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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 20-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 12/09/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-26 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-6, 8, 11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Outreman et al. (US6089854 of record) hereinafter Outreman in view of Breard et al. (US2018/0319068) hereinafter Breard.
Regarding claim 1, Outreman teaches:
A base assembly (Fig 2a-d: base 16, moving bottom 12) configured to cooperate with a blow molding machine for forming a polymeric container from a preform by injection blow molding (col 5, ln 24-30; abstract), the base assembly comprising:
a base insert defining a base mold configured to form a base of the polymeric container during injection blow molding, the base insert slidably seated within the base assembly (Fig 2a-d: moving bottom 12; col 5, ln 24-58);
wherein the base insert is slidably movable between a retracted position and an extended position during injection blow molding of the polymeric container (Fig 2a-d: moving bottom 12; col 5, ln 24-58); and
wherein the base insert moves independent of the base assembly (Fig 2a-d: moving bottom 12; col 5, ln 24-58).
Outreman does not teach the blow molding machine an injection blow molding machine.
Outreman teaches a PET preform (col 5, ln 4-5).
Outreman is silent as to how the PET preform is formed. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other apparatus in the art for how to form PET preforms.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blow molding, Breard teaches PET preforms that are injection molded ([0001-0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base assembly configured to cooperate with a blow molding apparatus as taught by Outreman to try preforms that are injection molded as taught by Breard and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since both references teach forming containers from PET preforms.
Regarding claim 2, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman further teaches wherein the base insert is moved pneumatically, hydraulically, or with a servo (col 5, ln 31-58).
Regarding claim 3, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman further teaches wherein in the extended position a gap is defined beneath the base insert and filled with gas to maintain the base insert in the extended position (Fig 2a-d; col 5, ln 31-58).
Regarding claim 4, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman further teaches the base assembly further comprises a guiding ring (Fig 2a-d, annotated Fig 2a; upper portion of base 16); and the base insert is slidably seated within the guiding ring and movable independent of the guiding ring (Fig 2a-d; col 5, ln 31-58).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Outreman further teaches wherein the guiding ring is supported by a pedestal (Fig 2a-d, annotated Fig 2a; bottom portion of base 16).
Regarding claim 6, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman in view of Breard does not explicitly recite wherein a total volume of the base insert is less than about 20% of a total volume of the base assembly.
However, Fig 2a-d of Outreman appears to show this relationship (the base insert can be interpreted to be the upper portion of moving bottom 12, which falls within the claimed volume relative to the total volume of base 16 and moving bottom 12).
Regarding claim 8, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman in view of Breard does not explicitly recite wherein a total volume of the base insert is less than about 40% of a total volume of the base assembly excluding a pedestal of the base assembly.
However, Fig 2a-d of Outreman appears to show this relationship (the base insert can be interpreted to be the upper portion of moving bottom 12, which falls within the claimed volume relative to the total volume of the top portion of base 16 and moving bottom 12).
Regarding claim 11, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman further teaches a guiding ring (Fig 2a-d, annotated Fig 2a; upper portion of base 16) supported by a pedestal (Fig 2a-d, annotated Fig 2a; bottom portion of base 16), the base insert is slidably seated within the guiding ring and movable independent of the guiding ring (Fig 2a-d; col 5, ln 31-58); and a spacer between the pedestal and the guiding ring (Fig 2a-d, annotated Fig 2a; intermediate portion of base 16).
Regarding claim 15, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman further teaches wherein the base assembly is configured to cooperate with a body mold, the body mold is configured to form a body of the polymeric container, the body mold includes a first half and a second half and defines an internal flange facing an upper surface of an outer base cup when the body mold is closed during injection blow molding; and wherein the internal flange forms a horizontal mold parting line with the outer base cup extending perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base assembly passing through an axial center of the base insert (Fig 2a-d, annotated Fig 2a: half-molds 11a-b).
Regarding claim 16, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 15.
Outreman in view of Breard wherein the polymeric container has a capacity of 10 to 32 ounces.
However, the above limitations are directed to the article worked upon, and "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 17, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman further teaches the base insert.
Breard further teaches wherein a base that defines a center aperture in which a counter stretch rod is inserted (Fig 1: mold bottom 17, passage 20, counter-stretching rod 25); wherein the counter stretch rod is seated in a pedestal receptacle defined by a pedestal supporting the base (Fig 1: stand 21); and wherein the counter stretch rod is movable between a retracted position in which the counter stretch rod does not extend out from within the center aperture and an extended position in which the counter stretch rod extends outward from the center aperture beyond the base mold for the motivation of preventing shape defects (Fig 3-4; [0039-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base insert as taught by Outreman in view of Breard with the counter-stretching rod as taught by Breard in order to prevent shape defects.
Regarding claim 18, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Breard further teaches the counter stretch rod is moved pneumatically, hydraulically, or with a servo ([0070]).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Outreman in view of Breard as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Protais et al. (US2020/0262128) hereinafter Protais.
Regarding claim 12, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Outreman further teaches an outer base cup located above the guiding ring (Fig 2a-d, annotated Fig 2a; top portion of base 16), the base insert is slidably seated within the outer base cup (Fig 2a-d; col 5, ln 31-58); wherein the base insert is slidably movable independent of the outer base cup and the guiding ring (Fig 2a-d; col 5, ln 31-58).
Outreman in view of Breard does not teach the outer base cup defines an annular inner curved surface configured to define a heel of the polymeric container during injection blow molding.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blow molding, Protais teaches a base assembly having an outer base cup that defines an annular inner curved surface configured to define a heel of the polymeric container during injection blow molding for the motivation of forming a container having feet (Fig 1-3: base unit 21, molding face 22; [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer base cup as taught by Outreman in view of Breard with the annular inner curved surface as taught by Protais in order to form a container having feet.
Regarding claim 13, Outreman in view of Breard and Protais teaches the apparatus of claim 12.
Outreman further teaches wherein the outer base cup includes a lower cup flange configured to cooperate with a base insert flange of the base insert when the base insert is in the extended position to stop the base insert from moving outward beyond the extended position (Fig 2a-d, annotated Fig 2a).
Regarding claim 14, Outreman in view of Breard and Protais teaches the apparatus of claim 12.
Outreman further teaches wherein the outer base cup is mounted directly to the guiding ring (Fig 2a-d).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Outreman in view of Breard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Langlois et al. (US2012/0052148 of record) hereinafter Langlois.
Regarding claim 19, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman in view of Breard does not teach a quick change support post extending from an undersurface of the base assembly, the quick change support post configured to cooperate with the injection blow molding machine to support the base assembly in the injection blow molding machine.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blow molding, Langlois teaches a quick change support post extending from an undersurface of a base assembly, the quick change support post configured to cooperate with a blow molding machine to support the base assembly in the blow molding machine for the motivation of allowing the base assembly to cooperate with locking means situated on the blow molding machine (Fig 1: finger 18, base 10; [0023, 0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base assembly as taught by Outreman in view of Breard to include the finger and locking mechanism as taught by Langlois in order to allow the base assembly to cooperate with locking means situated on the blow molding machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman in view of Breard does not teach wherein a total weight of the base insert is between about 11-16% of a total weight of the base assembly.
The remaining prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the above limitations.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is allowed.
Regarding claim 9, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman in view of Breard does not teach wherein a total weight of the base insert is between about 26-36% of a total weight of the base assembly excluding a pedestal of the base assembly.
The remaining prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the above limitations.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is allowed.
Regarding claim 10, Outreman in view of Breard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Outreman in view of Breard does not teach wherein a total weight of the base assembly is less than about 40lbs., and the base insert weighs less than about 4lbs.
The remaining prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the above limitations.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741