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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 16 recites the limitation “without adjusting a temperature of the cooled at least one preform within the storage bin.” However, the current specification and drawings have no support for this. Further, MPEP 2173.05 states negative limitations in the claims must have explicit support in the specification to satisfy the description requirement of 35 USC 112, In re Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393. Although [0037] discloses “in some embodiments, the two stage method comprises the step of cooling the preform and transferring the preform to a position, for example, a storage bin. In some embodiments, the preforms are transferred from the storage bin to a second position for temperature conditioning, for example, heating and/or cooling” it seems like the cooling is either done in the preform or after the transfer from the storage bin which does not support the independent claims.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recites the limitation without adjusting a temperature of the cooled at least one preform within the storage bin. It is unclear how the temperature is not adjusted when cooled or where it is cooled or where it is cooled if it cooled after the preformed is removed from the mold and before transferred to the storage bin. Clarification is required. Shimada is using the term cooling and temperature adjustment interchangeably. Absent a specific definition for cooling, it is unclear how applicant’s cooling is different from Shimada.
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) 1,6, 8, 13-15, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2024/0217158 A1) in view of Weick (US 5908127A).
Regarding claim 1, Shimada teaches a method for manufacturing packaging (abstract), the method comprising the steps of: injecting resin into a mold to form at least one preform including a preform body (14, 4) and a preform neck (13, 3) coupled to the preform body (see 10 in first step); removing the at least one preform from the mold (figures 4(b) and 4(d), [0069]); cooling the at least one preform after the at least one preform is removed from the mold and transferring the cooled at least one preform [0047, 0069] to a storage bin (Shimada does not explicitly disclose a storage bin. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation the temperature adjustment device 40 reads on storage unit);
removing the cooled at least one preform from the storage bin and temperature conditioning one or more selected portions of the cooled at least one preform by heating a portion of the cooled at least one preform that includes the preform body and the preform neck to a temperature profile of 90-110 degrees Celsius [0049]; and blowing and/or stretching the at least one temperature conditioned preform into a blow mold to form a container [0051]
including a container body and an container neck finish and having such that the container has a wall thickness that is more uniform than if the one or more selected portions were not temperature conditioned [0069]
Shimada does not does explicitly disclose including an offset neck finish. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an offset neck finish based on the design needs of the final product. Analogous container art, Weicks depicts an offset shoulder in figure 1 for the benefit of minimize the need for special handling with respect to vacuum conditions for a hot-filled product (column 6 lines 24-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an offset shoulder as taught by Weick into the method taught by Shimada for the benefit of minimizing the need for special handling with respect to vacuum conditions for a hot-filled product and design needs of the final product.
As for the limitation, without adjusting a temperature of the cooled at least one preform within the storage bin, Shimada discloses cooling the preformed between the injection molding part and the stretch blow molding part [0047]. Shimada is using the term cooling and temperature adjustment interchangeably. Absent a specific definition for cooling, it is unclear how applicant’s cooling is different from Shimada. Further, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 6, Shimada discloses wherein the step of temperature conditioning adjusts the temperature profile of the at least one preform [0044-0045].
Regarding claim 8, Shimada discloses comprises a polyethylene terephthalate resin [0009].
Regarding claim 13, Shimada doesn’t explicitly disclose the neck finish offset from a central axis of the container a distance selected from a range of 0.25 through 3.00 inches from a front side of the container. However, Weick teaches inwardly curved channel has a root radius of at least about 0.070 inch (claim 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have included a range of 0.25 through 3.00 inches from a front side of the container based on the design needs of the final product. MPEP 2144.05 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claims 14-15, Shimada doesn’t explicitly disclose the steps of the method are performed with a single machine; the steps of the method are performed with a first machine and a second machine. However, MPEP 2144.04 states In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "Press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a single machine or two machines since it have been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art.
Regarding claim 21, Shimada teaches comprising allowing heat to distribute evenly within a wall of the at least one temperature conditioned preform prior to blowing and or/stretching the at least one temperature conditioned preform [0069].
Regarding claims 22, Shimada doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein temperature conditioning the portion of the at least one preform includes heating a top wall of the at least one preform such that preform material flows to a portion of the top wall posterior to the preform neck finish; and the top wall has a thickness that is more uniform than if the preform was not temperature conditioned. However, Shimada discloses temperature conditioning the neck and body [0044-0045] and MPEP 2144.04 discloses in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). In this case the order of the conditioning in where the top wall is heated first does not make it patentably distinguishable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein temperature conditioning the portion of the at least one preform includes heating a top wall of the at least one preform such that preform material flows to a portion of the top wall posterior to the preform neck finish; and the top wall has a thickness that is more uniform than if the preform was not temperature conditioned since Shimada discloses temperature conditioning the neck and body and the order in which it’s done is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Shimada discloses a method for manufacturing packing (abstract), the method comprising the steps of injecting resin into a mold to form at least one preform including a preform body (14, 4) and a preform neck (13, 3) coupled to the preform body (see 10 in first step);
removing the at least one preform from the mold (figures 4(b) and 4(d), [0069]);
cooling the at least one preform after the at least one preform [0047, 0069] to a storage bin (Shimada does not explicitly disclose a storage bin. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation the temperature adjustment device 40 reads on storage unit);
removing the cooled at least one preform from the storage bin and temperature conditioning a portion of the cooled at least one preform that includes the preform body and the preform neck (see figures where the neck an body are conjoined) by heating the cooled to at least one preform to a temperature profile of 90-110 degrees Celsius [0049]
such that a top wall of the cooled at least one preform is heated and preform material flows to a portion of the top wall posterior to a preform neck finish to the cooled at least one preform; (Shimada doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein temperature conditioning the portion of the at least one preform includes heating a top wall of the at least one preform such that preform material flows to a portion of the top wall posterior to the preform neck finish; and the top wall has a thickness that is more uniform than if the preform was not temperature conditioned. However, Shimada discloses temperature conditioning the neck and body [0044-0045] and MPEP 2144.04 discloses in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). In this case the order of the conditioning in where the top wall is heated first does not make it patentably distinguishable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein temperature conditioning the portion of the at least one preform includes heating a top wall of the at least one preform such that preform material flows to a portion of the top wall posterior to the preform neck finish; and the top wall has a thickness that is more uniform than if the preform was not temperature conditioned since Shimada discloses temperature conditioning the neck and body and the order in which it’s done is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.)
and blowing and/or stretching the at least one temperature conditioned preform into a blow mold to form a container [0051]
including a container body and an container neck finish and having such that the container has a wall thickness that is more uniform than if the one or more selected portions were not temperature conditioned [0069].
Shimada does not does explicitly disclose including an offset neck finish. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an offset neck finish based on the design needs of the final product. Analogous container art, Weicks depicts an offset shoulder in figure 1 for the benefit of minimize the need for special handling with respect to vacuum conditions for a hot-filled product (column 6 lines 24-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an offset shoulder as taught by Weick into the method taught by Shimada for the benefit of minimizing the need for special handling with respect to vacuum conditions for a hot-filled product and design needs of the final product.
As for the limitation, without adjusting a temperature of the cooled at least one preform within the storage bin, Shimada discloses cooling the preformed between the injection molding part and the stretch blow molding part [0047]. Shimada is using the term cooling and temperature adjustment interchangeably. Absent a specific definition for cooling, it is unclear how applicant’s cooling is different from Shimada. Further, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Claim(s) 2-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2024/0217158 A1) in view of Weick (US 5908127A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ozaki (US2022/0134629 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Shimada doesn’t explicitly teaches wherein the step of temperature conditioning includes a greater amount of heating applied to the portion of the at least one preform relative to at least one remaining portion of the at least one preform that includes the preform body and the preform neck; wherein the greater amount of heating applied to the portion of the at least one preform selectively stretches portion of a greater amount relative to the at least one remaining portion. However, analogous art, Ozaki, discloses “in the preform 20 of the present embodiment, the thickness t1 of the first region 25 corresponding to the container long diameter side is set to be thicker than the thickness t2 of the second region 26 corresponding to the container short diameter side. That is, in the preform 20, in the circumferential direction, the first region 25 corresponding to the surface extending on the container long diameter side is more likely to be deformed than the second region 26 corresponding to the surface extending on the container short diameter side since the internal heat quantity is larger [0068] and the first region 25 having a larger internal heat quantity is stretched earlier in the circumferential direction of the preform 20, and the second region 26 having a smaller internal heat quantity is stretched later [0069]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have greater amount of heat applied to one side since the regions have different internal heat quantities.
Regarding claim 4, both Weick and Ozaki depicts wherein portion of the at least one preform is disposed on a first side of the preform neck finish and the at least one remaining portion is disposed on a second opposite side of the preform neck finish (Weick figure 2 and Ozaki figures 7A-9B).
Regarding claim 5, Shimada doesn’t explicitly disclose or teach wherein the portion of the at least one perform is a first selected portion and the step of temperature conditioning includes a greater amount of heating applied to the first selected portion of the at least one preform and a lesser amount of heating and/or cooling applied to a second selected portion of the at least one preform. However, analogous art, Ozaki, discloses “in the preform 20 of the present embodiment, the thickness t1 of the first region 25 corresponding to the container long diameter side is set to be thicker than the thickness t2 of the second region 26 corresponding to the container short diameter side. That is, in the preform 20, in the circumferential direction, the first region 25 corresponding to the surface extending on the container long diameter side is more likely to be deformed than the second region 26 corresponding to the surface extending on the container short diameter side since the internal heat quantity is larger [0068] and the first region 25 having a larger internal heat quantity is stretched earlier in the circumferential direction of the preform 20, and the second region 26 having a smaller internal heat quantity is stretched later [0069] and therefore, when the blow air is introduced into the preform 20, the bottom portion side having a larger internal heat quantity is stretched earlier in the axial direction of the first region 25 of the preform 20, and the opening side having a smaller internal heat quantity is stretched later [0071]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have herein the step of temperature conditioning includes a greater amount of heating applied to a first selected portion of the at least one preform and a lesser amount of heating and/or cooling applied to a second selected portion of the at least one preform since the regions have different internal heat quantities.
Regarding claim 7, Shimada doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the step of blowing and/or stretching the at least one temperature conditioned preform includes positioning the at least one temperature conditioned preform in the blow mold so that a centerline of the container is at an angle of 10 or more degrees relative to a vertical axis of the at least one temperature conditioned preform. However, Ozaki, discloses “the injection molding unit 110, the temperature adjustment unit 120, the blow molding unit 130, and the taking-out unit 140 are disposed at positions rotated by a predetermined angle (for example, 90 degrees) about the conveyance mechanism 150” [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the step of blowing and/or stretching the at least one temperature conditioned preform includes positioning the at least one temperature conditioned preform in the blow mold so that a centerline of the container is at an angle of 10 or more degrees relative to a vertical axis of the at least one temperature conditioned preform since Ozaki discloses 90 degrees which means the limitation of 10 or more degrees. Based on design needs, it would have been obvious for the step of blowing and/or stretching the at least one temperature conditioned preform includes positioning the at least one temperature conditioned preform in the blow mold so that a centerline of the container is at an angle of 10 or more degrees relative to a vertical axis of the at least one temperature conditioned preform.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shimada (US 2024/0217158 A1) in view of Weick (US 5908127A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tom et al (US2013/0193164 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Shimada teaches releasing the mold (s4 in figure 6) but doesn’t explicitly disclose the step of constructing a box and disposing the container in the box; transferring the container along a manufacturing line and disposing the container with a box. However, it is well known to construct boxes for containers. Analogous art, Tom et al, discloses Typically, a rigid liner may be filled with a desired substance and then stored and/or shipped. Prior to storing or shipping, a conventional rigid liner may be placed in one or more bags, such as for example, one or more polyethylene bags. In some cases, the bagged liner may then be placed in an additional shipping and/or storage container, such as, but not limited to a cardboard box [0278]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated step of constructing a box for disposal of the container depending on the final needs/shipping desires of the product.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2024/0217158 A1) in view of Weick (US 5908127A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Krause (US2010/0264058).
Shimada does not explicitly disclose the step of constructing a box and disposing the container in the box; transferring the container along a manufacturing line and disposing the container with a box. However, analogous container art, Krause, discloses after receiving the containers 12 within the open carton 14, the conveyor line 62 closes the carton 14 to form a multi-pack 10. The carton conveyor line 62 may include additional stations for packaging an assortment of multi-packs 12 within a box 76, and palletizing a plurality of boxes on a pallet 78 [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art to include the step of constructing a box for disposal of the container; step of releasing the container from the blow mold and transferring the container along a manufacturing line for disposal with a box; the step of palletizing one or more containers in a box for transfer to a filling line since it is conventionally well known and to stream line the process of producing and transferring containers.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shimada (US 2024/0217158 A1) in view of Weick (US 5908127A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Collette (US5533881 A).
Shimada doesn’t explicitly disclose the container includes at least one rectangular PET bottle having a 2 to 1 or greater depth to width ratio. However, analogues container art, Krause, discloses “for example, with bottle grade PET an upper limit on the dimensions of a blow moldable recess in a commercial container is a depth-to width ratio of about 2:1. In accordance with this invention, a blow-molded recess approaching the upper limit can first be made, and then the movable blades used to further extend (deepen) the recess to a depth-to-width ratio (d:w) of at least about 3:1 (see FIG. 8). The increased forced exerted by the mechanical blades overcomes the strain hardening characteristic of the polymer which resists further extension at the blow pressure (column 7 lines 29-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least one rectangular PET bottle having a 2 to 1 or greater depth to width ratio as taught by Collette into the method taught by Shimada and Weick in order to balance the hardening characteristics of polymer and also based on design needs of the final product.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2024/0217158 A1) in view of Weick (US 5908127A), in view of Ozaki (US2022/0134629 A1), and further view of Tom et al (US2013/0193164 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Shimada discloses method for manufacturing packaging (abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
injecting resin into a mold to form a preform including a preform body (14, 4) and a preform neck (13, 3) coupled to the preform body (see 10 in first step);
removing the preform from the mold (figures 4(b) and 4(d), [0069]); cooling the preform after the preform is removed from the mold and transferring the cooled preform to a [0047, 0069] to a storage bin (Shimada does not explicitly disclose a storage bin. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation the temperature adjustment device 40 reads on storage unit);
removing the cooled preform from the storage bin and temperature conditioning the cooled preform by heating a first selected portion of the cooled preform that includes the preform body and the preform neck to a temperature profile of 90-110 degrees Celsius such that a greater amount of heating is applied to the first selected portion of the cooled preform and a lesser amount of heating is applied to a second selected portion of the cooled preform that includes the preform body and the preform neck [0049];
blowing and/or stretching the temperature conditioned preform into a blow mold to form a container [0051] including a container body and an offset neck finish and having such that a wall thickness of the container is more uniform than if the perform was not temperature conditioned [0069].
Shimada does not does explicitly disclose including an offset neck finish. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an offset neck finish based on the design needs of the final product. Analogous container art, Weicks depicts an offset shoulder in figure 1 for the benefit of minimize the need for special handling with respect to vacuum conditions for a hot-filled product (column 6 lines 24-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an offset shoulder as taught by Weick into the method taught by Shimada for the benefit of minimizing the need for special handling with respect to vacuum conditions for a hot-filled product and design needs of the final product.
Shimada does not does explicitly disclose including an offset neck finish. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an offset neck finish based on the design needs of the final product. Analogous container art, Weicks depicts an offset shoulder in figure 1 for the benefit of minimize the need for special handling with respect to vacuum conditions for a hot-filled product (column 6 lines 24-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an offset shoulder as taught by Weick into the method taught by Shimada for the benefit of minimize the need for special handling with respect to vacuum conditions for a hot-filled product.
Shimada doesn’t explicitly disclose the step of constructing a box for disposal of the container; and transferring the container along a manufacturing line for disposal with a box. However, it is well known to construct boxes for containers. Analogous art, Tom et al, discloses typically, a rigid liner may be filled with a desired substance and then stored and/or shipped. Prior to storing or shipping, a conventional rigid liner may be placed in one or more bags, such as for example, one or more polyethylene bags. In some cases, the bagged liner may then be placed in an additional shipping and/or storage container, such as, but not limited to a cardboard box [0278]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated step of constructing a box for disposal of the container depending on the final needs/shipping desires of the product.
As for the limitation, without adjusting a temperature of the cooled at least one preform within the storage bin, Shimada discloses cooling the preformed between the injection molding part and the stretch blow molding part [0047]. Shimada is using the term cooling and temperature adjustment interchangeably. Absent a specific definition for cooling, it is unclear how applicant’s cooling is different from Shimada. Further, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitation without adjusting a temperature of the cooled at least one preform within the storage bin. It is unclear how the temperature is not adjusted when cooled or where it is cooled. Clarification is required. Shimada is using the term cooling and temperature adjustment interchangeably. Absent a specific definition for cooling, it is unclear how applicant’s cooling is different from Shimada.
Further, the limitation, without adjusting a temperature of the cooled at least one preform within the storage bin, Shimada discloses cooling the preformed between the injection molding part and the stretch blow molding part [0047]. Shimada is using the term cooling and temperature adjustment interchangeably. Absent a specific definition for cooling, it is unclear how applicant’s cooling is different from Shimada. Further, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights