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
In view of the amendment, filed on February 11th, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on November 13th, 2025.
Objection of claim 8 due to minor informality
Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Rejections of claims 2 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments, see remarks filed February 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of previously applied references of Fava et al. (US 20170298224 A1) and Mitsui et al. (JP 2012007079 A).
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fava et al. (US 20170298224 A1; hereafter Fava), in view of Mitsui et al. (JP 2012007079 A; hereafter Mitsui; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation) and evidenced by Kusano et al. (US 20020102113 A1; hereafter Kusano).
Regarding claim 1, Fava discloses a method of producing a container ([0134-0135]), comprising:
a process of producing a preform ([0167-0168]) from a melt-kneaded product ([0155]) of a resin mixture ([0141]) comprising at least a wax ([0098]) and a styrene-based resin ([0072]);
and a process of stretch-blow molding ([0146]) the preform to produce the container,
wherein the styrene-based resin is a high impact polystyrene ([0072]), and wherein a content of the high impact polystyrene is 80 mass% or more ([0073, 0121]; component A, which can be high impact polystyrene, is 88 to 99.887% by weight) with respect to a mass of the preform.
In the absence of any further distinguishing limitations the Examiner is of the position that the disclosed bottle/container of Fava is capable of storing toner. In other words, the Examiner is of the position that absent evidence to the contrary the disclosed bottle/container of Fava is capable of specifically holding toner. Furthermore, as evidenced by Figures 15A-15B and [0080] of Kusano, it is well-known that polystyrene bottles are capable of storing toner.
While Fava discloses a large variety of additives may be included in the resin mixture, such as processing aids and stabilizers ([0090-0100]), Fava does not explicitly disclose the resin mixture comprises a carbodiimide compound.
However, in the analogous art Mitsui teaches a method of producing a stretch-blow-molded article (Pg. 7, 6th ¶), comprising: a process of producing a preform (Pg. 7, 6th ¶; in blow molding a preform/parison is expanded) from a resin mixture (Pg. 2, 4th ¶ and Pg. 6, 7th ¶; resin composition comprising a mixture of components) comprising at least a wax (Pg. 4, 5th ¶), a styrene-based resin (Pg. 6, 7th ¶; polystyrene or acrylonitrile-styrene or acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene) and a carbodiimide compound (Pg. 3, 5th ¶) that is melt-kneaded (Pg. 6, 9th ¶); and a process of stretch-blow molding (Pg. 7, 6th ¶; injection blow molding the preform/parison, wherein stretching is implicit to injection blow molding) the preform to produce the stretch-blow-molded article.
Fava and Mitsui are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection blow molding containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fava with the teachings of Mitsui to provide the resin mixture comprises a carbodiimide compound. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate a carbodiimide compound for the purposes of improving the durability and strength of the resin mixture (Mitsui Pg. 13, 2nd ¶).
Regarding claim 2, modified Fava discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Mitsui further teaches a content of the carbodiimide compound in the resin mixture is 114 to 1141 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the wax (Pg. 5, 5th ¶; mass ratio of the carbodiimide compound and the wax is between 100/1 and 1/1; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05). Fava and Mitsui are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection blow molding containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Fava with the teachings of Mitsui to provide a content of the carbodiimide compound in the resin mixture is 114 to 1141 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the wax. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the recited ratio between the carbodiimide compound and the wax for the purposes of avoiding adversely effecting physical properties of the resin mixture (Mitsui Pg. 5, 5th and 6th ¶).
Regarding claim 4, modified Fava discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Mitsui further teaches the wax is an ester-based wax (Pg. 4, 7th ¶; waxes mainly composed of long-chain esters).
Regarding claim 7, modified Fava discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Fava further discloses the container is a bottle ([0140]). As stated above, in the absence of any further distinguishing limitations the Examiner is of the position that the disclosed bottle/container of Fava is capable of storing toner. In other words, the Examiner is of the position that absent evidence to the contrary the disclosed bottle/container of Fava is capable of specifically holding toner. Furthermore, as evidenced by Figures 15A-15B and [0080] of Kusano, it is well-known that polystyrene bottles are capable of storing toner.
Regarding claim 9, modified Fava discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Fava discloses the process of producing the preform comprises:
a process of preparing pellets of the melt-kneaded product of the resin mixture ([0155-0156]);
and a process of molding the preform from the pellets ([0155-0156]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Fava discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein Fava discloses the process of molding the preform comprises a process of injection-molding the pellets ([0155-0156]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Fava discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Fava further discloses the mixing of the components forming the resin composition can occur in one step, two steps or in a plurality of steps ([0152]). When employing two or more steps, component A and component B maybe prepared as one masterbatch and component A and component C maybe prepared as a second, separate masterbatch ([0155]). In these masterbatches, the components are melt compounded using an extruder and formed into pellets ([0155]). These pellets formed from the separate masterbatches are then melt compounded together before being injection and stretch blow molded ([0155]). From these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize for the resin composition of modified Fava that high impact polystyrene, as component A, can be mixed with wax, as component B, in a first masterbatch to form first pellets and high impact polystyrene, as component A, can be mixed with an a carbodiimide, as component C, in a second masterbatch to form second pellets. It is well-known in the art of mixing compositions that components can be mixed in separate masterbatches for the purposes of increased flexibility and inventory management when preparing compositions.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fava et al. (US 20170298224 A1; hereafter Fava), in view of Mitsui et al. (JP 2012007079 A; hereafter Mitsui; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hutchinson et al. (US 20080044603 A1; hereafter Hutchinson).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fava discloses the method according to claim 1.
While Fava discloses the formed resin container comprising high impact polystyrene maybe recycled ([0023, 0025]), modified Fava does not explicitly disclose the high impact polystyrene in the resin mixture is recycled.
However, in the analogous art Hutchinson teaches a method of injection stretch blow molding an article ([0006]; injection stretch blow molding a container) using a resin mixture comprising material-recycled ([0250]; materials may be post-consumer or recycled) polystyrene ([0247]; material blend may comprise polystyrene), wax ([0254]) and additives ([0247]; material blend may be combined with different additives). Hutchinson further teaches this molded article may be recycled ([0250]; the finished container and/or the materials used therein are benign in the subsequent plastic container recycling stream).
Fava and Hutchinson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection blow molding containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Fava with the teachings of Hutchinson to provide the polystyrene is material-recycled polystyrene. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. It is well-known to utilize recycled plastic in molding articles and doing so here would reduce the environmental impact of the stretch-blow-molded container.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fava et al. (US 20170298224 A1; hereafter Fava), in view of Mitsui et al. (JP 2012007079 A; hereafter Mitsui; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fukushima et al. (US 20190224904 A1; hereafter Fukushima).
Regarding claim 8, modified Fava discloses the method according to claim 1.
Modified Fava does not explicitly disclose the preform has a test tube shape, and the process of producing the stretch-blow-molded article comprises: a process of stretching the preform in a longitudinal direction of the preform by using a stretching rod; and a process of introducing a gas into the preform stretched in the longitudinal direction and stretching the preform in a circumferential direction.
However, Fukushima teaches a method of stretch-blow molding a preform to produce a container ([0017]), wherein the preform has a test tube shape (Fig. 2A-C), and the process of producing the container comprises: a process of stretching the preform in a longitudinal direction of the preform by using a stretching rod ([0017]; a heated preform is molded into a desired shape by longitudinally stretching the heated preform with a stretch rod); and a process of introducing a gas into the preform stretched in the longitudinal direction and stretching the preform in a circumferential direction ([0017]; then laterally stretching and inflating the preform with pressurized air).
Fava and Fukushima are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection blow molding containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Fava with the teachings of Fukushima to provide the preform has a test tube shape, and the process of producing the stretch-blow-molded article comprises: a process of stretching the preform in a longitudinal direction of the preform by using a stretching rod; and a process of introducing a gas into the preform stretched in the longitudinal direction and stretching the preform in a circumferential direction. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). It is well known in the art of blow molding to stretch a preform using a stretching rod and expand the preform using a gas as doing so allows the preform to uniformly stretch towards the walls of the blow mold to take on the shape of the blow mold and produce a container with a desired shape.
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights