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 April 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12, 18-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668), further in view of Koch et al. (US 2001/0016239) and Bates et al. (US 2017/0057724).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 8, 9, 10, 11, Hutchinson discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 6, 6A, 7, 16, a blow mold assembly for forming a polymeric container (item 82, Fig. 7 ([0192])), the blow mold assembly comprising:
a thread insert (item 746, Fig. 6A ([0418 (a neck portion)]) or item 402, Fig. 16 ([0311] (a neck finish mold))) defining threads configured to form finish threads on a finish of the polymeric container (as shown in Fig. 6, 6A, or 7); and
an electric heater (item 712, Fig. 6 or 6A ([0411], line 1 from bottom; It is noticed that, when the electric heater 405b as shown in Fig. 13B is in the form of a heating rod ([0320], lines 7-10 (here, the heating rod can be considered as a cast electric heater (related to claim 9))), the heater 405b is inserted into the neck finish mold 402b (as shown in Fig. 13B); Thus, the electric heater 405b with wire connection (related to claim 8) is considered to be mounted or sited into a hole or slot (or a receptacle; it is noticed that, the hole or slot or receptacle for the installation of the electric heater can be formed as any shape such as round, square, or polygonal (related to claims 10, 11)) to heat the thread insert 402b (related to claims 3, 4; It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 6A, the electric heater 712 is embedded in the neck portion 746 and can be considered as only heating the neck portion (i.e., the thread insert)) configured to heat the thread insert as the polymeric container is formed.
Hutchinson discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 16, the neck finish mold 402 can have one or more temperature control elements 403 for cooling and/or heating the molded material ([0312], lines 1-3) and thermal isolation of the cavity section 404, neck finish mold 402 and core section 400 is achieved by utilizing inserts 406 (i.e., insulators) having low thermal conductivity ([0314], lines 1-3); and
a second insulator (item(s) 406. Fig. 16; it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 16, the insulators 406 are disposed on the top and bottom sides of the thread insert 402 ([0314])) on a second side (i.e., the top side of the thread insert) of the thread insert and the electric heater.
Hutchinson discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 6A, a first mold insert (item 748, Fig. 6A ([0418], line 2 (an upper neck portion))) above the thread insert and a second mold insert (item 740, Fig. 6A ([0417], line 3 (an inner portion))) below the thread insert;
Hutchinson also discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 16, the thread insert/neck finish 402 is disposed between the core insert 400 (i.e., the equivalence to the first mold insert) and the cavity insert 404 (i.e., the equivalence to the second mold insert).
wherein the first mold insert (i.e., the core insert 400 as shown in Fig. 16) is spaced apart from the thread insert (i.e., the neck finish 402 as shown in Fig. 16) to define a first gap (i.e., there would obviously be a gap between the mold parts as Hutchinson teaches placing insulator(s) 406 between them which can only happen if the mold parts are spaced apart) between the thread insert and the first mold insert at an inner molding surface of the thread insert and an inner molding surface of the first mold insert, and the second mold insert (i.e., the cavity inert 404 as shown in Fig. 16) is spaced apart from the thread insert to define a second gap (i.e., due to the insulator(s) 406 is placed between them) between the thread insert and the second mold insert at the inner molding surface of the thread insert and an inner molding surface of the second mold insert.
Hutchinson does not disclose that the insulator is a mica insulator having a thickness of 0.5 mm. In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Koch discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 4, passive thermal insulation on the neck ring such as items 46, 54, 56 may consist of mica with a thickness of 0.1 mm to 10 mm ([0066], [0090], [0109])).
Koch and the claims differ in that Koch do not teach the exact same number for thickness of the mica insulator as recited in the instant claims.
It is noticed that, the insulators in both Hutchinson and Koch are designed to provide insulations among the molding components. In other words, both the first insulator and the second insulator have to provide their function of insulation for the electric heater to prevent the heat transfer to other molding components.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Koch (a thickness of mica insulators of 0.1 mm to 10 mm) overlaps the instantly claimed number (0.5 mm) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
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 Hutchinson to incorporate the teachings of Koch to provide that the insulator is a mica insulator having a thickness of 0.5 mm. Doing so would be possible to crystallizing a portion (e.g., the finish) of the plastic, as recognized by Koch (ABSTRACT).
However, none of either Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668) or Koch et al. (US 2001/0016239) discloses, the finish configured as a wide-mouth blow trim finish, and the polymeric container configured as a blow trim polymeric container with finish threads formed in the blow mold assembly during blow molding of the blow trim polymeric container. None of either Hutchinson et al. or Koch et al. discloses that, the electric heater is configured to heat the thread insert to 275°F - 410°F as the polymeric container is formed to form the finish threads of the polymeric container with a crystallinity of about 26% to about 41%.
In the same field of endeavor, PET container, Bates discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the finish 16 can be any suitable finish, such as a wide-mouth blow trim finish of any suitable size, such as about 43 mm or greater ([0038], lines 1-4 from bottom).
Bates discloses that, the mold cavity is heated to a temperature between approximately 250 F to 350 F (approximately 121 C to 177 C) ([0040], lines 4-6) (overlapping the claimed range of 275°F - 410°F as the polymeric container formed).
Bates discloses, the hot-filled bottles with heat setting having an overall crystallinity in the range of approximately 25% to 35% ([0010], lines 1-4 from bottom) (overlapping the claimed range of a crystallinity of about 26% to about 41%).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Bates overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Hutchinson to have the blow molding device as Bates teaches that it is known to have the spiral threads of the container formed during the blow molding process then removing the dome portion from the domed container to form a finished container with a heating temperature around 250 F to 350 F having an overall crystallinity in the range of 25% to 35%. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Hutchinson discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 6A, 16, the thread insert (item 402, Fig. 16) is made of stainless steel ([0314], lines 1-3 from bottom).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668), further in view of Bates et al. (US 2017/0057724).
Regarding claim 18, Hutchinson discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 6, 6A, 7, 16, a blow mold assembly for forming a polymeric container (item 82, Fig. 7 ([0192])), the blow mold assembly comprising:
a thread insert (item 746, Fig. 6A ([0418 (a neck portion)])) defining threads configured to form finish threads on a finish of the polymeric container (as shown in Fig. 6, 6A, or 7);
an electric heater (item 712, Fig. 6 or 6A ([0411], line 1 from bottom; It is noticed that, when the electric heater 405b as shown in Fig. 13B is in the form of a heating rod ([0320], lines 7-10), the heater 405b is inserted into the neck finish mold 402b (as shown in Fig. 13B); Thus, the electric heater 405b is considered to be mounted or sited into a hole (or a receptacle) to heat the thread insert 402b) seated in a recess defined by the thread insert, the electric heater configured to heat the thread insert as the polymeric container is formed (i.e., It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 6A, the electric heater 712 is embedded in the neck portion 746 and can be considered as only heating the neck portion (i.e., the thread insert));
a first insulator (item 750, Fig. 6A ([0415] (a thermal isolator))) on a first side (i.e., the bottom side of the thread insert) of the thread insert and the electric heater; and
a second insulator (item 748, Fig. 6A ([0418] (i.e., the upper neck portion 748 can comprise an insulating material to thermally isolate the internal portions of the mold 80a)); it is also noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 16, the insulators 406 are disposed on the top and bottom sides of the thread insert 402 ([0314])) on a second side (i.e., the top side of the thread insert) of the thread insert and the electric heater.
Hutchinson discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 16, the neck finish mold 402 can have one or more temperature control elements 403 for cooling and/or heating the molded material ([0312], lines 1-3) and thermal isolation of the cavity section 404, neck finish mold 402 and core section 400 is achieved by utilizing inserts 406 (i.e., insulators) having low thermal conductivity ([0314], lines 1-3); and
a second insulator (item(s) 406. Fig. 16; it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 16, the insulators 406 are disposed on the top and bottom sides of the thread insert 402 ([0314])) on a second side (i.e., the top side of the thread insert) of the thread insert and the electric heater.
Hutchinson discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 6A, a first mold insert (item 748, Fig. 6A ([0418], line 2 (an upper neck portion))) above the thread insert and a second mold insert (item 740, Fig. 6A ([0417], line 3 (an inner portion))) below the thread insert;
Hutchinson also discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 16, the thread insert/neck finish 402 is disposed between the core insert 400 (i.e., the equivalence to the first mold insert) and the cavity insert 404 (i.e., the equivalence to the second mold insert).
wherein the first mold insert (i.e., the core insert 400 as shown in Fig. 16) is spaced apart from the thread insert (i.e., the neck finish 402 as shown in Fig. 16) to define a first gap (i.e., there would obviously be a gap between the mold parts as Hutchinson teaches placing insulator(s) 406 between them which can only happen if the mold parts are spaced apart) between the thread insert and the first mold insert at an inner molding surface of the thread insert and an inner molding surface of the first mold insert, and the second mold insert (i.e., the cavity inert 404 as shown in Fig. 16) is spaced apart from the thread insert to define a second gap (i.e., due to the insulator(s) 406 is placed between them) between the thread insert and the second mold insert at the inner molding surface of the thread insert and an inner molding surface of the second mold insert.
As illustrated in Fig. 35 (i.e., another embodiment), Hutchinson discloses that, the mold 1630 can optionally include neck finish molds 1644, 1646 (e.g., split rings) that can be moved apart allowing the core half 1632 to move out of the cavity section 1636 ([0470], lines 1-4 from bottom). It is noticed that, above the neck finish/insert 1646, there is an extra insert 1645 having a slim shape. Here, the insert 1645 can be considered as a knife insert above the neck insert 1646.
Hutchinson individually teaches the thread/neck insert, the slim insert above the thread insert, and the first mold insert. Each of these configurations is utilized to improve the production of different molded articles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine each of these embodiments into one configuration logically flows from their having been individually taught in the prior art as being known for achieving the same purpose.
It is noticed that, the insulators in Hutchinson are designed to provide insulations among the molding components. In other words, both the first insulator and the second insulator have to provide their function of insulation for the electric heater to prevent the heat transfer to other molding components.
However, Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668) does not disclose, the finish configured as a wide-mouth blow trim finish, and the polymeric container configured as a blow trim polymeric container with finish threads formed in the blow mold assembly during blow molding of the blow trim polymeric container.
However, Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668) does not disclose, the finish configured as a wide-mouth blow trim finish, and the polymeric container configured as a blow trim polymeric container with finish threads formed in the blow mold assembly during blow molding of the blow trim polymeric container. Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668) does not disclose that, the electric heater is configured to heat the thread insert to 275°F - 410°F as the polymeric container is formed to form the finish threads of the polymeric container with a crystallinity of about 26% to about 41%.
In the same field of endeavor, PET container, Bates discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the finish 16 can be any suitable finish, such as a wide-mouth blow trim finish of any suitable size, such as about 43 mm or greater ([0038], lines 1-4 from bottom).
Bates discloses that, the mold cavity is heated to a temperature between approximately 250 F to 350 F (approximately 121 C to 177 C) ([0040], lines 4-6) (overlapping the claimed range of 275°F - 410°F as the polymeric container formed).
Bates discloses, the hot-filled bottles with heat setting having an overall crystallinity in the range of approximately 25% to 35% ([0010], lines 1-4 from bottom) (overlapping the claimed range of a crystallinity of about 26% to about 41%).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Bates overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Hutchinson to have the blow molding device as Bates teaches that it is known to have the spiral threads of the container formed during the blow molding process then removing the dome portion from the domed container to form a finished container with a heating temperature around 250 F to 350 F having an overall crystallinity in the range of 25% to 35%. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 6, 7, 12, 19, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668), Bates et al. (US 2017/0057724), and Koch et al. (US 2001/0016239) as applied to claim 1 or 18 above, further in view of Barker et al. (US 2008/0054535).
Regarding claims 6, 7 (or 19, 20), Hutchinson does not specifically disclose the dimensions of the thread insert. In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Barker discloses that, 28 mm and 43 mm finishes are typical narrow-neck finishes in the plastic container industry (related to claim 6 or 19). A 63 mm finish is a typical wide-neck finish in the plastic container industry (related to claim 7 or 20) ([0015], lines 1-8 from bottom).
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 Hutchinson to incorporate the teachings of Barker to provide that the finishes of the preform or containers have the typical neck finishes such as 43 mm or 63 mm. Doing so would be possible to have the conventional neck finish sizes, as recognized by Barker ([0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Hutchinson does not specifically disclose that the electric heater is configured to accept at least 400 watts.
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 6A, in the teachings of Hutchinson, the electric heaters 712, 714 are controlled by the temperature control systems 710 ([0411]).
Since one must always select the power in the electric heaters even if the reference does not provide any specifics.
As explained in MPEP § 2144.05 (II: Routine Optimization), one of ordinary skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed range/limitations (i.e., the power consumption of the electric heater is at least 400 watts) as a result of routine optimization of the result effective variable of the temperature control of the thread insert in an effort to control the heat treatment of the finishes such as crystallization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments in claims 1, 18 that the references of Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668), Koch et al. (US 2001/0016239), and Barker et al. (US 2008/0054535) fail to disclose that, both the first insulator and the second insulator have their function of insulation for the electric heater to prevent the heat transfer to other molding components, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed that, the insulators in Hutchinson are designed to provide insulations among the molding components. In other words, both the first insulator and the second insulator have to provide their function of insulation for the electric heater to prevent the heat transfer to other molding components or at least it is capable of doing so.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claims 1, 18 that Hutchinson et al. (US 2007/0108668) does not disclose that, the electric heater is configured to heat the thread insert to 275°F - 410°F as the polymeric container is formed to form the finish threads of the polymeric container with a crystallinity of about 26% to about 41%, it is persuasive.
However, the updated reference Bates discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the finish 16 can be any suitable finish, such as a wide-mouth blow trim finish of any suitable size, such as about 43 mm or greater ([0038], lines 1-4 from bottom).
Bates discloses that, the mold cavity is heated to a temperature between approximately 250 F to 350 F (approximately 121 C to 177 C) ([0040], lines 4-6) (overlapping the claimed range of 275°F - 410°F as the polymeric container formed).
Bates discloses, the hot-filled bottles with heat setting having an overall crystallinity in the range of approximately 25% to 35% ([0010], lines 1-4 from bottom) (overlapping the claimed range of a crystallinity of about 26% to about 41%).
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
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights