DETAILED ACTION
The communication of 25 September 2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 15-30 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35 and 37, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The text of those sections of the MPEP not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 25 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed below, Smith teaches additional elements (threads) that can be considered annular rings. These threads require space between themselves and the second annular ring to function i.e., to allow the opposing part to be threaded on.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is missing a word (is?) before “in”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15, from which all other claims depend, recites a first and second annular preform spaced apart from one another. Applicant cites Specification at 8:22–9:8 and Fig. 6 as support.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
267
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification describes the relationship as offset with respect to the Y-axis, matching Figure 6, whereas the claim is directed to offset in any direction. Because Claim 15 is broader than the disclosure as originally filed, it (and all dependent claims) contain new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2019/0152122) in view of Vesborg (EP 2011617) and as evidenced by Selke (Plastics Packaging).
Smith teaches a preform made of plastic comprising an outer and inner preform (¶48, Figs 1A-F, reference #s 20,30,40). The outer preform and inner preform may be formed from different materials (¶¶56,92). The outer preform includes a vertical protrusion in contact with the inner preform (¶63, teaching ribs on the outer and notches on the inner). Smith teaches the outer layer is PET (¶91), a polar polymer. The outer and inner preforms have upper ends.
Smith teaches the inner preform provide with a second annular protrusion at the upper end (46). Smith discusses alternative arrangements of the preform, but fails to depict a first annular protrusion spaced apart from the second annular protrusion. One alternative discussed but not depicted is threads on the external side of the preform (¶64). A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to take the suggested modification (outer threads) and applied to the depicted invention of Smith. A preform with outer threads would have a first annular protrusion spaced apart from the second and would have annular empty space between the two so as to allow the threads to function.
Smith fails to teach forming the inner preform of a polar polymer.
Vesborg teaches a method of stretch blow molding a product where the product is made from a PP inner layer and PET outer layer. The PP inner layer prevents issues with water vapor and acetic aldehyde generation by the degradation of PET (¶43). As PP is a known material for inner layers of flexible packaging intended for blow molding and holding of liquid products such as beverages, deodorants and hairsprays (¶45) it would have been obvious to use PP as the inner layer of Smith for the benefits taught by Vesborg and a PHOSIA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. As evidenced by Selke, PET has a higher density than PP.
Smith in view of Vesborg renders obvious claims 15, 25, 26, and 27.
Regarding claim 16, Smith teaches both surfaces can have protrusions (¶63).
Regarding claim 17, Smith teaches the ribs are 0.5-1.5 mm thick (¶72)
Regarding claim 18, Smith teaches at least one protrusion which overlaps the claimed at least two and that the protrusion can be nested in the notch (¶62). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 19, Smith teaches at least one protrusion which overlaps the claimed at least two. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Smith however fails to teach the angle of the protrusion. However, the angle of the protrusion would have been an obvious design choice to those of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the angle is significant (see also ¶80, teaching diagonally oriented). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claims 20-22, Smith teaches the inner preform with notches that engage the ribs (¶62) rotation.
Regarding claim 23-24, Smith teaches the inner and outer preform can have rings annularly or partially annularly oriented and with a step (see, e.g., ¶80 and Figure 1CCE). The second protrusion would be in contact with the outer preform.
Regarding claim 28, Smith teaches (see e.g., Fig 1CC) a spaced apart relationship between the bottom of the outer and inner preforms.
Regarding claim 29, the figures depict a neck ring at #34 which is below the second annular protrusion.
Regarding claim 30, the reference does not teach filling any empty space, as such it would have only no space regions (i.e., where the preforms touch) or spaced regions with air.
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 FRANK J VINEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Greg Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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.
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781