Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 5/19/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 3, and 7 are amended. Claims 6 and 10-13 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-13 remain pending
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objection and the 35 USC 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final office action of 2/26/2026. The objection and rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant arguments that claim 1 amendments overcome the primary art of SHIBUYA are not persuasive. The Examiner, with the aid of annotated FIG. 1 of SHIBUYA, and in the 35 USC 103 rejection section below, has shown that these amendments are disclosed by SHIBUYA. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the recitations of “first” and “second” in claim 1 do not denote order.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIBUYA (JP-H0465214-A and its English translation), hereinafter SHIBUYA, in view of NETER (US 6,461,556), hereinafter NETER. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims. Also, note that annotated FIG. 1 of SHIBUYA is pasted below to assist with the mapping of the elements of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, SHIBUYA discloses A temperature adjusting mold for adjusting a temperature of or cooling an injection-molded bottomed preform in a state where the injection-molded bottomed preform is held by a holding member {[P1] see highlighted text, [FIG. 1] note 18 is the holding member}, the temperature adjusting mold comprising:
A nozzle configured to be in airtight contact with a neck portion of the preform {[FIG. 1] note 16 and its whole structure is the nozzle that is airtight with preform 20 (preform will be in the area 20)};
and a hollow rod configured to be inserted in the preform, the hollow rod being provided concentrically in the nozzle {[FIG. 1] 26/28 is the hollow rod that is located concentrically with regard to the nozzle},
wherein an upper portion of the nozzle is provided with a first inlet {[FIG. 1] note the space above the arrow near numeral 30 is the first inlet, note that details are not shown, however that stream enters this space from a first inlet},
wherein an upper portion of the hollow rod is provided with a second inlet, wherein a first flow path is formed by an internal surface of the nozzle and an external surface of hollow rod, and wherein a second flow path is formed by an internal surface of the hollow rod {[FIG. 1] see the annotated FIG. 1 of SHIBUYA pasted below}.
PNG
media_image1.png
694
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SHIBUYA, however, is silent on the cooling medium being air that thus the nozzle and inlets being air nozzle and air inlets. SHIBUYA discloses using water as the cooling medium {[P3] see highlighted text}.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to post-mold cooling of preform, NETER discloses using air as the cooling medium in the hollow rod {[abstract] note cooling fluid in the pin or hollow rod, [C8, L14]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the cooling fluid of SHIBUYA (water) with the cooling air of NETER. Note that it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the skill of an artisan {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}. This substitution is obvious and predictable since both fluids are used for cooling of preform in the same filed of endeavor. Note that for the rest of the claims, modified SHIBUYA is using air as the cooling medium.
Regarding claim 2, modified SHIBUYA discloses wherein a diameter of a first portion of the hollow rod is larger than a diameter of a second portion of the hollow rod and is smaller than a diameter of an inner surface of the preform, the first portion being configured to be inserted into the preform, the second portion being configured not to be inserted into the preform {[FIG. 1] note 28 is the first portion that has a larger diameter and is inside the preform 20, and 26 is the second portion that is outside and has a smaller diameter}.
Regarding claim 3, modified SHIBUYA discloses wherein the hollow rod is configured to be replaced with another hollow rod having a different shape to adjust a cross-sectional area of an air flow path, the air flow path being formed between an inner surface of the preform and an outer surface of the hollow rod {[FIG. 1 & 2] note the 28 in FIG. 2 has a different size and thus different cross section that is used to adjust the air flow path}.
Regarding claim 4, modified SHIBUYA discloses wherein a cross-section of a first portion of the hollow rod is a circular cross-section, the cross-section being perpendicular to an axis direction, the first portion being configured to be inserted into the preform {[FIG. 4] note the circular shape, also see claim 2 for insertion of the first portion}.
Regarding claim 5, NETER discloses wherein a cross-section of a first portion of the hollow rod is a circular cross-section and has a cross-sectional shape having a notched portion at at least one place in a circumferential direction, the cross-section being perpendicular to an axis direction, the first portion being configured to be inserted into the preform {see claim 4 for circular and insertion of the first portion, [C9, L41]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of NETER in the temperature adjusting mold of modified SHIBUYA and have included notches in the hollow rod of SHIBUYA. As disclosed by NETER, the advantage of these notches are the ability to include fins that assist with further efficiency of the cooling of the preform {[C9, L19-40]}.
Regarding claim 7, SHIBUYA discloses wherein the hollow rod has a cross-sectional shape where an outer diameter of a portion corresponding to the neck portion of the preform is larger than an outer diameter of the other portion, as seen in an axis direction {[FIG. 1] note part of 28 that corresponds to the neck portion of preform 20 is larger than the other portion or 26}.
Regarding claim 8, SHIBUYA discloses wherein cooling air is configured to flow into the first air flow path and to be discharged from the second air flow path, cooling air being for adjusting a temperature of or cooling the preform {[FIG. 1] and also see the discussion under claim 1 for air paths}.
Regarding claim 9, SHIBUYA discloses further comprising: a temperature adjustment pot mold into which the preform is configured to be inserted, the temperature adjustment pot mold being disposed below the holding member {[FIG. 1] 14 is the temperature adjustment pot that is below the holder as discussed under claim 1}.
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 S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights