Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/021,463

BLOW MOLDING APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 15, 2023
Examiner
WANG, ALEXANDER A
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nissei Asb Machine Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
166 granted / 254 resolved
At TC average
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
305
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
54.7%
+14.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 254 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant amendment filed 12/19/2025 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 Blomer (US 2022/0371255 of record) in view of Schmid et al. (US2010/0203187 of record) hereinafter Schmid and Yokobayashi et al. (US2012/0294974) hereinafter Yokobayashi. Regarding claim 1, 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]). 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 Blomer to duplicate the linear motion mechanism for the motivation of applying opening and closing forces to both tool halves. 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. 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 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. Blomer in view of Schmid does not teach a preform having a bottomed cylindrical shape, an injection molding portion configured to injection mold the preform; a temperature adjusting portion configured to adjust the temperature of the preform; a blow molding portion configured to blow-mold the temperature-adjusted preform into the resin container; 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, 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. 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 configured to blow-mold the temperature-adjusted preform into the resin container (Fig 1: blow molding station 16; [0103, 0109]); 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) for the motivation of providing an apparatus for carrying out an injection molding step, a temperature control step, and a blow molding step ([0103]). 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 Blomer in view of Schmid to include the injection molding station, temperature control station, and conveyance mechanism as taught by Yokobayashi in order to provide an apparatus for carrying out an injection molding step, a temperature control step, and a blow molding step. Regarding claim 2, Blomer in view of Schmid and Yokobayashi 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, Blomer in view of Schmid and Yokobayashi 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, Blomer in view of Schmid and Yokobayashi 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, Blomer in view of Schmid and Yokobayashi 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, 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 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]). 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 Blomer to duplicate the linear motion mechanism for the motivation of applying opening and closing forces to both tool halves. 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 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. Blomer in view of Schmid does not teach a preform having a bottomed cylindrical shape, an injection molding portion configured to injection mold the preform; a temperature adjusting portion configured to adjust the temperature of the preform; a blow molding portion configured to blow-mold the temperature-adjusted preform into the resin container; 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, 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. 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 configured to blow-mold the temperature-adjusted preform into the resin container (Fig 1: blow molding station 16; [0103, 0109]); 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) for the motivation of providing an apparatus for carrying out an injection molding step, a temperature control step, and a blow molding step ([0103]). 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 Blomer in view of Schmid to include the injection molding station, temperature control station, and conveyance mechanism as taught by Yokobayashi in order to provide an apparatus for carrying out an injection molding step, a temperature control step, and a blow molding step. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/19/2025 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. For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance. 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 17, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 17, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 19, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600075
Valve Device and Blow Molding System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594733
PREFORM SHAPING APPARATUS, PREFORM SHAPING METHOD AND COMPOSITE MATERIAL MOLDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594732
AUTOMATED FIBER PLACEMENT DEVICE FOR PREFORM MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583160
CONTROL DEVICE OF INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE AND INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576589
PRINT AND RECOAT ASSEMBLIES FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+21.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 254 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month