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
In response to the amendment received 05/21/2025, the following objections and rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
Objections to the claims
Objection to the abstract
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-8
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “distal end” which is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is ‘situated away from the center or from the point of attachment, absent any specific definition. Thus, the term ‘distal end’ is subjective.
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 05/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding amended claim 1 on page 6 of applicant’s remarks that the annular groove 69 of Beck does not comprise any surface whatsoever that extends orthogonally with respect to an elongate axis extending along the length of the stretch rod 50, the examiner disagrees. As stated in the previous rejection of claim 6 (now cancelled), the annular groove forms a ring extending about the axis of the stretch rod 50. The plane formed by this ring is indeed formed orthogonal to the elongate axis of the stretch rod, as shown above in annotated Fig 14.
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 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