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 .
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of appeal brief filed on 8/10/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filling a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Aug. 10, 2026 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, the second collar 18 comprises a pair of axially spaced transfer rings 20 ([0021], lines 6-8); 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. 6, the gripper 46 engages the preform neck finish 12 between the transfer rings 20 of the second collar ([0024], lines 12-14).
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 in Appeal Brief filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that the base reference Porter does not disclose cooperation between the gripper 46 and an area between the first collar 16 and the second collar 18, it is not persuasive.
The related languages in the rejection are copied as below:
a gripper pad (items 16, 18, Fig. 2 ([0024]);
It is noted 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).
Thus, in the Porter teachings, the gripper pad includes both items 16 and 18. The gripper 46 is inserted between the adjacent collars 16 and 18. This can be explained that Porter discloses cooperation between the gripper 46 and an area between the first collar 16 and the second collar 18.
In the specific case of Fig. 6 of the teachings of Porter, the gripper 46 is inserted into the rings 20 of the second collar 18. This arrangement does not impact the corporation between the gripper 46 and an area between the first collar 16 and the second collar 18 because the second collar 18 as a whole includes a pair of rings.
In the disclosure of Applicant (see Fig. 13), the gripper 210 is illustrated to be inserted into the groove (area) 90. However, for example, how cooperation between the gripper 210 and both the upper pad 82A and the lower pad surface 82B is not demonstrated.
In other words, the corporation between the gripper 46 and an area between the first collar 16 and the second collar 18 is a broad concept.
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that Jiang fails to disclose “lower pad surface is directly adjacent to the temper lip”, and “the upper pas 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”, it si not persuasive.
Examiner is relied on the base reference Porter to teach the lower pad surface is directly adjacent to the temper lip (as shown in Fig. 2).
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.
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