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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 9, 11, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cerbelle et al. (U.S. Patent 5,891,385). Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 15, Cerbelle et al., hereafter “Cerbelle,” show that it is known to have a mold for manufacturing by extrusion blow molding a hollow tank body made of plastic material having an internal component fixed to an interior of the parison (Abstract), comprising two parts movable relative to each other (Figure 1), the two parts comprising at least one first section (element 1), and a second section (element 2), wherein the first mold surface comprises a plurality of contact regions (Figure 2). The examiner notes that the features of claim 9 are stepwise method features which do not affect the structural elements of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Cerbelle shows the mold of claim 1, including one wherein the first molding surface extends along a circumscribed surface containing the contact regions (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Cerbelle shows the mold of claim 1, including one wherein the circumscribed surface comprises a predetermined margin distance at leas around the contact regions (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Cerbelle shows the mold of claim 1, including one wherein the first section comprises a gripping element (element 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Cerbelle shows the mold of claim 1, including one wherein the first section includes a plurality of first sections (Figure 1: upper concave and lower concave).
Regarding Claim 16, Cerbelle shows a method for molding by extrusion blow molding a plastic hollow tank body (Abtract; Column 1, lines 12-20) comprising the steps (a)-(e) (Figures 1-2; Column 4, lines 4-26).
Regarding Claim 18, Cerbelle shows the method of claim 16, including one wherein the step of moving, the internal component is fixed inside the parison by mechanical anchoring (Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerbelle. Cerbelle shows the mold of claim 1, but he does not show the specific dimensions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create a mold which accommodates any appropriate dimensions, such as those claimed, because 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 optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerbelle, in view of Majima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0265052). Cerbelle shows the mold of claim 1, but he does not show a further first and second section. Majima et al., hereafter “Majima,” show an extrusion blow mold which comprises two parts of one mold (Figure 12, element 42, 70). It would have been obvious to use Majim’s two parts within Cerbelle’s one mold half in order to insure proper attachment of the interior element with the parison. The examiner notes that the features of claim 7 are optional.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-13, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742