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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Nov. 6, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (US 2006/0204694), further in view of Jiang et al. (CN204056499, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Porter discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 4A, 4B, 6, a method for maneuvering and supporting a container (e.g., as shown in Fig. 1) and a preform (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2) from which the container is blow molded before, during, and after blow molding (ABSTRACT), the method comprising:
supporting the preform and the container on a surface by positioning on the surface a tamper lip (item 16, Fig. 2 (i.e., a first collar 16 ([0021], lines 5-6))) of a finish (item 12, Fig. 2 ([0021], lines 3-4)) of the preform and the container; and
grasping the finish with a gripper (item 46, Fig. 6 ([0024], line 12)) through cooperation between the gripper and a gripper pad (items 16, 18, Fig. 2 ([0024]); it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, there is a groove formed between the first collar 16 and the second collar 18 in which the first collar provides an lower pad surface and the second collar provides a upper pad surface (also see labels of lower pad surface and upper pad surface in attached annotated Figure I); it is also noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the upper pad surface and the lower pad surface extend outward of an outer surface of the finish such that the outer surface is closer to a radical center of the finish than each one of the upper pad surface and the lower pad surface) of the finish, the gripper pad between threads (item 22, Fig. 2 ([0021], line 2 from bottom)) and the tamper lip of the finish (as shown in Fig. 6).
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (also see attached annotated Figure I), the lower pad surface (of the gripper pad) is directly adjacent to the tamper lip.
PNG
media_image1.png
827
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based on Fig. 2 in the teachings of Porter et al.)
However, Porter does not disclose that, the groove is recessed beneath an outermost portion of an outer surface of the finish such that the groove is closer to a radial center of the finish than the outermost portion of the outer surface of the finish, the upper pad surface and the lower pad surface extend outward of an outer surface of the finish such that the outer surface is closer to a radial center of the finish than each one of the upper pad surface and the lower pad surface; and the groove is recessed beneath the outer surface such that the groove is closer to a radial center of the finish than an outer surface of the finish.
In the same field of endeavor, finish/bottleneck of bottles, Jiang discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2-3, between the lock ring 202 and the support ring 204 (page 5, lines 267-274), there is a groove is recessed toward the radial center of the finish/bottleneck 200 (page 5, line 249) in which the groove is closer to a radial center of the finish than the outermost portion of the outer surface of the finish, the upper pad surface and the lower pad surface extend outward of an outer surface of the finish such that the outer surface is closer to a radial center of the finish than each one of the upper pad surface and the lower pad surface; and the groove is recessed beneath the outer surface such that the groove is closer to a radial center of the finish than an outer surface of the finish.
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 Porter to incorporate the teachings of Jiang to provide a specific shape of the finish such as the groove is recessed beneath an outermost portion of an outer surface of the finish such that the groove is closer to a radial center of the finish than the outermost portion of the outer surface of the finish, the upper pad surface and the lower pad surface extend outward of an outer surface of the finish such that the outer surface is closer to a radial center of the finish than each one of the upper pad surface and the lower pad surface; and the groove is recessed beneath the outer surface such that the groove is closer to a radial center of the finish than an outer surface of the finish. Doing so would be possible reduce packing costs (such as the leakage of bottleneck distortion), increase production, and reduce floor time owing to changing technique, as recognized by Jiang (page 1, lines 35-46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) that the cited art fails to disclose each and every feature of amended independent claim 1 and the combination of Porter and Jiang is improper, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (also see attached annotated Figure I) in the teachings of Porter, the lower pad surface (of the gripper pad) is directly adjacent to the tamper lip.
It is noticed that, both Porter and Jiang are focusing on the improvement of the bottle neck finish of the containers/preforms.
At least, in the teachings of Jiang, through the multiple testing bottles (No. 1-30) listed in Table 1 (page 7, lines 371-375) based on the improving design of the bottle neck described in Fig. 2, the bacteria total amount is all less than 1 and the present utility model does not deform, and does not have product leakage (page 7, lines 393-396).
Conclusion
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.
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, 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights