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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The acronym “PHA” should be written out, in addition to the recitation of the acronym if applicant wishes to keep the acronym in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tom et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0202975). Regarding Claim 1, Tom et al., hereafter “Tom,” show that it is known to carry out a method for manufacturing a bottle, using a preform comprising an open neck portion at a first end, a closed base at a second end, and a body portion extending along a longitudinal axis between the neck portion and the base portion (Figure 12-13), the preform being made of PHA (0118), the method of manufacturing comprising the following steps: heating the preform (0094), performing stretch blow molding of the preform (0095), wherein the preform has a wall thickness which varies progressively between the body portion and the neck portion (Figure 3A).
Regarding Claim 4, Tom shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the body portion comprises at least three zones extending longitudinally, the zones presenting greater thickness than the rest of the body portion (Figures 9-10).
Regarding Claim 6, Tom shows the method of claim 4 above, including one wherein the zones are projected zones of the inner surface of the body portion (Figure 10).
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) 3, 5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tom.
Regarding Claims 3, 5, and 7, Tom shows the method of claim 1 above, including describing that the wall thicknesses will vary based on the desired article (0074-0075), however he does not specifically show the values required. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create a preform having any appropriate thickness values, such as those claimed, in order to create a final article which meets consumer expectations, and also because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 8, Tom shows the method of claim 1 above, including one comprising transferring the heated preform into a bottle shaped mold (Figure 13; 0094-0095), and stretch blow molding the preform (0095: stretching with a longitudinal rod is a known step of stretch blow molding). Tom teaches that blow molding air speed and pressure are known to vary and will depend on the material (0095), but he does not specifically show two pressures as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any appropriate blow molding pressures, such as those claimed, in order to cater the process to the article material, and also because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Tom does not show the claimed invention because he does not show a decreasing thickness from the body portion to the neck portion. This is not persuasive as this decreasing thickness is shown in Figure 3A, element 346.
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 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
Prosecution Insights