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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
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 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 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 1 recites the limitation (b) inserting a portion of the ribbed/patterned core rod into a preform mold cavity formed in a preform mold; (c) injecting molten plastic into a gap between the preform mold cavity and the ribbed/patterned core rod portion to form a combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform around the core rod inside the preform mold ;(d) removing the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform and the core rod from the preform mold (e) closing a container mold around a portion of the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform and a portion of the core rod to enclose the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform portion and core rod portion within a mold cavity; (f) blow molding the plastic ribbed/patterned preform to expand the plastic ribbed/patterned preform portion to conform to the shape of the mold cavity, thereby forming the container with ribs/pattern SO engraved on the inside surface of the container; and (g) removing the container from the container mold and the core rod. However, after careful review, there is no written support for this in the specification nor the drawings.
Claim 20 recites the limitation further comprising rotating the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform portion and core rod portion of step (d) from a preform station to a container mold station, then closing the container mold of step (e), and wherein step (g) comprises rotating the core rods out of the container mold at the container mold station, and ejecting the container from the core rod. However, after careful review, there is no written support for this in the specification nor the drawings. Claims 2-6, 8-15, and 17-19 are dependent on claim 1 and indirectly/directly include all the claim limitations of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101341643 B1, herein referred to as ‘643.
Regarding claim 1, ‘643 discloses a method of forming a container having ribs at an -inside surface thereby providing the container with at least one enhanced property [0001], the method comprising steps of:
(a) engraving a plurality of ribs/pattern on an outer surface of a core rod ([0021, 0043]; see 110 on figure 1)
(b) inserting a portion of the ribbed/patterned core rod into a preform mold cavity formed in a preform mold [0044];
(c) injecting molten plastic [0044] into a gap between the preform mold cavity and the ribbed/patterned core rod portion to form a combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform around the core rod inside the preform mold [0051-0052] (see figures 4-7);
(d) removing the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform and the core rod from the preform mold ([0053];
(e) closing a container mold around a portion of the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform and a portion of the core rod to enclose the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform portion and core rod portion within a mold cavity [0055];
(f) blow molding the plastic ribbed/patterned preform to expand the plastic ribbed/patterned preform portion to conform to the shape of the mold cavity, thereby forming the container with ribs/pattern SO engraved on the inside surface of the container [0055]; and
(g) removing the container from the container mold and the core rod [0064-0065].
Furthermore, MPEP 2144.04 states in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). Therefore, even if ‘643 does not separate the steps as Applicant does, the order of the steps are still a prima facie evidence of obviousness since omitting steps or transposition of steps are within skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, ‘643 depicts the said ribs/ pattern is selected from linear lines, curved lines, honeycombs, hexagons, square, rectangular, circular and combination thereof (see figure 2, linear lines).
Regarding claim 10, ‘643 does not explicitly disclose a range of wherein the said ribs are provided at an angle from 10 degree to 25 degree. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have claimed ribs with a range of an angle from 10 degrees to 25 degrees based on the design needs of the final product. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, ‘643 teaches PP is used as resin materials [0002].
Regarding claim 17, ‘643 teaches a container comprises a neck, a bottom, a body having an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein the inner surface is provided with plurality of ribs/pattern, thereby rendering the container with enhanced properties [0038].
Regarding claim 18, ‘643 teaches wherein said ribs/pattern is selected from linear lines, curved lines, honeycombs, hexagons, square, rectangular, circular and combination thereof (see figure 2, linear lines).
Regarding claim 19, ‘643 does not explicitly disclose wherein container size is from .005 to 3 liters. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated a container size from .005 to 3 liters based on the design needs of the final product. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 3-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101341643 B1, herein referred to as ‘643 in view of Cargile (EP1140637B1).
Regarding claim 3, ‘643 does not explicitly disclose wherein ribs / pattern have width of 0.1 mm to 10 mm on the core rods. One ordinary skill in the art would look to conventional art to determine the standard rib/pattern width. Analogous container art, Cargile, discloses a width of 0.025 to 0.318 cm (.25 mm -3.18 mm) [0027] which overlaps with applicant range of 0.1 mm to 10 mm. MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping ranges is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporated a range of 0.1 mm to 10 mm based on final design needs of the product and to minimize plastic use [Cargile 0001].
Regarding claim 4,’643 does not explicitly discloses Cargile teaches wherein ribs/ pattern on the cord rods have a depth of 0.1 mm to 10mm. Analogous container art, Cargile, discloses the pattern have depth of 0.1 mm to 10 mm on the core rods (depth of about 0.038 to 0.076 cm (0.38 mm to .76 mm overlaps with applicant’s range of 0.1 mm to 10 mm depth) [0032]). MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping ranges is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporated a range of 0.1 mm to 10 mm based on final design needs of the product and to minimize plastic use [Cargile 0001].
Regarding claims 5-6, ‘643 does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance between ribs/patterns on the core rod is from 0.1 mm to 100 mm depending upon the size of the container, wherein the distance between the ribs/patters on the core rod is from 0.2 mm to 5 mm. Analogous container art, Cargile, teaches wherein the distance between ribs / patterns is from 0.1 mm to 100 mm depending upon the size of the container; wherein the distance between ribs / patterns is from 0.2 mm to 5 mm (ribs are spaced 0.051 to 0.635 cm (.51 mm to 6.35 mm overlaps with applicant’s range of 0.2 mm to 5 mm)) [0027]. MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping ranges is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporated a range of0.2 mm to 5 mm based on final design needs of the product and to minimize plastic use [Cargile 0001].
Regarding claim 8, ‘643 does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of said ribs/patterns ranges from 16 to 48. However, analogous art, Cargile, teaches wherein a number of said ribs/patterns ranges from 16 to 48 (the present invention will have about 60 to 180 number of ribs [0027] overlaps with applicant’s range of 16-48). MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping ranges is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporated a range of 16 to 48 on final design needs of the product and to minimize plastic use [Cargile 0001].
Regarding claim 9, ‘643 does not explicitly disclose wherein the said ribs are provided at an angle from 0 degrees to 45 degree to a vertical angle. Analogous container art, Cargile, teaches wherein the said ribs are provided at an angle from 0 degree to 45 degree to a vertical axis (each groove 56 can be V-shaped in transverse cross section with the legs of the V-shape formed at an angle "A" of about 45 to 75° [0032]). MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range is anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporated a range of 0-45 degrees based on final design needs of the product and to minimize plastic use [Cargile 0001].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable KR101341643 B1, herein referred to as ‘643, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sicilliano (US2021/0261283 A1).
Regarding claim 12, ‘643 does not explicitly teach wherein injection moulding temperature is between 130 - 300 deg. C. However, analogous container art, Sicilliano, discloses typically includes blow molding a PET preform against a mold heated to a temperature of approximately 250° F.-350° F. (approximately 121° C.-177° C.), and holding the blown container against the heated mold for approximately two (2) to five (5) seconds. Manufacturers of PET juice bottles, which must be hot-filled at approximately 185° F. (85° C.) [0007]. MPEP 2144.05 states overlapping range is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a range of between 130 - 300 deg. C as taught by Sicilliano, into the method taught by ‘643 since it is conventionally well known.
Regarding claim 13, ‘643 does not explicitly teaches wherein injection moulding is between 180 - 250 deg. C. However, analogous container art, Sicilliano, discloses typically includes blow molding a PET preform against a mold heated to a temperature of approximately 250° F.-350° F. (approximately 121° C.-177° C.), and holding the blown container against the heated mold for approximately two (2) to five (5) seconds. Manufacturers of PET juice bottles, which must be hot-filled at approximately 185° F. (85° C.) [0007]. Applicant’s range of approximately 177 C is close to 180 C. MPEP 2144.05 states a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a range of between 180-250 deg. C as taught by Sicilliano, into the method taught by ‘643, since the ranges are close enough to Sicillian’s range and would have the same properties.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101341643 B1, herein referred to as ‘643 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Derrien (US2021/0394424 A1).
Regarding claims 14-15, ‘643 do not explicitly disclose wherein the blow air pressure is between 3 -14 bar; wherein the blow air pressure is between 7-10 bar. One ordinary skill in the art would look to conventional art to determine blow air pressure. Analogous container art, Derrien, discloses after the beginning of the degassing phase, when the pressure in the interior of the container has dropped and has reached a predetermined pressure which is lower than the pressure at the end of the forming sequence, and is between 14 and 3 bars [0027] and the gas contained in the container while gas under pressure is still being injected, not only via the blowing nozzle, but also via one or a plurality of holes provided in the stretching rod, in order to maintain a significant residual pressure in the interior of the container (generally between 8 bars and 12 bars) [0011]. MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping range is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated ; wherein the blow air pressure is between 7-10 bar as taught by Derrien into the method taught by ‘643, for the benefit of obtaining a container with good mechanical properties [0019].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101341643 B1, herein referred to as ‘643 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shimada (US2024/0217158 A1).
Regarding claim 20, ‘643 does not explicitly disclose rotating the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform portion and core rod portion of step (d) from a preform station to a container mold station, then closing the container mold of step (e), and wherein step (g) comprises rotating the core rods out of the container mold at the container mold station, and ejecting the container from the core rod. Analogous art, Shimada, discloses further comprising rotating the combined plastic ribbed/patterned preform portion and core rod portion of step (d) from a preform station to a container mold station, then closing the container mold of step (e), and wherein step (g) comprises rotating the core rods out of the container mold at the container mold station, and ejecting the container from the core rod [0044, 0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rotating the mold stations in order to stream line the process.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in light of the newly cited reference KR101341643 B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754