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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,579,620 A to Pettersson (“Pettersson”).
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_image1.png
641
840
media_image1.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).
As to claim 2, Pettersson teaches the plastic container (100) 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 teaches the plastic container (100) 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 teaches the plastic container (100) 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 teaches the plastic container (100) 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 teaches the plastic container (100) 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 teaches the plastic container (100) 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).
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chinese Application CN 1894082 A to Cho (“Cho”).
This figure, now referred to as Cho 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_image2.png
630
424
media_image2.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, pg. 6, lines 2-6) to form a handle (Cho, pg. 7, lines 9-14) 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, pg. 8, lines 28-35), 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, pg. 8, lines 36-38).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of U.S. PGPUB 2007/0145646 A1 to Cho (“Cho”).
As to claim 8, Pettersson teaches the plastic container (100) according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the plastic container is formed of a polymer having a dipole, in particular PET.
Cho teaches wherein the plastic container (container 19) is formed of a polymer having a dipole, in particular PET (Cho, 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 to make the plastic container as taught by Pettersson to provide a molded product with even distribution of the material in the product (Cho, pg. 1, ¶ 0010).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Pettersson reference as applied above teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except stretch-blow-molded container. However, this claim is considered to be a product by process claim since the claim language is directed to the step required to make the container. Therefore, this step has been given no patentable weight since it has been held that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. The container as taught by Pettersson has all of the limitations of claim 1 and can be made by extrusion blow molding.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5-6, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-15 under 102a1 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 newly found prior art reference.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation stretch-blow-molded is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Conclusion
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 6 April 2026
Prosecution Insights