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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,889,752, hereafter Beck.
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses a stretching rod for a molding unit for manufacturing a container from a preform, said stretching rod extending longitudinally, parallel to a main axis Y (Fig 14, Col 8 lines 7-8 , stretch rod 50 extending longitudinally parallel to axis (arrow 68)), comprising:
a body of cylindrical or tubular form (See annotated Fig 14, Col 8, lines 7-8, stretch rod 50 includes larger diameter body portion);
PNG
media_image1.png
826
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
730
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a distal end in continuation of the body (end of stretch rod 50, see annotated Fig 14);
a flat situated at the distal end of the stretching rod (Fig 14, groove 69), the flat defining a surface extending orthogonally with respect to the main axis Y (see annotated Fig 14 and Fig 16, annular groove 69 forms a plane that is orthogonal to axis of stretch rod 50 as is shown by the claimed flat 6 in Fig 6 of the present application), and;
an end fitting protruding from said flat (see annotated Fig 14);
wherein said stretching rod comprises an annular skirt in continuation of said body (see annotated Fig 14), at said distal end, said annular skirt having a height less than the height of said end fitting (See Fig 14, annular skirt terminates at a shorter length than end fitting along length of stretch rod 50), said end fitting having a diameter (IDB) smaller than a diameter of the body (ID) of the stretching rod (See annotated Fig 14 and Fig 16), and a diameter of a free end of the skirt being larger than 1 mm (Fig 16 shows size relationships (Col 8 lines 60-64); Col 9 line 8, TC is a minimum of 1mm, and TC is a smaller diameter than ID – based on the depicted dimensions in Fig 16, the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt (ID) is greater than the depicted dimension of TC, and TC is at least 1mm).
Beck does not disclose the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt being smaller than or equal to 14mm.
Regarding changing the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt, Beck (see col 10 line 18-25) teaches that because the base-forming portion 54 is malleable at the start of the blow molding process, it has a tendency to yield during the stretching process. The use of the annular groove 69 to engage the nub 67 of the preform minimizes the amount of stretching occurring in the base-forming portion 54. Increasing the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt would limit the stretch rod 50 in its ability to move through the preform due to being too large to fit in the opening, since, according to Beck, “in order to be inserted into the preform 26' following the molding thereof, except at the point of the nub 67, the outside diameter of the stretch rod 50 at each point along the length thereof must be slightly less than the inside diameter of the preform 26' at the corresponding point” (col 7 lines 29-34). Decreasing the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt would accordingly decrease the ability of the annular groove 69 to grip the nub 67 of the preform, since Beck states the nub 67 must match the annular groove 69 (col 7 lines 22-25) and a change in the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt would necessarily correspond to a change in the size of the annular groove 69 that is surrounded by the annular skirt, thus increasing the risk of the base-forming portion 54 of the preform yielding during the stretching process, for which the engagement between the nub 67 and annular groove 69 is to prevent (col 10 line 18-25). Therefore the airflow inside the preform during blow molding and the ability of the annular groove 69 to engage the nub 67 of the preform are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt. For that reason, the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the free end of the annular skirt in the apparatus of Beck to obtain the desired balance between engagement of the nub 67 of the preform by the annular groove 69 and retaining the ability to insert the stretch rod 50 into the preform (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, Beck further discloses wherein said annular skirt has a diameter equal to the diameter of the body of the stretching rod (see annotated Fig 14 & Fig 16, annular skirt has equal diameter (ID) to body of stretch rod 50).
Regarding claim 3, Beck further discloses wherein edges of said annular skirt are rounded, wherein an end of said end fitting is rounded, or both (see annotated Fig 14, rounded edges of annular skirt and end fitting).
Regarding claim 4, Beck further discloses wherein an outer surface of the body and the annular skirt comprise a single piece (See annotated Fig 14, annular skirt is an unbroken integral part of body of stretch rod 50).
Regarding claim 5, Beck further discloses wherein the end fitting is of conical form (See annotated Fig 14, end of end fitting tapers to the tip).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,889,752, hereafter Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published Application US20090160102A1, hereafter Schuster.
Regarding claim 7, Beck is silent on wherein the annular skirt has a crenelated form.
In the analogous art of stretching rods, Schuster discloses wherein the annular skirt has a crenelated form (Fig 6, [0036] raised portions 13 of stretch rod 50 tip). Schuster further discloses in paragraph [0006] that these rounded raised portions are useful to achieve compression of the preform in a comparatively homogeneous manner, resulting in an improved sliding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the annular skirt of Beck to have a rounded crenelated form as disclosed by Schuster, in order to improve the sliding of the stretch rod tip as it stretches and compresses the preform material during blow molding, as suggested by Schuster ([0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Schuster further discloses wherein the crenelated form of the annular skirt has rounded and convex peak edges and concave trough edges (Fig 6, rounded convex raised portions 13 and rounded concave trough edges between them).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the claim interpretation of “distal end” on page 4 of applicant’s remarks that the use of “distal end” in claim 1 is consistent with its ordinary meaning in the mechanical arts and is supported by the disclosure in a manner that provides clear boundaries and meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner agrees, the argument is persuasive. The interpretation of “distal end” in claim 1 has been withdrawn from the previous office action.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the previous response to arguments on page 5 of applicant’s remarks that Beck’s surface is radial without any orthogonal extension relative to the elongate axis of the rod, the examiner disagrees, and notes as stated in the previous response, the annular groove of Beck is the shape of a ring, and the orientation of the ring compared to the axis of the stretch rod is simultaneously orthogonal thereto and concentric therewith.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 6 of applicant’s remarks that the present application explicitly teaches that the skirt diameter is always ≤14 mm and is dimensioned such that it “bears only against the bottom of the preform and never bears against the corner portion”, the examiner notes that while the skirt diameter of ≤14 mm is claimed, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the skirt bearing only against the bottom of the preform and never against the corner portion) 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).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on pages 6-7 of applicant’s remarks that a skirt diameter of 18 mm is reasonably inferred from Beck’s figures and dimensional relationships, the examiner disagrees. The disclosure of Beck does not provide any basis for applicant’s assertion of an 18 mm skirt diameter, and applicant has not provided evidence for this assertion beyond general references to Beck’s figures and dimensional relationships, which do not provide this basis. Beck only mentions a single dimension, which is the thickness of the chime being 1 mm at minimum (col 9, TC = 1 mm (minimum)). This information combined with the size relationships shown in Fig 16 suggest, based on, for example, a comparison between TC and ID, that the skirt diameter, shown in Fig 16 to be similar to the inner diameter ID, appears slightly larger, and one skilled in the art would then understand a minimum of an annular skirt diameter to be correlated as slightly more than 1 mm, which is well within the range claimed.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 7 of applicant’s remarks discussing comparative testing data, the examiner notes that applicant has merely stated patentability, and has not shown any comparative data or factual evidence to support unexpected results. The examiner reminds applicant that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP 716.01 (c) (II)).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 7 of applicant’s remarks that the claimed annular skirt diameter of smaller than or equal to 14 mm is not a routine optimization but a critical structural feature that yields unexpected and non-obvious improvements, the examiner notes, as stated in the result-effective variable analysis in the rejection of claim 1 above, that one skilled in the art would have recognized the annular skirt diameter of Beck as a result-effective variable and routinely optimized the diameter accordingly in order to achieve the desired balance between engagement of the nub 67 of the preform by the annular groove 69 and retaining the ability to insert the stretch rod 50 into the preform. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has merely stated patentability, and has not shown any comparative data or factual evidence to support unexpected results. The examiner reminds applicant that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP 716.01 (c) (II)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights