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
The Amendment filed Nov. 3, 2025 has been entered. Claims 18, 20-35 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18, 20-35 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.
In claim 18, lines 3-4 from bottom, Applicant adds amended claimed languages of “the air sleeve being interposed between the stretching rod and the body” which are not supported by the disclosure of Applicant. Basically, the amended limitations of “the air sleeve” can’t be found the Applicant’s specification. For examination purpose, the amended claimed languages of ‘the air sleeve’ are considered as “an air gap or passage”.
Claims 20-35 depended on claim 18 are rejected as well.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 18, 20-21, 26-27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrinello et al. (US 2012/0100241) in view of Ryder (US 4,473,515).
Regarding claim 18, Parrinello discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 8, 10, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26, a male element (items 7, 30, Fig. 2 ([0126])) of a mould for the compression moulding of a parison (item 8, Fig. 17 ([0098])) from a previously prepared dose (item 37, Fig. 2 ([0099])) of thermoplastic material, wherein the male element is associable with a female element (items 5, 6, Fig. 2 ([0099])) of the mould to delimit a forming cavity (item 8, Fig. 17 ([0098])) intended for forming the parison, the male element comprising:
a die (item 30, Fig. 2), extending along a longitudinal axis and including a body having, inside it, a longitudinal cavity (item 85, Fig. 26 ([0241])) extending along the longitudinal axis and, at one end of it, a socket (item 84, Fig. 26 ([0240])) in communication with the longitudinal cavity,
it is noticed that, the socket 84 is located at one end of the body at a tip of the die as shown in Fig. 26 (i.e., the forming element 30 assumes a still further operating configuration V3, in which the second actuator member 86 moves the second forming body 83 further away from the first forming body 82 ([0252]));
a stretching rod (items 50, 86, Figs. 8, 26 ([0132], [0241])), slidably inserted in the longitudinal cavity and including a terminal portion (item 83, Fig. 26 ([0239])) at one end of it, the stretching rod being movable relative to the die between a retracted position (as shown in Fig. 24), in which the terminal portion is housed inside the socket to contribute, together with the die, to delimiting the forming cavity, and an extracted position (as shown in Fig. 26), in which the terminal portion is extracted from the socket so it stretches the parison; and
a passage (item 89, Fig. 26 ([0250])) for an air flow to blow mould the parison to form a container ([0252], [0253]).
At least, as illustrated in Fig. 26 (also see labels of portion of passage 89 between the stretching rod 86 and the body 83 in attached annotated Figure I), the passage 89 excluding the portion inside the stretching rod is able to be considered as an air sleeve being interposed between the stretching rod (e.g., item 86) and the body (e.g., item 83)) for blowing air flowing ([0250]).
PNG
media_image1.png
647
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based on Fig. 26 in the teachings of Parrinello)
Parrinello discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 26, the passage for the air flow includes a gap (items 85, 87, Fig. 26 ([0242], [0243]); item 88, Fig. 26 ([0247])) formed by a portion of the longitudinal cavity between an outside surface of the stretching rod and an inside surface of the die delimiting the longitudinal cavity.
Parrinello discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 12, the stretching rod 50 is moved downwards in such a way that between the operating surface 51 and the further operating surface 52 a passage 54 is defined for supplying fluid under pressure into the container preform 8 for performing a preliminary step in which the container preform 8 is blown or stretch blow mounded ([0179]). It is noticed that, the passage 54 is located outside of the stretching rod 50.
However, Parrinello does not explicitly disclose that the die internally includes a cooling circuit, configured to allow a flow of a cooling fluid.
In the same field of endeavor, injection blow molding, Ryder discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the coolant is conducted up the core rod 14 (i.e., the die) through one of the helical channels 54, and then across cross passage 57 and back down the core rod through the other channel 56, to the cooling fluid outlet passageway 60 (col. 10, lines 1-5).
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 Parrinello to incorporate the teachings of Ryder to provide the die internally includes a cooling circuit. Doing so would be possible to assure that the cooling fluid will exert a uniform cooling effect throughout the entire length of the parison contact portion of the core rod, as recognized by Ryder (col. 10, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 20, Parrinello discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 24, 25, 26, the gap extends up to the socket (i.e., items 85, 87, 88, 89, Figs. 24, 25, 26) , where there is an outlet to allow the air flow to exit (items 88, 89, Fig. 26), wherein the terminal portion of the stretching rod, at the retracted position (as shown in Fig. 24), occludes the outlet to prevent the air from flowing out of the gap into the forming cavity (as shown in Fig. 24), and, at the extracted position (as shown in Fig. 26), is spaced from the socket so the outlet is open to allow the air to flow out of the air gap (as shown in Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 21, Parrinello discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 26, the passage for the air flow includes a gap (items 85, 87, Fig. 26 ([0242], [0243]); item 88, Fig. 26 ([0247])) formed by a portion of the longitudinal cavity between an outside surface of the stretching rod and an inside surface of the die delimiting the longitudinal cavity.
Regarding claims 26-27, 29, 30, 31, 32, Parrinello does not disclose a delivery duct and a return duct having helix features for the cooling liquid. Ryder discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the cooling fluid inlet passageway 58 provides through the helical channels 54 and returns through the other (helical) channel 56 to the cooling liquid outlet passageway 60 (col. 10, lines 1-5) (related to claims 26-27). As illustrated in Figs. 3 and 6, Ryder discloses that, the blowing gas is supplied to the mold through the inlets 64 and the cooling fluid is supplied through the inlet 58, separately (related to claim 29). As illustrated in Fig. 3, Ryder discloses that, the body has an external surface, opposite the internal surface, the cooling circuit being in contact with the external surface of the body, wherein the passage for the air flow is in contact with the internal surface of the body (related to claim 30) and the die comprises a liner (item 42, Fig. 3 (col. 9, lines 41-48)) fitted round the body and wherein the cooling circuit is formed between the body and the liner (related to claim 31) and an outside surface of the body facing towards the liner is grooved (i.e., the channels 54, 56) with contacting points with the liner (related to claim 32).
Regarding claim 28, Parrinello does not disclose an elastic element connected between the abutment element and the support element for the male element.
Ryder discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3 or 4, item 84 (col. 9, line 51) can be considered as the equivalence to the claimed support element, the combination of items 12 (col. 8, line 9), 16 (col. 8, line 11) and 102 (col. 11, line 20) can be considered the equivalence to the claimed abutment element, and the compression springs 86 (col. 10, line 48) can be considered as the claimed elastic element. Ryder discloses that, (at least) the core plate 12 is advanced toward the molds and the core rods 14 (i.e., the male element) are engaged with the molds (col. 11, lines 29-31). Thus, Ryder discloses that, the molds comprise a locking feature to engage the abutment element to keep it at the working position as shown in Fig. 4 when the female element no longer applied pressure on it.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Parrinello et al. (US 2012/0100241) and Ryder (US 4,473,515) as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Britten (US 4,150,689).
Regarding claims 22-25, Parrinello does not disclose an actuating unit and a damping device to slow the movement of the stretching rod. In the same field of endeavor, blow molding apparatus, Britten discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, the conduit 55 may be provided with a valve 71 (i.e., the valve 71 can be considered as an actuating unit) for admitting fluid under positive or negative pressure to or from the bore 70. The outermost or distal end of the stem 55 is provided with an end member or closure 72 configured for sliding engagement through the smaller dimension of opening or hole 53 (col. 3, lines 53-59). As illustrated in Fig. 1, resilient means, say in the form of a coil compression spring 65 (i.e., the spring 65 (related to claim 24) can be considered as a damping device), yieldably urges the stem 55 longitudinally outward (or extracted) or leftward. As illustrated in Fig. 3, passing the notch or groove 64a (i.e., the slot 64a can be considered as a diffuser rod) of the collar 63a etc., the compressed fluid enters into the cavity. Here, the (stretching) rod has the first end having a threaded coupling (related to claim 25) and the second end having a spring mounted on (related to claim 24).
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 the combination to incorporate the teachings of Britten to provide an actuating unit and a damping device to slow the movement of the stretching rod. Doing so would be possible to exclude the entrapment of air in a formed parison and be highly versatile in temperature control, as recognized by Britten (col. 1, lines 23-46).
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrinello et al. (US 2012/0100241) in view of Ryder (US 4,473,515).
Regarding claims 33-35, Parrinello discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 8, 10, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26, a mould for the compression moulding of a parison from a dose (item 37, Fig. 2 ([0099])) of thermoplastic material and for blow moulding the parison, wherein the mould comprises:
a male element (items 7, 30, Fig. 2 ([0126])) according to claim 18 (see above about the rejection of claim 18);
a female element (items 5, 6, Fig. 2 ([0099])) associable with the male element to delimit the forming cavity that forms the parison from the dose; and
a blow moulding cavity, associable with the male element instead of the female element to delimit a blow moulding cavity intended for the forming of a container from the parison ([0252], [0253]);
wherein the mould has a forming configuration in which the male element is associated with the female element and the stretching rod is at the retracted position (as shown in Fig. 24), to form the parison in the forming cavity, and a stretching and blow moulding configuration in which the male element is associated with the blow moulding cavity and the stretching rod is at the extracted position (as shown in Fig. 26).
Parrinello discloses, having a configuration for receiving the dose in which the female element is spaced from the male element to receive the dose (as shown in Fig. 2) and the die of the male element is positioned at the same vertical height in the forming configuration as it is in the stretching and blow moulding configuration (as shown in Figs. 46, 47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 18 that the base reference of Parrinello does not disclose the structure disposed between the stretching rod and the (die) body to allow blowing air flowing, it is not persuasive.
At least, as illustrated in Fig. 26 (also see attached annotated Figure I) in the teachings of Parrinello, the passage 89 excluding the portion inside the stretching rod is able to be considered as an air sleeve being interposed between the stretching rod (e.g., item 86) and the body (e.g., item 83) for blowing air flowing ([0250]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
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).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744