (item B, Fig. 6 or 9 (page 7, line 382 (inner preform))) on an inner periphery of the first layer, using a second injection molding mold (items 35, 21, Fig. 5 (page 7, lines 386-387)); and
a blow-molding unit configured to blow-mold the multilayer preform obtained by the second injection-molding unit (page 2, lines 63-69 and page 6, lines 309-317).
However, Kiyoshi does not identify the temperature adjustment unit to control the cooling temperature of the preform to a certain level and includes in a state where the multilayer preform includes residual heat from the injection molding to manufacture a resin container. In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Kawamiura discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the temperature adjustment part (items 22, 122, Fig. 1 ([0065])) adjusts a temperature of the preform from an outer side by the close contact with the cavity mold ([0010]-[0026]). Further, Kawamiura discloses that, it is desired to further improve productivity of the hot parison blow molding (i.e., by using potential/residual heat upon injection molding of a preform ([0002], lines 1-3)) ([0007], lines 1-2).
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 Kiyoshi to incorporate the teachings of Kawamiura to provide the temperature adjustment unit. Doing so would be possible to shorten a molding cycle, as recognized by Kawamiura ([0007], [0008], [0009]).
However, Kiyoshi does not explicitly disclose that, the second injection-molding unit is different from the temperature adjustment mold. In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Horigome discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, the injection mold 12 (as shown in Figs. 1, 2; [0162], line 7) and the temperature control station 14 (as shown in Figs. 1, 3; [0162], lines 7-8) are different. For one of ordinary skilled in the art, it would have been obvious to duplicate the injection and temperature control steps to obtain desired layers.
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 Kiyoshi to incorporate the teachings of Horigome to provide the temperature adjustment unit differing from the injection molding. Doing so would be possible to improve production (i.e., increasing the number of preforms that are molded at the same time), as recognized by Horigome ([0060]).
However, Kiyoshi does not disclose that, the temperature adjustment unit includes an axially movable penetrating needle being provided at the first-injection molding mold.
In the same field of endeavor, multiplayer preforms, Atance Orden discloses that, as illustrated in Figs, 12A-12C, the supporting members 4 are fixed in the core 3, as shown in Fig. 12A, and project from the free end thereof to make contact with the inner surface of the primary molding cavity 1 (Fig. 12B) (col. 12, lines 47-52). When the core 3 is removed from the primary molding cavity 1 carrying the first layer P1, the openings 60 formed by the supporting members 4 are occupied by the supporting members 4 (col. 12, lines 58-61) (related to claim 10).
Here, the supporting members 4 being provided at the free end of the core mold 3 are considered as the penetrating needle. The movements of inserting the core mold and removing the core mold are considered to provide the retraction and extension of the supporting members.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Kiyoshi to have the molding processes for the multiple layers preforms as Atance Orden teaches that it is known to have the supporting members 4 being provided at the free end of the core mold 3 are considered as the penetrating needle. The movements of inserting the core mold and removing the core mold are considered to provide the retraction and extension of the supporting members. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Kiyoshi discloses as illustrated in Figs. 2, 3 (b), after heating and melting the resin R is injected and filled from the resin injection gate 40 into the space a, the molding die is cooled (or adjusted) to solidify the resin R in the space a (page 4, lines 193-195). As illustrated in Fig. 3 (b), the molded core 31 (page 7, line 386) is inserted in the mold block 21 (page 7, line 384). Kiyoshi discloses that, since the residual resin is attached to the hole portion 2a via the thin film, the residual resin is cut off by pressing or by a cutter (page 4, lines 203-207). Here the puncher or cutter with a perforating portion can be considered as a movable member facing a bottom portion of the preform.
Thus, Kiyoshi discloses as illustrated in Fig. 3 (a), item 31 (page 7, line 386) can be considered as a core mold and item 20 (page 7, line 384) can be considered as a cavity mold. A gate hole 26 (page 7, line 385) of the resin injection gate 40 (page 7, line 387) can be considered as a movable member to face a bottom portion of the preform. As illustrated in Fig. 4(a), item 2a (page 7, line 383) can be considered as an opening penetrating the bottom portion of the preform and this portion of the core mold has a perforating portion.
Regarding claim 7, Kiyoshi discloses as illustrated in Figs. 3 (a) and (b), the perforation portion (of the core mold) is formed from a distal end of the core mold so as to protrude (i.e., by item 24 (page 7, lines 384-385)) in an axial direction of the preform and the movable member (i.e., items 26 and 40) includes a concave portion that receives the perforation portion.
Regarding claim 8, Kiyoshi discloses as illustrated in Figs. 2, 5, 8, the perforation portion is formed in the movable member so as to protrude (i.e., through item 51 (page 7, line 388)) in an axial direction of the core mold and the core mold (items 35, 36 (page 7, lines 386-387)) has a concave portion (item 23 (page 7, line 384)) that receive the perforation portion.
Regarding claim 11, Kiyoshi discloses as illustrated in Figs. 2(a), 4(b), it may be provided at the tip of the fitting block 27, which is separate from the cavity block 21 with a screw 28 (page 3, lines 135-137). Here, the fitting block 27 is considered as at least one portion of the axially movable lower mold. The screw 28 is considered as the penetrating needle attached to the axially movable lower mold. As illustrated in Fig. 4(b), the opening 2a is created accordingly (page 4, lines 199-200).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The references of Kiyoshi et al (JP2000043126, English translation provided), Kawamiura et al. (US 2019/0337218), Horigome et al. (US 2012/0189727), and Atance Orden et al. (US 8,551,592) fail to disclose ‘the first injection-molding unit comprises a cavity mold having a first projection portion configured to form a concave portion in the first layer, and the second injection-molding unit comprises a cavity mold having a second projection portion having a protrusion extending a distance greater than a thickness of the first layer and configured to penetrate the concave portion of the first layer and protrude to an inner peripheral side of the first layer and form an air introduction hole in the first layer’.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
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 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). 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.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741