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 § 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, and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tom et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0202975), in view of Kriegel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0031583). 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). Tom does not show a preform comprising an open neck portion having a threaded part, wherein the preform includes a tapering region from the body portion into the open neck portion. Kriegel et al., hereafter “Kriegel,” show that it is known to carry out a method of making a bottle using a preform comprising an open neck portion having a threaded part, wherein the preform includes a tapering region from the body portion into the open neck portion (Figure 2; 0224). It would have been obvious to use Kriegel’s preform as that in Tom’s manufacturing method in order to create a final article which meets consumer expectations and customize properties of the article, e.g. barrier improvement factor (see Kriegel, 0229-0230).
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 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).
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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-8 have been considered but are moot because the claims were amended and required further consideration and search.
Conclusion
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