DETAILED 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheney (U.S. 3,394,209). Regarding claim 8
Cheney teaches a blow molding process by extruding a tube, placing the tube in a blow mold, and created two containers by closing first and second ends thereof at the respective openings and bottoms (as seen in Figures 1-4, 6, and 7). The containers of Cheney have two opposite orientations and have an interaxis between the bottom of the containers.
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.
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheney (U.S. 3,394,209; already of record), in view of Corbett et al (U.S. PGPub 2015/0308050; herein Corbett). Regarding claims 8 and 9:
Cheney teaches a blow molding process by extruding a tube, placing the tube in a blow mold, and created two containers by closing first and second ends thereof at the respective openings and bottoms (as seen in Figures 1-4, 6, and 7). The containers of Cheney have two opposite orientations and have an interaxis between the bottom of the containers.
Cheney does not teach that the containers are next to each other in a row, such that the longitudinal axis of container is perpendicular to the row.
In the same field of endeavor Corbett teaches that blow molding of two containers can occur end to end (as in Cheney) or side to side (as claimed) in paragraph 0133.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the containers of Cheney be molded side to side rather than end to end, since Corbett shows such orientation to be equivalent for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06 II), additionally such change would be based on the desired processing parameters which a skilled artisan would be well within their wheel house to decide which orientation is best (paragraph 0133 of Corbett). The choice to move one container to the side is also seen as an obvious change in shape absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B), since there would be no additional change in processing, just a simple change in the shape of the mold (i.e. the only change is the location of one cavity). The blow molding would occur exactly the same in Cheney end to end, as side to side. Also, moving from end to end to side to side can be seen as a change in size, since the molding apparatus would be shorter, thus where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheney and Corbett, and in further view of Gupta (U.S. PGPub 2009/0250848; already of record). Regarding claims 10 and 11:
Cheney is silent to in situ filling of the container in the mold. However, in the same field of blow molding adjacent containers, Gupta teaches in situ filling in the mold before closing the container (paragraphs 0038-0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to in situ fill as taught by Gupta, since one can produce two different products on the same blow mold line (paragraph 0050).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheney and Corbett, and in further view of Hobson (US 2541249). Regarding claim 13:
Wherein three or more hollow containment bodies, including the first hollow containment body and the second hollow containment body, are arranged adjacently in the row
As discussed above Cheney teaches two containers. In the same field of endeavor Hobson teaches blow molding three containers simultaneously as seen in Figures 5-8.
Based on the findings of Cheney in view of Corbett, if two containers (i.e. Cheney) can be molded, and three containers can be molded (i.e. Hobson), then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that based on Corbett one can have three containers molded side by side in a row.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/21/2026 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.
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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743