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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 ), second 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the wall surface" in the last 2-3 lines of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The last line of claim 6 recites “the three-dimensional pattern”, however there are two three-dimensional patterns required by the previous paragraph: a concave three-dimensional pattern, and the three-dimensional pattern formed on the convex mold. It is unclear which three-dimensional pattern applicant intends to have a recess. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP3666110, in view of Farha et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0136201). JP3666110, hereafter “110”, show that it is known to have an apparatus which carries out a production method for a resin container (Background), the method comprising injection molding of a preform (Background), blow molding the preform in a state of having residual heat from injection molding to produce a resin container (0007), wherein the blow molding, a convex mold at/attached to the distal end of a stretching rod presses an inner surface of the bottom portion of the multilayer preform, a concave three-dimensional pattern corresponding to the mold is transferred to an inner surface of a bottom portion of the resin container, and promoting cooling within the wall surface of the bottom portion with a protruding portion of a three-dimensional pattern formed on the mold so as to protrude towards the inner bottom surface side of the preform (Figures 1-3; 0010, 0013-0015: the convex shape is a three-dimensional shape which protrudes towards the inner bottom of the preform).
110 does not specifically show a recess in the three-dimensional pattern. However, the shape of the pattern/recess is held to be a design choice, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the particular pattern according to the desired configuration of the product because configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
110 does not specifically show a two-step injection molding process which yields a multilayer preform. Farha et al., hereafter “Farha,” show that it is known to carry out a method for producing a resin container (Abstract; 0013-0014), comprising first injection-molding an intermediate molded body that has a bottomed cylindrical shape and is made of resin, using a first injection core mold and a first injection cavity mold (0031); injecting a resin material at the intermediate molded body to mold a multilayer preform in which a resin layer is laminated on the intermediate molded body using a second injection core mold and a second injection cavity mold different from the first injection core mold and the first injection cavity mold as second injection-molding, the multilayer preform having a shape in which a bottom portion is thicker than a body portion and the bottom portion is thicker than the intermediate molded body by laminating resin layers (0031: the bottom is thicker than the neck); and blow-molding the multilayer preform in a state of having residual heat from injection molding to produce a resin container (0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Farha’s multilayer preform as that in 110’s process/apparatus in order to impart various properties to the preform/container based on various included layers, and additionally because there is art-recognized suitability for using multilayer preforms in the injection stretch blow molding industry (MPEP 2144.07).
The examiner notes that the forming of the relative laminated/molded thicknesses of the preform layers is a method step and not a structural feature of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, the examiner notes that the intended function of the recess is not a structural feature of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not clearly show or suggest the claimed production method for a resin container, especially including the step of injecting a resin to mold a multilayer preform having resin layers laminated on each of a body portion and a bottom portion and a shape in which the bottom portion is thicker than the body portion.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed to the claims as-amended which require further consideration and search.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights