Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/222,911

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FORMING PLASTIC PREFORMS INTO PLASTIC CONTAINERS, HAVING A MOLD CARRIER HOLDER WITH CARRYING FUNCTION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 17, 2023
Examiner
LIANG, SHIBIN
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Krones AG
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
257 granted / 411 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
476
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
63.6%
+23.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 411 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/9/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment The Amendment filed Oct. 9, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Neubauer et al. (US 2012/0248659). Regarding claims 1, 7, Neubauer discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-3, an apparatus for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers (ABSTRACT), having a transport device which transports the plastic preforms to be formed along a predetermined transport path, wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier (ABSTRACT, lines 1-2; the blow moulding wheel ([0009], lines 5-6)) on which a plurality of forming stations is arranged, wherein said forming stations each have blow molding devices within which the plastic preforms can be formed into the plastic containers by applying a flowable medium, and the forming stations each have application devices in order to apply the flowable medium to the plastic preforms, wherein the forming stations each have stretching devices for stretching the plastic preforms in their longitudinal direction, and these stretching devices each having at least one stretching rod ([0053] (e.g., item 54 for introducing a stretching rod)) which can be moved in the longitudinal direction of the plastic preforms and introduced into the plastic preforms, and wherein the apparatus has a clean room (e.g., item 20 ([0053], [0071])) which is delimited by several walls (as shown in Fig. 3; e.g., items 17, 18, 18 ([0068], [0069], [0070])) and within which the plastic preforms are expanded to form the plastic containers, wherein the stretching devices and the forming stations are arranged on a mold carrier holder (i.e., item 6 ([0061]) as illustrated in Fig. 3 (related to claim 7); item 23 ([0073]); Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 3 (also see attached annotated Figure I), for each mold carrier holder 6 (including item 23 (not shown)), each stretching rod is working with the corresponding blowing mould (station(s) (i.e., the shaping stations each have blowing moulds (ABSTRACT, lines 2-3))) through the opening 54) and are held thereby, so that the mold carrier holder is designed as a carrying apparatus of the apparatus and the walls of the clean room are only suitable and intended to delimit the device from an non-sterile environment. PNG media_image1.png 504 644 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure I (based on Fig. 3 in the teachings of Neubauer) Regarding claims 2-5, Neubauer discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-3, the sealing device (item 25, Fig. 3 ([0075]); it is noticed that, the item 25 is provided with a circumferential channel (related to claim 5)) is provided, which seals off from one another the elements 17 and 18 which are movable relative to one another, for example, as mentioned above, using a water lock. The lower region of the wall 18 is arranged in a fixed (or non-carrying device) (related to claims 3, 4, 5). Regarding claims 6, 11, Neubauer discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the carrier 2 has a base wall/body 52 ([0090]) and, on a surface facing the clean chamber/room 20 ([0071]) ([0016], lines 1-3). Neubauer discloses that, a further layer is added insider, i.e., there where the clean chamber is located, for example, a further sheet metal layer of considerably lower wall thickness ([0017], lines 1-6). Neubauer discloses that, less expensive material, such as steel, can be used ([0018], lines 1-7). Neubauer discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, reference system 28 identifies a carrier for carrying a base form, which is likewise a constituent of the blowing mould. This carrier likewise can be moved here in the direction Y (i.e., the longitudinal direction) ([0046], lines 1-4 from bottom) (related to claim 11). Regarding claim 9, Neubauer discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the stretching device (item 5, Fig. 2 ([0045])) includes one upper portion which is arranged outside the clean room (as shown in Fig. 2). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 8, 10, 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer et al. (US 2012/0248659) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hollriegl et al. (US 2012/0052146). Regarding claims 8, 10, 12, Neubauer does not specify a material for the mold carrier holder. In the same field of endeavor, blow mold, Hollriegl discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2, two related mold support parts T1, T2 of a blow mold are illustrated for blow molding ([0036]). Here, the two related mold support parts T1, T2 of a blow mold at least can be considered as one portion of the mold carrier holder. Hollriegl discloses that, the abutments 6 serve to lock the mold support parts T1, T2 swiveled towards each other by an inserted locking element or acting locking components ([0038], lines 5-8) (related to claim 10). Hollriegl discloses that, the two related mold support parts may be employed in combination of materials such as steel casting material, also steel alloys ([0010]). For example, if casting 316 stainless steel (i.e., one type of steel alloy) is selected for the mold support parts, they will provide an H2O2 resistance (related to claim 12). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neubauer to incorporate the teachings of Hollriegl to provide a material, such as casting 316 stainless steels, to make the mold carrier holder. Doing so would be possible to optimize weight and strength of the mold carrier holder for the blow molding, as recognized by Hollriegl ([0010]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive. Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Neubauer does not disclose the stretching device and the forming station are arranged on a mold carrier holder and are held thereby, it is not persuasive. At least, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, for each mold carrier holder 6 (specifically, see attached annotated Figure I) (item 23 in Fig. 2 is not shown), each stretching rod is working with the corresponding blowing mould (station(s) (i.e., the shaping stations each have blowing moulds (ABSTRACT, lines 2-3))) through the opening 54. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30. 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 L 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594716
SHAPING METHOD AND SHAPING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583264
Pneumatic Tire
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583796
Method for producing carbonized or graphitized molding parts
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576573
HOT-RUNNER MOLD AND DEVICE FOR MANUFACTURING RESIN CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576560
METHOD FOR OBTAINING A RECYCLED MATERIAL FROM MULTILAYER PET CONTAINERS AND RECYCLED MATERIAL OBTAINED USING 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+18.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 411 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