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 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 06/09/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are pending in the application.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokobayashi et al. (US2012/0294974 of record) hereinafter Yokobayashi in view of Blomer (US 2022/0371255 of record) and Schmid et al. (US2010/0203187 of record) hereinafter Schmid.
Regarding claim 1, Yokobayashi teaches:
A blow molding apparatus for manufacturing a resin container by blow molding a preform having a bottomed cylindrical shape (Fig 1-2; preform 1A; [0072]), the blow molding apparatus comprising:
an injection molding portion configured to injection mold the preform (Fig 1: injection molding station 12; [0103, 0106]);
a temperature adjusting portion configured to adjust the temperature of the preform (Fig 1: temperature control station 14; [0103, 0107]);
a blow molding portion having a stretching rod configured to stretch blow-mold the temperature-adjusted preform into the resin container (Fig 1: blow molding station 16; [0103, 0109, 0113, 0120]); and
a conveyance mechanism configured to sequentially convey the preform to the injection molding portion, the temperature adjusting portion, and the blow molding portion while holding a neck portion of the preform with a neck mold applied in the injection molding portion (Fig 1-8: transfer plates 20A-20D, neck mold 42; [0103]; preforms are transported via neck molds between each station),
wherein the injection molding portion, the temperature adjusting portion, and the blow molding portion are fixed at positions rotated by a predetermined angle around the conveyance mechanism (Fig1)
the blow molding portion has:
a pair of mold clamping plates that openably and closably supports a pair of blow split molds accommodating the preform (Fig 5-7: unlabeled plates clamping split molds 62a, 62b; [0110]).
Yokobayashi does not teach linear motion mechanisms that drive the pair of mold clamping plates in an opening and closing direction and apply a mold clamping force to the mold clamping plates at a time of mold closing.
Yokobayashi is silent as to how to drive the mold clamps/split molds. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other closing mechanisms in the art for how to drive the mold clamps/split molds.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blow molding, Blomer teaches:
A blow molding apparatus (Fig 1-3) for manufacturing a resin container by blow molding a preform ([0008]), the blow molding apparatus comprising:
a blow molding portion configured to blow-mold the preform into the resin container (Fig 1-3; [0042]);
the blow molding portion has:
a pair of mold clamping plates (Fig 1-3: unlabeled plates to the exterior of tool halves 2, 3) that openably and closably supports a pair of blow split molds accommodating the preform (Fig 1-3: tool halves 2, 3; [0042]);
a linear motion mechanism that drives one of the mold clamping plates in an opening and closing direction and applies a mold clamping force to the mold clamping plates at a time of mold closing (Fig 1-3: drive 7; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the linear motion mechanism as taught by Blomer to drive the mold clamps/split molds as taught by Yokobayashi and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since both references teach closing of mold clamping plates.
Yokobayashi in view of Blomer does not teach linear motion mechanisms that drive the pair of mold clamping plates in an opening and closing direction and apply a mold clamping force to the mold clamping plates at a time of mold closing.
However, it has been broadly held that duplication of parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Yokobayashi in view of Blomer to duplicate the linear motion mechanism for the motivation of applying opening and closing forces to both tool halves.
Yokobayashi in view of Blomer does not teach a pair of lock members that engages with a lower end side of the mold clamping plates at a mold closing position of the blow split molds and restricts movement of the mold clamping plates in a mold opening direction,
wherein all attachment positions in the height direction of the linear motion mechanisms to the mold clamping plates are set entirely above a center position of the mold clamping plates, and are set entirely above a position where a lower mold opening amount and an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds are balanced.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blow moulding, Schmid teaches a pair of lock members (Fig 2: locking elements 24, 26) that engages with a lower end side of a mold clamping plate (Fig 2: outer plate of mould sections 4, 6) at a mold closing position of the blow split mold (Fig 2: inner moulds of mould sections 4, 6) and restricts movement of the mold clamping plate in a mold opening direction (Fig 2; [0052]) for the motivation of providing improved locking mechanisms ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Yokobayashi in view of Blomer Blomer to include the lock members as taught by Schmid in order to provide improved locking mechanisms.
Blomer further teaches wherein all attachment positions in the height direction of the linear motion mechanisms to the mold clamping plates are set entirely above a center position of the mold clamping plates (Fig 1-3).
Schmid further teaches that when the mold sections 4, 6 are locked in a closed position, they cannot be opened until the locking elements 24, 26 are removed or lowered ([0052]), i.e., a lower mold opening amount and an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds are both zero in this state. Schmid also teaches a linear motion mechanism that is located at the bottom of the molds, i.e., significantly below the center line of the molds in a height direction, in a position where a lower mold opening amount and an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds are balanced (Fig 4d: coupling element 54; [0057])
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Blomer in view of Schmid further teaches that wherein all attachment positions in the height direction of the linear motion mechanisms to the mold clamping plates are set entirely above a position where a lower mold opening amount and an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds are balanced.
Regarding claim 2, Yokobayashi in view of Blomer and Schmid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schmid further teaches wherein each of the lock members is disposed on a lower side of the mold clamping plates and is movable forward and backward in a vertical direction ([0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Yokobayashi in view of Blomer and Schmid teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Schmid further teaches wherein each of the lock members has an inclined surface that converts upward movement of the lock members into a force in a direction of the mold closing (Fig 2: sloped surfaces 24a, 26a; [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Yokobayashi in view of Blomer and Schmid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Blomer further teaches wherein the linear motion mechanisms apply a mold clamping force to the mold clamping plates at a position where an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds is equal to or less than a threshold value (Fig 1-3; [0042, 0044]; Blomer teaches that drive 7 closes the tool halves 2, 3 until they are abutting i.e., when an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds is equal to or less than 0).
Regarding claim 7, Yokobayashi in view of Blomer and Schmid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schmid further teaches wherein the preform is accommodated in the blow split molds from an upper side ([0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Yokobayashi teaches:
A blow molding apparatus for manufacturing a resin container by blow molding a preform having a bottomed cylindrical shape (Fig 1-2; preform 1A; [0072]), the blow molding apparatus comprising:
an injection molding portion configured to injection mold the preform (Fig 1: injection molding station 12; [0103, 0106]);
a temperature adjusting portion configured to adjust the temperature of the preform (Fig 1: temperature control station 14; [0103, 0107]);
a blow molding portion having a stretching rod configured to stretch blow-mold the temperature-adjusted preform into the resin container (Fig 1: blow molding station 16; [0103, 0109, 0113, 0120]); and
a conveyance mechanism configured to sequentially convey the preform to the injection molding portion, the temperature adjusting portion, and the blow molding portion while holding a neck portion of the preform with a neck mold applied in the injection molding portion (Fig 1-8: transfer plates 20A-20D, neck mold 42; [0103]; preforms are transported via neck molds between each station),
wherein the injection molding portion, the temperature adjusting portion, and the blow molding portion are fixed at positions rotated by a predetermined angle around the conveyance mechanism (Fig1)
the blow molding portion has:
a pair of mold clamping plates that openably and closably supports a pair of blow split molds accommodating the preform (Fig 5-7: unlabeled plates clamping split molds 62a, 62b; [0110]).
Yokobayashi does not teach linear motion mechanisms that drive the pair of mold clamping plates in an opening and closing direction and apply a mold clamping force to the mold clamping plates at a time of mold closing.
Yokobayashi is silent as to how to drive the mold clamps/split molds. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other closing mechanisms in the art for how to drive the mold clamps/split molds.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blow molding, Blomer teaches:
A blow molding apparatus (Fig 1-3) for manufacturing a resin container by blow molding a preform ([0008]), the blow molding apparatus comprising:
a blow molding portion configured to blow-mold the preform into the resin container (Fig 1-3; [0042]);
the blow molding portion has:
a pair of mold clamping plates (Fig 1-3: unlabeled plates to the exterior of tool halves 2, 3) that openably and closably supports a pair of blow split molds accommodating the preform (Fig 1-3: tool halves 2, 3; [0042]);
a linear motion mechanism that drives one of the mold clamping plates in an opening and closing direction and applies a mold clamping force to the mold clamping plates at a time of mold closing (Fig 1-3: drive 7; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the linear motion mechanism as taught by Blomer to drive the mold clamps/split molds as taught by Yokobayashi and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since both references teach closing of mold clamping plates.
Yokobayashi in view of Blomer does not teach linear motion mechanisms that drive the pair of mold clamping plates in an opening and closing direction and apply a mold clamping force to the mold clamping plates at a time of mold closing.
However, it has been broadly held that duplication of parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Yokobayashi in view of Blomer to duplicate the linear motion mechanism for the motivation of applying opening and closing forces to both tool halves.
Yokobayashi in view of Blomer does not teach a pair of lock members that engages with a lower end side of the mold clamping plates at a mold closing position of the blow split molds and restricts movement of the mold clamping plates in a mold opening direction,
wherein all attachment positions in the height direction of the linear motion mechanisms to the mold clamping plates are entirely set above a center position of the mold clamping plates, and are set entirely above a position where an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds is equal to or less than a threshold value.
Yokobayashi in view of Blomer does not teach a pair of lock members that interferes with a lower end side of the mold clamping plates at a mold closing position of the blow split molds and restricts movement of the mold clamping plates in a mold opening direction.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blow moulding, Schmid teaches a pair of lock members (Fig 2: locking elements 24, 26) that interferes with a lower end side of a mold clamping plate (Fig 2: outer plate of mould sections 4, 6) at a mold closing position of the blow split mold (Fig 2: inner moulds of mould sections 4, 6) and restricts movement of the mold clamping plate in a mold opening direction (Fig 2; [0052]) for the motivation of providing improved locking mechanisms ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Yokobayashi in view of Blomer to include the lock members as taught by Schmid in order to provide improved locking mechanisms.
Blomer further teaches wherein all attachment positions in the height direction of the linear motion mechanisms to the mold clamping plates are set entirely above a center position of the mold clamping plates (Fig 1-3).
Schmid teaches that when the mold sections 4, 6 are locked in a closed position, they cannot be opened until the locking elements 24, 26 are removed or lowered ([0052]), i.e., an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds is equal to or less than a threshold value of 0. Schmid also teaches a linear motion mechanism that is located at the bottom of the molds, i.e., significantly below the center line of the molds in a height direction, in a position where an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds is equal to or less than a threshold value of 0 (Fig 4d: coupling element 54; [0057])
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Blomer in view of Schmid further teaches that wherein all attachment positions in the height direction of the linear motion mechanisms to the mold clamping plates are set above a position where an upper mold opening amount of the blow split molds is equal to or less than a threshold value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Blomer and Yokobayashi are incompatible because Blomer teaches extrusion blow molding. However, applicant cites [0008] of Blomer for teaching extrusion blow molding, which recites “During the production of such hollow bodies in the course of blow-molding, for example, an extruder having a die head…” (emphasis added). Blomer offers an extruder having a die head merely by way of example. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Thus disclosure of such an example does not constitute a teaching away from applying the taught linear motion mechanism to injection blow molding. In fact, immediately preceding applicant’s citation of [0008] of Blomer, Blomer recites “The examples described herein relate to the production of hollow bodies in the course of blow-molding”. Yokobayashi falls directly under this field of endeavor and therefore combination of Yokobayashi and Blomer is well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Yokobayashi teaches an injection blow molding apparatus with split molds that open and close. Blomer teaches a linear mechanism for opening and closing split molds for blow molding, with extrusion blow molding presented as merely an example.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a blow molding portion having a stretching rod configured to stretch blow-mold the temperature-adjusted preform into the resin container. However, this is directly contradicted by [0113] of Yokobayashi which recties “The blow molding step is implemented by introducing high-pressure air into the preliminarily blow-molded preforms 1B from a blow core mold while moving a stretching rod in the vertical direction” and [0120] which recites “A stretching rod driver section 104, a blow core driver section 106, a raised-bottom mold driver section (driver device) 108, a blow pressure-receiving plate driver section 110, and the like are also provided in the blow molding station 16.”
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights