DETAILED ACTION
The communication of 28 April 2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 15-32 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 have been fully considered. The amendments overcome the rejections of record however as discussed below do not place the case in condition for allowance.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 of 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 15-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2019/0152122) in view of Vesborg (EP 2011617) and Zeik (US 2021/0300669) 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.
Neither Smith nor Vesborg teaches the first annular protrusion in contact with the outer preform.
Zeik is directed to a plural preform assembly including an outer preform and an inner preform. Zeik teaches the inner and/or outer preform may optionally include threads on the inner or outer surface to, for example, secure one preform to another (¶48).
The difference between the claimed invention and the primary reference (Smith) is the specific placement of interlocking threads on the outer surface of the inner preform and the corresponding surface of the outer preform. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included threads on the outer surface of the inner preform as taught by Smith and Zeik, and to also include corresponding threads on the corresponding surface of the outer preform as taught by Zeik.
The PHOSITA would have been motivated to make this modification for the explicit benefit of securely fastening the preforms together during assembly. Threaded engagements is a recognized, known method in the art of preform manufacturing for providing stable, mechanical interlocking joints. The combination of these known elements according to known methods yields nothing more than a predictable result. When combined, the inner preform threads and the outer preform threads perform their baseline functions as expected interlocking to secure the two preforms.
Smith in view of Vesborg and Zeik renders obvious claims 15, 25-27 and 32.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The references above are the closest prior art and fail to disclose or suggest an inner preform which does not extend outside the outer preform. In particular Smith depicts the inner extending above the outer without reason for modification of the shape.
Conclusion
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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
Prosecution Insights