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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Features applicant alleges are absent from Neter are disclosed by newly added reference Thoemmes. Furthermore, many of the features applicant argues ie the screw being stationary and in teethed engagement with the base are not claimed indeed the configured to language merely requires that the stamp/screw be capable of being coupled to the base. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neter (US 2006/0204605) in view of Thoemmes (US 2012/0263820).
As to claim 1, Neter teaches A method for producing a preform, comprising: inserting a the preform that has been formed by injection molding [0013, 0007], and that is still hot after having the injection molding [0013, 0007], into a cooling apparatus (50), the cooling apparatus (50) comprising inner contours defining an internal space [0013, 0007], the inner contours of which conform to the outer contours of the preform [Fig 3a-3C], generating a negative pressure being generated between the inner contours of the cooling apparatus and the outer contours of the preform [0045, 0042, 0044, 0034-0036],- pressing at least somewhat an the injection point (80a) (phrased as a gate vestige) created on the preform during the injection molding of the preform against a stamp (72) positioned proximate the injection point by the negative pressure generated between the inner contours and outer contours [0042, 0044]. The stamp does fasten to the base [0035].
Thoemmes teaches a cooling sleeves wherein a support element for the sprue region (ie the gate mark region) is implemented by a screw [0051, 0063] as this type of shape allows for the cooling fluid to be supplied to the preform without deforming the preform [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neter and made the stamp be shaped like a screw.
As to Claim 3, Neter teaches the vacuum is from 61 -71 cm Hg which is approximately .81-95 absolute bar which is an overlapping range with wherein the negative pressure is less than 0.9 bar absolute pressure [0045]. It has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neter (US 2006/0204605) in view of Thoemmes (US 2012/0263820), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and in further view of Takehana (WO 2020209294 with US 2022/0143886 utilized as translation).
As to claim 2 Neter notes that “gate vestige” (ie the mark left at injection point) is generally regarded as a defect to be avoided [0003, 0007] but does not explicitly state the injection point has a length and height of less than 1 mm after pressing.
Takehana teaches a cooling mold [Abstract] wherein the gate portion (ie the gate vestige or injection point) is entirely removed by pressing [0095, 0061, 0029, 0031-0033, 0038, Fig 6a, 6b, claim 3, 7]. As this shortens the production cycle by cooling and removing the gate simultaneously in order to avoid a cutting step [0095, 0005]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neter and performed the pressing such that the injection point has a length and height of less than 1 mm after pressing (ie flattened entirely), as suggested by Takehana, in order to shorten the production cycle by cooling and removing the gate simultaneously in order to avoid a cutting step.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neter (US 2006/0204605) in view of Thoemmes (US 2012/0263820), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and in further view of Farrell (US 4005969). Note this is an alternative rejection of claim 2
As to claim 2, Neter notes that “gate vestige” (ie the mark left at injection point) is generally regarded as a defect to be avoided [0003, 0007] but does not explicitly state the injection point has a length and height of less than 1 mm after pressing.
Farrell teaches a mold for parisons [Abstract, Fig 2] wherein the injection point is pressed by a stamp (92) phrased as a plunger [col 4 line 35-48, col 5 line 22-38 Fig 2]. Farrell notes that the plunger can be any desired shape to impart whatever shape the user desired to the end product [col 4 line 35-48, col 5 line 22-38 Fig 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neter and shaped the plunger such that the pressing resulted in the injection point has a length and height of less than 1 mm, as suggested by Farrell, as the plunger could be configured to any desired shape.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights