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 § 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 9 and 17 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the melt" in line 12 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the surface" in lines 1 and 2 of claim 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WIPO Publication WO 2005/058580 to Cho (“Cho ‘580”).
This figure, now referred to as Cho ‘580 annotated Fig. 18b, used for the rejection of claims 9-15 has been replicated below, and the Examiner has added reference points for ease of explanation, and said reference points will be used for the rejection of claims 9-15 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Cho teaches a method for producing a bead (bead, Cho annotated Fig. 18b) made of melted material between a first wall (first wall, Cho annotated Fig. 18b) and a second wall (second wall, Cho annotated Fig. 18b) of a container body (container 14), the second wall lying opposite the first wall (Cho annotated Fig. 18b shows the first wall opposite the second wall), comprising the steps of:- providing a stretch-blow-molded plastic container (Cho, abstract) having a container body which forms a filling volume,- integrally connecting a first sub-region of the first wall of the container body to a second sub-region of the second wall (Cho ‘580, pg. 9, lines 10-20) to form a handle (Cho ‘580, pg. 12, lines 12-22) formed on the container body, such that the filling volume extends peripherally around this integral connection, wherein the integral connection is created by high-frequency welding or friction welding (Cho ‘580, pg. 15, line 33-pg. 16, line 12), wherein pressure is exerted on a welding zone during the welding process so that at least a portion of the melt produced during the welding process is pressed out of the welding zone to form the bead (Cho ‘580, pg. 16, lines 13-19).
As to claim 10, Cho teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the melt is pressed toward the filling volume (Cho annotated Fig. 18b shows the bead pressed toward the filling volume).
As to claim 11, Cho teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the melt is pressed out of the welding zone until a bead formed from the melt connects the first wall and the second wall in a region in which the first wall and/or the second wall has a curvature (Cho annotated Fig. 18b shows the bead where the first wall and second wall have a curvature).
As to claim 12, Cho teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the melt is pressed out of the welding zone until a bead formed from the melt connects the first wall and the second wall in a region in which the first wall is spaced apart from the second wall (Cho annotated Fig. 18b shows the bead where the first wall is spaced apart from the second wall).
As to claim 13, Cho teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the melt is pressed out of the welding zone until a bead formed from the melt projects, toward the filling volume, beyond the surfaces of the first wall and of the second wall that face the filling volume (Cho annotated Fig. 18b shows the bead pressed toward the filling volume).
As to claim 14, Cho teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein before the first sub-region is integrally connected to the second sub-region, the first sub-region and the second sub-region are brought into contact with one another by means of movable dies (cutting die 60) within a blow mold (blow mold 40).
As to claim 15, Cho teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein after the integral connecting, the first sub-region and the second sub-region are severed on a side of the filling volume remote from the integral connection, so that a reach-through opening (penetration shape 14d) is formed.
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) 1-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,579,620 A to Pettersson (“Pettersson”) in view of Cho ‘580.
This figure, now referred to as Pettersson annotated Fig. 3, used for the rejection of claims 1-7 has been replicated below, and the Examiner has added reference points for ease of explanation, and said reference points will be used for the rejection of claim 1-7 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
641
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Pettersson teaches a stretch-blow-molded plastic container (Pettersson Fig. 5 shows the container after the blow-molding process) having a container body (Pettersson Fig. 1 shows the container body being made), which forms a filling volume (internal portion 14), and a handle (handle 17), which is formed on the container body, wherein, in order to form the handle, a first sub-region (first sub region, Pettersson annotated Fig. 3) of a first wall (first wall, Pettersson annotated Fig. 3) of the container body is integrally connected to a second sub-region (second sub region, Pettersson annotated Fig. 3) of a second wall (second wall, Pettersson annotated Fig. 3) of the container body lying opposite the first wall, such that the filling volume extends peripherally around this integral connection (Pettersson annotated Fig. 3 shows the filling volume extends peripherally around the connection), wherein a bead (bead, Pettersson annotated Fig. 3) made of melted material is arranged within the filling volume between the first wall and the second wall (Pettersson annotated Fig. 3 shows the bead is arranged within the filling volume between the first wall and the second wall); but does not teach comprising a stretch-blow-molded container body.
Cho ‘580 teaches comprising a stretch-blow-molded (Cho ‘580, pg. 9, lines 24-26) container body (container 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stretch blow molding of Cho ‘580 to make the container as taught by Pettersson to make a PET bottle having a handle formed on a body (Cho ‘580, pg. 4, lines 20-21).
As to claim 2, Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the bead (bead, Pettersson annotated Fig. 3) is part of a weld seam (seam area 36).
As to claim 3, Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the bead connects the first wall and the second wall in a region in which the first wall and/or the second wall has a curvature (Pettersson annotated Fig. 3 shows the bead connects the first and second wall where the walls are curved).
As to claim 4, Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the bead connects the first wall and the second wall in a region in which the first wall is spaced apart from the second wall (Pettersson annotated Fig. 3 shows the bead connects the first wall and the second wall when the walls are spaced apart).
As to claim 5, Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the bead projects, toward the filling volume, beyond the surfaces of the first wall and of the second wall that face the filling volume (Pettersson annotated Fig. 3 shows the bead projecting toward the filling volume beyond the surface of the first and second wall).
As to claim 6, Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the bead is formed peripherally along the first sub-region and/or the second sub-region (Pettersson annotated Fig. 3 shows the bead formed peripherally along the first and second sub region).
As to claim 7, Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the first sub-region and the second sub-region are severed on a side of the filling volume remote from the integral connection, so that a reach-through opening is formed (Pettersson, col.5, lines 4-17).
As to claim 17, Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, wherein the surface of the first wall and the surface of the second wall and a surface of the bead form a common surface, which is free of notches and/or recesses (Pettersson annotated Fig. 3 shows the surface of the first wall and the surface of the second wall and the surface of the bead form a common surface that is free of notches and/or recesses).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Cho ‘580 further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2007/0145646 A1 to Cho (“Cho ‘646”).
As to claim 8, Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 teaches the plastic container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the plastic container is formed of a polymer having a dipole, in particular PET.
Cho ‘646 teaches wherein the plastic container (container 19) is formed of a polymer having a dipole, in particular PET (Cho ‘646, pg. 2, ¶ 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the material of Cho ‘646 to make the plastic container as taught by Pettersson modified by Cho ‘580 to provide a molded product with even distribution of the material in the product (Cho ‘646, pg. 1, ¶ 0010).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho ‘580 in view of Japanese Publication JP H0796257 B2 to 松岡 大造 et al. (“松岡 大造”).
As to claim 16, Cho ‘580 teaches the method according to claim 9, but does not teach wherein the pressure that is exerted on the welding zone (32) during the welding process is applied by two electrodes.
松岡 大造 wherein the pressure that is exerted on the welding zone (松岡 大造, pg. 3, lines 21-23) during the welding process is applied by two electrodes (electrode 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrodes of 松岡 大造 to weld the handle as taught by Cho ‘580 to heat and melt the peripheral edge of the handle recess to seal the peripheral edge (松岡 大造, pg. 3, lines 21-23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner used the WIPO to Cho, now referenced as Cho ‘580, to align with the applicant’s arguments. As to Cho ‘580 not teaching the bead formed during the welding process of claim 9 it can be found in Cho ‘580, pg. 15, line 33-pg. 16, line 12 where they discuss using ultrasonic bonding to bond the cut-off portion remaining in the handle section after the cutting process.
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.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 18 September 2026
Prosecution Insights