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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 06/09/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 14-15 and 17-25 remain pending in the application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15, 17-18, 20, 22-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosch (GB1252548 of record).
Regarding claim 14, Bosch teaches:
An injection blow molding core rod assembly for manufacturing a bottle (p1, ln 9-79), the core rod assembly comprising:
a core rod base (Fig 2: piston 30, boss portion 32);
a neck forming section connected to the core rod base, the neck forming section having outwardly extending thread forms (Fig 2: deformable member 26; p 2, ln 108-115), the neck forming section defines an internal neck diameter, the outwardly extending thread forms extending outwardly relative to the internal neck diameter (Fig 2); and
a core rod tip attached to the neck forming section, the neck forming section positioned between the core rod base and the core rod tip (Fig 2: ring 31).
Regarding claim 15, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 14.
Bosch further teaches wherein the outwardly extending thread forms have a generally helical shape (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 14.
Bosch further teaches wherein the core rod base defines a base diameter and the neck forming section defines an internal neck diameter, the base diameter being greater than the internal neck diameter (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 18, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 14.
Bosch further teaches wherein the core rod tip tapers from a proximal end toward a distal end, the proximal end connected to the neck forming section (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 20, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 14.
Bosch further teaches wherein the core rod tip is mechanically connected to the neck forming section (Fig 2; p 2, ln 37-49).
Regarding claim 22, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 14.
Bosch further teaches wherein the core rod base defines a base diameter (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 23, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 22.
Bosch further teaches the base diameter being greater than the internal neck diameter (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 25, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 24.
Bosch further teaches wherein the thread forms have a helical pattern (Fig 2).
Claim(s) 14-15, 17, 20-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dirksing (US4578028).
Regarding claim 14, Dirksing teaches:
An injection blow molding core rod assembly for manufacturing a bottle (Fig 3-4, core pin 40; col 2, ln 21-24), the core rod assembly comprising:
a core rod base (Fig 3-4: core pin base 45, flange 48);
a neck forming section connected to the core rod base (Fig 3-4: relieved areas 47), the neck forming section having outwardly extending thread forms (Fig 4: neck forming surface 46), the neck forming section defines an internal neck diameter (Fig 3-4), the outwardly extending thread forms extending outwardly relative to the internal neck diameter (Fig 3-4; col 4, ln 67-col 5, ln 19); and
a core rod tip attached to the neck forming section, the neck forming section positioned between the core rod base and the core rod tip (Fig 3: extension 58).
Regarding claim 15, Dirksing the assembly of claim 14.
Dirksing further teaches wherein the outwardly extending thread forms have a generally helical shape (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 17, Dirksing the assembly of claim 14.
Dirksing further teaches wherein the core rod base defines a base diameter and the neck forming section defines an internal neck diameter, the base diameter being greater than the internal neck diameter (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 20, Dirksing the assembly of claim 14.
Dirksing further teaches wherein the core rod tip is mechanically connected to the neck forming section (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 21, Dirksing the assembly of claim 14.
Dirksing further teaches that the neck forming section can be shaped to form different attachments (col 4, ln 67-col 5, ln 19). Dirksing further teaches a finished product having an attachment means for snap fit inserts that is the negative form of a raised ring extending radially outwardly from the neck forming section, the raised ring having a generally cylindrical shape (Fig 7-8: attachment means 83; col 9, ln 10-16), i.e., the neck forming portion of the core rod used to form the container as described must necessarily take the form as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, Dirksing the assembly of claim 14.
Dirksing further teaches wherein the core rod base defines a base diameter (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 23, Dirksing the assembly of claim 22.
Dirksing further teaches wherein the base diameter is greater than the internal neck diameter (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 25, Dirksing the assembly of claim 24.
Dirksing further teaches wherein the thread forms have a helical pattern (Fig 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch.
Regarding claim 19, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 14.
Bosch does not teach wherein the core rod tip is integrally formed with the neck forming section.
Bosch teaches that the core rod tip is mechanically connected to the neck forming section (Fig 2; p 2, ln 37-49).
It has been broadly held that that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Therefore it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the core rod tip integrally formed with the neck forming section since it is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dirksing.
Regarding claim 21, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 14.
Bosch does not teach a raised ring extending radially outwardly from the neck forming section, the raised ring having a generally cylindrical shape.
However, Bosch teaches that the deformable member 26 is axially compressed and takes the shape of the threads 5 (Fig 2; p 2, col 108-115).
In the same field of endeavor regarding core rod assemblies, Dirksing teaches a core rod with a neck forming section (Fig 3-4: expandable core pin 40, relieved areas 47). Dirksing further teaches that the neck forming section can be shaped to form different attachments (col 4, ln 67-col 5, ln 19). Dirksing further teaches a finished product having an attachment means for snap fit inserts that is the negative form of a raised ring extending radially outwardly from the neck forming section, the raised ring having a generally cylindrical shape (Fig 7-8: attachment means 83; col 9, ln 10-16), i.e., the neck forming portion of the core rod used to form the container as described must necessarily take the form as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the core rod as taught by Bosch to take the shape of the core rod as taught by Dirksing for the motivation of providing an attachment means for snap fit inserts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bosch.
Regarding claim 24, Bosch teaches the assembly of claim 14.
Bosch does not teach wherein the thread forms are machined on the neck forming section.
The above limitation is directed to the a process for forming the claimed product and is therefore considered to be a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Bosch teaches the thread forms on the neck forming section. Bosch teaches the thread forms on the neck forming section press the preform into the screw threaded portion of the mould in order to form the neck portion having screw threads (Fig 2; p 2, col 108-115). Applicant specification discloses that the thread forms are machined on the core rod assemblies to define the internal groove, i.e., the screw threads. Since the prior art product possesses the same structure and design intent as the claimed invention, any difference in manufacturing cannot be considered to make the claim patentable. Therefore, the claimed product is anticipated or made obvious by the prior art product.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dirksing.
Regarding claim 24, Dirksing the assembly of claim 14.
Dirksing does not teach wherein the thread forms are machined on the neck forming section.
The above limitation is directed to the a process for forming the claimed product and is therefore considered to be a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Dirksing teaches the thread forms on the neck forming section. Dirksing teaches the thread forms on the neck forming section press the preform into the screw threaded portion of the mould in order to form the neck portion having screw threads (col 4, ln 67-col 5, ln 19). Applicant specification discloses that the thread forms are machined on the core rod assemblies to define the internal groove, i.e., the screw threads. Since the prior art product possesses the same structure and design intent as the claimed invention, any difference in manufacturing cannot be considered to make the claim patentable. Therefore, the claimed product is anticipated or made obvious by the prior art product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the deformable member 26 does not have outwardly extending thread forms extending outwardly relative to the internal neck diameter. Applicant cites Fig 1 of Bosch as evidence. Applicant argues that the deformable member by the nature of its elasticity can take a shape that is different from that which is claimed, such as in Fig 1. However, the examiner notes that Fig 1 of Bosch is not relied upon for any teachings in the art rejection above. Furthermore, the fact that the deformable member 26 can take a shape different than the claimed shape does not preclude the deformable member 26 from reading on the claim. This is made clear by Fig 2 of Bosch as cited in the art rejection above, which explicitly illustrates the deformable member 26 having outwardly extending thread forms extending outwardly relative to the internal neck diameter as claimed. The applicant fails to address this explicit illustration of the claimed subject matter.
Applicant argues that the elastically deformable member 26 is fundamentally different from the claimed neck forming section. However, as discussed above, Bosch teaches the claimed structure. Bosch further teaches the thread forms on the neck forming section press the preform into the screw threaded portion of the mould in order to form the neck portion having screw threads (Fig 2; p 2, col 108-115). Applicant specification discloses that the thread forms are machined on the core rod assemblies to define the internal groove, i.e., the screw threads. Therefore the prior art product not only possesses the same structure but also the same design intent as the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Bosch does not tech a raised ring of claim 21. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Bosch does not teach the base diameter being greater than the internal neck diameter of claims 22 and 23. However, Fig 2 of Bosch clearly illustrates that piston 30 has a diameter much larger than that of the deformable member 26. Applicant argues that boss 32 has a smaller diameter. However, as cited in the art rejection above in the current and previous office action, the claimed core rod base is interpreted to include both piston 30 and boss portion 32.
Applicant argues that Bosch does not teach that thread forms that are machined on a neck forming section. See art rejection of claim 24.
Applicant argues that Bosch does not teach that the threads are helical. However, Fig 2 of Bosch clearly illustrates the claimed subject matter.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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 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 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741