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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/25 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these "four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful," see MPEP 2106.03. The term “system” is not directly analogous to any of these four categories, but given that applicant’s preamble states “an extrusion blow molding system for forming a plastic container,” it can be inferred that applicant intended the claims to recite a machine. “ A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)),” see MPEP 2106.03. The examiner further notes that the article worked upon does not limit machine/apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115 and a manner of operating a device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they refer to the current rejection. Applicant notes numerous differences in the manner of operation of the device of Chisholm, but does not point to any structural features of the extrusion blow molding system itself. The examiner notes that a manner of operating a device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114. Applicant additionally argues features of the RFID tag, parison, adhesive etc but these are all articles worked upon and not the apparatus itself. The examiner further notes that the article worked upon does not limit machine/apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8, 9 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.
The term “dissimilar” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dissimilar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 contains the trademark/trade name Plexar. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe material of the adhesive and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(u).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chisholm (US 2008/0110774) in view of Suzuki (US 4079850), Hausladen (US 2011/0180975), and Kim (US 2012/0273577).
As to claim 1, Chisholm teaches an extrusion blow molding system for forming a plastic container: a mold comprising two or more portions (58, 60), wherein two or more portions couple together to form an interior surface [Fig 7a-8f]; a gas injector (as gas is blown from the core 62) coupled to an internal cavity of the parison [0019, Fig 7G 8F, claim 10]; an actuator (54) that orients an electrical signal generator (28a) within the mold to orient a heat activated adhesive on the electrical signal generator that is compliable with the interior surface of the mold [Fig 7a-8f, 0019-0021]; wherein the actuator orients and places the electrical signal generator into the parison prior to coupling the two or more portions of the mold, wherein when the two or more portions of the mold are coupled to gas injector (the core inject gas to form the container) pressurizes the internal cavity to form a container with the electrical signal generator and bonded to the outer layers [0017 notes that piece 40 may be omitted] of the parison used to form the container [Fig 7a-8f, 0019-0021]. Chisholm teaches an RFID tag ie an electric signal generator [0017-0019], and are RFIDs are definitionally comprised of three components an integrated circuit, an antenna, and a substrate.
Suzuki teaches a melt blow molding system [Abstract] wherein coextrusion (coextrusion is the process of connecting multiple extruders to a single die to form multilayer extrudate) device with an annular device (2) and forms a 3 layer parison which would require the die block (1) being coupled to one extruder for each layer [Fig 2A-2B, col 4 line 3-38]. The 3 layer parison having an inner layer and outer layer [Fig 2A-2B]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chisholm and had a die block with an annular orifice coupled to 3 extruders and produced a parison with 3 layers, as suggested by Suzuki, as this configuration had proven successful at blow molding containers and allowed blowing the parison into a container directly from the die block of the extruder.
Chisholm does not explicitly state that the actuator/gripper that places the RFID insert/label within the parison comprises a suction cup.
Hausladen teaches a blow molding system wherein labels are picked up by an actuator (17) with a suction cup (19) [0040] in such a way as to allow exact radial orientation of the label [0040, Abstract] in an “easy” manner [0021-0024]. The labels are placed against the internal wall of the mold [Fig 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chisholm and utilized suction cups and a labels, as suggested by Hausladen, as providing inserts to the mold cavity with a suction cup gripper allowed for exact radial orientation of the label in an easy manner.
Chisholm teaches signal generator comprises a tag the tag comprises an IC chip coupled to an antenna [0017] (this is definitionally what an RFID is). Chisholm does not explicitly state that the tag is enclosed by 2 sheets of material such that signal generating functionality of the tag is maintained after being heated over 420 F, however, given 420 F is just typical processing conditions during parison formation the RFID tag of Chisholm would have to have this property in order to be functional.
Additionally, Kim teaches an RFID tag that is designed to have high durability [Abstract] being able to withstand high temperatures [0009] and notes that RFID tags are used in molded products [0005]. Kim notes multiple protection layers [0027] including heat resistant silicone [0029, 0030] and heat resistant polyimide [0032] which both protect the RFID from thermal degradation and provide additional protective qualities [0028-0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chisholm and had the RFID have 2 or more thermally protective sheets, as suggested by Kim, in order to prevent thermal degradation of the RFID and provide additional protective qualities [0028-0030].
As the protective sheets of Kim prevent thermal degradation the tag would retain its signal generating functionality after being heated to 420 F
As the mold/parison is heated in the normal course of blow molding, the device of Chrisholm would be capable of being heated to temperature that could activate a heat activated adhesive. As this limitation concerns a method step, the device need only be capable of performing recited function which given that the machine would have to operate at high temperatures for the deforming the parison, it would have to be capable of operating at a suitable temperature for the adhesive. The examiner notes a manner of operating a device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114.
Chisholm teaches signal generator comprises a tag the tag comprises an IC chip coupled to an antenna [0017] (this is definitionally what an RFID is). Chisholm does not explicitly state that the tag is enclosed by 2 sheets of material such that signal generating functionality of the tag is maintained after being heated over 420 F, however, given 420 F is just typical processing conditions during parison formation the RFID tag of Chisholm would have to have this property in order to be functional.
As to claim 2, Chisholm and Hausladen disclose an RFID tag and a vacuum cup that picks up labels as explained but above does not explicitly state that the RFID tag comprises two or more thermally protective sheets located within the vacuum cup that orients the electrical signal generator within the mold.
Alternatively, Kim teaches an RFID tag that is designed to have high durability [Abstract] being able to withstand high temperatures [0009] and notes that RFID tags are used in molded products [0005]. Kim notes multiple protection layers [0027] including heat resistant silicone [0029, 0030] and heat resistant polyimide [0032] which both protect the RFID from thermal degradation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chisholm and had the RFID have 2 or more thermally protective sheets, as suggested by Kim, in order to prevent thermal degradation of the RFID.
As to claim 3, Chisholm does not explicitly state the gas injector passes through the die-block to couple the internal cavity of the parison to external air.
Suzuki teaches a melt blow molding system [Abstract] wherein coextrusion (coextrusion is the process of connecting multiple extruders to a single die to form multilayer extrudate) device with an annular device (2) and forms a 3 layer parison which would require the die block (1) being coupled to one extruder for each layer [Fig 2A-2B, col 4 line 3-38]. The gas injector (9) passes through the dieblock (1) to couple the internal cavity of the parison to external air [Fig 2a-2B, col 7 line 30-60]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chisholm and utilized an air generator within the die block, as suggested by Suzuki, as this configuration had proven successful at blow molding containers and allowed blowing the parison into a container directly from the die block of the extruder.
As to claims 6-9, all of these claims recite features of the RFID tag or the parison which is the article worked upon by the apparatus; the examiner notes that the article worked upon does not limit machine/apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115 and a manner of operating a device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114. Furthermore, the middle layer of the parison of Suzuki would act as a barrier layer at least somewhat.
Additionally, Kim teaches an RFID tag that is designed to have high durability [Abstract] being able to withstand high temperatures [0009] and notes that RFID tags are used in molded products [0005]. Kim notes multiple protection layers [0027] including heat resistant silicone [0029, 0030] and heat resistant polyimide [0032] which both protect the RFID from thermal degradation and provide additional protective qualities [0028-0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chisholm and had the RFID have 2 or more thermally protective sheets, as suggested by Kim, in order to prevent thermal degradation of the RFID and provide additional protective qualities [0028-0030].
As the protective sheets of Kim prevent thermal degradation the tag would retain its signal generating functionality after being heated to 420 F
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights