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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 04/14/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 14-15 and 17-26 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14, 17, 19-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horner (US2021/0276239).
Regarding claim 14, Horner teaches:
An injection blow molding core rod assembly for manufacturing a bottle (Fig 3: blow pin assembly 30; [0022]), the core rod assembly comprising:
a core rod base (Fig 3: bung portion 32);
a non-moving neck forming section connected to the core rod base, the neck forming section having outwardly extending thread forms, the neck forming section defines an internal neck diameter, the outwardly extending thread forms extend outwardly relative to the internal neck diameter (Fig 3: upper portion of threaded section 42, wall 38); 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: bottom portion of threaded section 42).
Regarding claim 17, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Horner 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 3).
Regarding claim 19, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Horner further teaches wherein the core rod tip is integrally formed with the neck forming section (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Horner further teaches wherein the core rod tip is mechanically connected to the neck forming section (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 21, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Horner further teaches a raised ring extending radially outwardly from the neck forming section, the raised ring having a generally cylindrical shape (Fig 3: one of wall 38 thread portions).
Regarding claim 22, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Horner further teaches wherein the core rod base defines a base diameter (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 23, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 22.
Horner further teaches wherein the base diameter is greater than the internal neck diameter (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 26, Horner teaches:
An injection blow molding core rod assembly for manufacturing a bottle (Fig 3: blow pin assembly 30; [0022]), the core rod assembly comprising:
a core rod base (Fig 3: bung portion 32);
a neck forming section; and
a core rod tip, the neck forming section being positioned between the core rod base and the core rod tip (Fig 3: bottom portion of threaded section 42), the core rod base and the neck forming section being integrally formed as a unitary body, the neck forming section defining an internal neck diameter and having thread forms extending radially outward from the internal neck diameter, the core rod base and the neck forming section being free of moving components (Fig 3: upper portion of threaded section 42, wall 38; the interpreted core rod and core base do not include moving components as the components of plunger portion 34 are separate components from bung portion 32 and threaded section 42).
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) 15, 18, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner.
Regarding claim 15, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Horner does not teach wherein the outwardly extending thread forms have a generally helical shape.
However, it has been broadly held that changes in shape are obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Applicant specification discloses the shape of the thread forms as non-limiting and may have alternative shapes. Applicant discloses that the thread forms form threads onto the neck of the product. Horner teaches that the wall 38 produces threads 72 on the neck portion of the product (Fig 5; [0038]). Therefore, the shape of the thread forms cannot be considered critical to patentably distinguish over the prior art shape.
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 changed the shape of the thread forms as taught by Horner to be helical since the prior art thread forms perform the same function as the claimed threaded forms.
Regarding claim 18, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Horner does not teach wherein the core rod tip tapers from a proximal end toward a distal end, the proximal end connected to the neck forming section.
However, it has been broadly held that changes in shape are obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Applicant specification discloses the shape of the core tip as non-limiting and may have alternative shapes. Applicant further discloses that the shape of the core tip is designer preference, i.e., within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the shape of the thread forms cannot be considered critical to patentably distinguish over the prior art shape.
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 changed the shape of the core tip as taught by Horner to taper as claimed since applicant specification discloses the core tip shape to be a mere matter of designer choice.
Regarding claim 25, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 24.
Horner does not teach wherein the thread forms have a helical pattern.
However, it has been broadly held that changes in shape are obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Applicant specification discloses the shape of the thread forms as non-limiting and may have alternative shapes. Applicant discloses that the thread forms form threads onto the neck of the product. Horner teaches that the wall 38 produces threads 72 on the neck portion of the product (Fig 5; [0038]). Therefore, the shape of the thread forms cannot be considered critical to patentably distinguish over the prior art shape.
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 changed the shape of the thread forms as taught by Horner to be helical since the prior art thread forms perform the same function as the claimed threaded forms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Horner.
Regarding claim 24, Horner teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Horner does not teach wherein the thread forms are machined on the neck forming section.
However, the above limitation is 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." See MPEP 2113.
Applicant discloses that the thread forms form threads onto the neck of the product. Horner teaches that the wall 38 produces threads 72 on the neck portion of the product (Fig 5; [0038]). Furthermore, the examiner notes that applicant specification does not disclose any critical aspect imparted to the claimed product via the claimed machining. Since the prior art thread forms and claimed thread forms share the same form and function, the process by which the thread forms are manufactured cannot be considered critical to patentably distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Therefore the claimed thread forms that are machined are anticipated/made obvious over the prior art thread forms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/14/2026 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.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights