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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11-12, 16 and 18-19 have been Amended. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive, see below. The rejection of the claim(s) is maintained. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every 112b rejection set forth in the non-Final Office action previously mailed on 10/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostamimouri (US 2023/0286196 A1; having priority date 8/27/2021), in view of Seidel (US 2006/0078645 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rostamimouri teaches an injection apparatus for injecting molten plastic into a mold for molding one or more hollow articles, in particular bottle preforms (Figures; paragraphs 0070-0071, for injection molding preforms from a molding material …The preform is intended to be subsequently blow-molded into a container, such as a beverage bottle);
the injection apparatus comprising
two injectors (shooting pots 308, 310), each defining a respective longitudinal axis, adapted to receive the molten plastic and inject it alternately into the mold (paragraph 0074, The shooting pots are configured to operate out of sequence with one another: while one of the shooting pots accumulates inflowing melt…the other shooting pot injects a previously accumulated shot of melt into the hot runner via a nozzle);
and a conduit (380, 382, 390, 392, 394 in Figure 18), having an inlet opening for the molten plastic (380 in Figure 18, has opening connected to melt coupling 320), adapted to be connected to a plasticization apparatus (320, 314, 402, 400 in Figures 3, 18-20) and to conduct the molten plastic from the plasticization apparatus towards the two injectors (308, 310 in Figure 18-20);
wherein the length of said conduit is less than the length of each of the two injectors along the respective longitudinal axis (as shown in Figures 17-20, length of conduit is less that length of each shooting pot along the longitudinal axis).
Rostamimouri teaches all the elements of claim 1 but does not disclose the two injectors are inclined with respect to a horizontal plane, parallel to the support plane of the injection apparatus.
Seidel teaches an injection apparatus (Figure 1) for injecting molten plastic into a mold (; paragraph 0039), comprising: an injector (injection unit 14); and a plasticization unit (8) supported on a platen (2). Further, the injection unit is inclined with respect to a horizontal plane (as shown in Figure 1; paragraph 0007, injection molding machines are known to include additional plasticizing and injection units according to the piggyback or R configuration. This type of configuration involves the placement of the additional plasticizing and injection unit on the same side of a platen, typically the fixed platen,…These add-on units are typically mounted at an angle above the primary injection unit and constructed especially for attachment to the bottom unit). Hence, such an arrangement (i.e., an injector inclined with respect to a horizontal plane, parallel to the support plane of the injection apparatus) is well known and conventional in the art to reduce residence time of material in the apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known improvement technique to the injectors of Rostamimouri and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Angling the shooting pots (i.e., injectors) would allow the plasticization apparatus to be closer thereto and decrease the residence time of the material therein.
Regarding claim 2, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, further discloses one or more valves to allow the loading with molten plastic of one of the injectors and the injection of the molten plastic exiting another injector, alternately (paragraph 0056 of Rostamimouri, that includes two shooting pots configured to operate out of sequence with one another and associated melt conduits and valves; paragraph 0122 of Rostamimouri, melt paths are defined in part by suitable control, by controller, of distribution valves (not depicted) of dual shooting pot assembly).
Regarding claim 3, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose said conduit extends from the inlet opening for the molten plastic to said one or more valves. However, as noted above, each shooting pot (i.e., injector) is configured to operate out of sequence with one another and associated melt conduits and valves (paragraph 0056 of Rostamimouri). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have arranged the one or more valves at the end of the conduit (i.e., 394 in Figure 18) to enable each shooting pot (308, 310) to operate out of sequence with one another.
Regarding claim 4, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose two valves, of which one valve for each injector; wherein each valve is adapted to allow or prevent the inlet of molten plastic in the respective injector, as a function of the position thereof. However, as noted above, each shooting pot (i.e., injector) is configured to operate out of sequence with one another and associated melt conduits and valves (paragraph 0056 of Rostamimouri). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have provided each shooting pot with a respective valve to enable each shooting pot (308, 310) to operate out of sequence with one another.
Regarding claim 5, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 4 and further discloses each valve is adapted to take a first position, in which it allows the passage of molten plastic from the conduit to the respective injector and prevents the passage of molten plastic from the respective injector towards the mold; and a second position, in which it allows the passage of molten plastic from the respective injector towards the mold and prevents the passage of molten plastic from the conduit to the respective injector (implicit from paragraph 0056 of Rostamimouri, that includes two shooting pots configured to operate out of sequence with one another and associated melt conduits and valves; paragraph 0122 of Rostamimouri, melt paths are defined in part by suitable control, by controller, of distribution valves (not depicted) of dual shooting pot assembly).
Regarding claim 6, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the two injectors are inclined by an angle from 10° to 45° with respect to said horizontal plane, parallel to the support plane of the injection apparatus. However, Seidel discloses the angle of the plasticization and injection units are relative to one another at an angle of less than 90°, and in particular less than 45° (paragraphs 0011, 0040 of Seidel). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have further modified the invention of modified Rostamimouri and inclined the two shooting pots (i.e., injectors) between 10° to 45° to optimize the residence time of material as well as the spacing of the shooting pots with respect to the plasticization unit.
Regarding claim 7, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, further discloses each of the injectors comprises a body adapted to receive the molten plastic, a piston adapted to slide in the body, and actuation means adapted to move the piston (Figures 19-20 of Rostamimouri, showing piston sliding within body of each of shooting pots 308, 310);
wherein the length of the conduit is smaller than the length of each body; and/or
wherein said length of each injector comprises the length of said body and the length of said actuation means (Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri, showing length of conduit 380 being smaller than body of each of shooting pots 308, 310).
Regarding claim 8, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 7 and further discloses each injector has a first axial end and a second axial end (as shown in Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri);
wherein the first axial end delimits the opening of said body through which the molten plastic can pass (Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri, end of 308, 310 open to 396); and
wherein said length of each injector is the distance from the first axial end to the second axial end (as shown in Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri);
Regarding claim 9, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not appear to disclose the inner volume of said conduit is less, with respect to the maximum inner volume, which can receive the molten plastic, of each injector. However, while patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri seems to show where the diameter and length of the conduit (320) being smaller than the diameter and length of each shooting pot (308, 310). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art the inner volume of the conduit is less than the maximum inner volume or each injector.
Regarding claim 10, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the ratio between the length and the inner diameter of said conduit is from 25 to 50. However, while patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, Figures 17-20 of Rostamimouri seems to show an embodiment where the length of the conduit and the inner diameter of the conduit fall within said claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, discloses the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 11, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, further discloses said conduit has two outlet openings; and wherein said length of the conduit is measured from the inlet opening to the two outlet openings (Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri, showing 390 opening to 392, 394)
Regarding claim 12, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, further discloses the conduit comprises a first stretch, provided with said inlet opening; and two branches, each branch being adapted to carry the molten plastic towards a respective injector (Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri, showing 390 opening to 392, 394).
Regarding claim 13, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 12 and further discloses part of said conduit is delimited by a T-shaped or a Y-shaped component, which comprises said two branches; and/or wherein said first stretch of the conduit comprises two stretches, which are transversal to each other (as shown in Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri, showing T-shaped components 392,396 and 394,398).
Regarding claim 15, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, further discloses the inlet opening of the conduit adapted to be connected to the plasticization apparatus is arranged in the space between the orthogonal projections of the axial ends of each injector on a horizontal plane, parallel to the support plane of the injection apparatus (Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri, inlet opening of conduit 380 is arranged between axial ends of each shooting pot 308, 310).
Regarding claim 16, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, further discloses the inlet opening of the conduit adapted to be connected to the plasticization apparatus is arranged in the space below, or above, the two injectors (Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri, showing inlet of conduit 380 being above shooting pots 308, 310) (Figure 1 of Seidel, showing plasticization apparatus 8 in space below inclined injector 14; hence, modification of Rostamimouri would also move plasticization unit 400 below inclined shooting pots to decrease residence time).
Regarding claim 17, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, further discloses a tubing for carrying the molten plastic from the injectors towards the mold; wherein said tubing comprises a stretch adapted to receive the molten plastic from the injectors (396, 398, 399 in Figures 18-20 of Rostamimouri).
Regarding claim 19, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the conduit is delimited by two parts adapted to slide with respect to each other; wherein a first part of said two parts delimits said inlet opening of the conduit, is adapted to be fixed to the plasticization apparatus. However, Rostamimouri discloses the conduit (380) is coupled to melt coupling (320 in Figure 17), the melt coupling comprising two parts adapted to slide with each other (paragraph 0078 of Rostamimouri). Assuming the conduit is interpreted to include both components 380 and 320, Figure 5 of Rostamimouri shows the length of shooting pot assembly (306) is stiller greater than the length of 380 and 320 collectively.
Regarding claim 20, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches a molding apparatus for producing one or more hollow articles (injection molding machine 300 in Figures of Rostamimouri), comprising an injection apparatus according to claim 1 (reference claim 1 rejection), and a plasticization apparatus (400 in Figure 3 of Rostamimouri) connected to the conduit, so that the molten plastic can pass from the plasticization apparatus to the two injectors.
Regarding claim 21, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 20 and further discloses said plasticization apparatus is arranged, at least partially, in the space below the two injectors (as shown in Figures 3, 5 of Rostamimouri, shooting pots 308, 310 are elevated from ground; hence, 400 is at least partially below shooting pots).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostamimouri, in view of Seidel, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mai (US 2006/0082029 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Rostamimouri, as modified by Seidel, teaches all the elements of claim 17, but does not disclose wherein along said stretch of the tubing there is provided a valve, which, in a first position, allows the passage of molten plastic towards the mold, and in a second position, allows the exit of the molten plastic from the stretch, in particular for carrying out an operation of purging.
Mai teaches an injection molding machine (Figure 1; paragraph 0027), comprising a valve (300 in Figures 8-10), which, in a first position (Figure 9), allows the passage of molten plastic towards a mold (paragraph 0039, and in a second position (Figure 10), allows the exit of the molten plastic from the stretch between an injector and the mold (paragraph 0039). Further, the valve is configured particular for carrying out an operation of purging (paragraph 0039-0041). As Rostamimouri disclose the use of valves in directing flow of material within the apparatus (paragraph 0056, 0122), one skilled in the art could have combined a purging valve, as disclosed Mai, to the stretch of tubing in modified Rostamimouri to provide the benefit purging of material therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues, see pages 7-8, neither Rostamimouri nor Seidel, alone or in combination, disclose "wherein the length of said conduit is less than the length of each of the two injectors along the respective lon. Specifically, Applicant contends the length of the conduit comprising sections 314, 320, 380 and 382 is greater than the length of the shooting pot 308 when referencing Figure 18.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the length of the conduit, if interpreted to comprise sections 314, 320, 380 and 382, would be greater than the length of the shooting pot 308; it is noted that the conduit is interpreted to cover sections (380, 382, 390, 392, 394 in Figure 18) as recited in the prior office action. Further, it is noted the limitation requires only the length of the conduit be less than the injector along the longitudinal axis; hence, only the length of (380, 382, 390, 392, 394) in the y-direction in Figure 8. Further, melt pipe 314 being part of the injection unit, as noted in paragraph 0073, is moot as section 314 was not interpreted as the conduit. Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Seidel, Applicant argues, see pages 7-8, Seidel relates to retrofitting an injection moulding machine having a plasticizing and injection unit with a further plasticizing and injection unit; hence one would not look to Seidel to incline the shooting pots of Rostamimouri.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the prior office action, Seidel is referenced for disclosing angling the shooting pots (i.e., injectors) which would allow the plasticization apparatus to be closer thereto and decrease the residence time of the material therein and not to retrofitting an injection moulding machine having a plasticizing and injection unit with a further plasticizing and injection unit, as opined by Applicant. Hence, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Seidel are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 4/02/2026