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
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/9/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “plastic”, and the claim also recites “in particular PET” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the broad recitation “into the mold”, and the claims also recite “in particular into the same mold” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as they are dependent to claim 1.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 will be examined for a molten PET plastic; and since only one mold is cited in the claim set, the phrase “in particular in the same mold” will be neglected.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20070052124A1), in view of Weinmann (WO2004050325A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. An injection apparatus for injecting molten plastic, in particular PET, into a mold for molding bottle preforms; the injection apparatus comprising a first injector and a second injector adapted to receive molten plastic and inject it into the mold alternately to each other; a conduit adapted to carry molten plastic from a plasticization apparatus towards the first injector and towards the second injector; a third injector provided with a piston, the third injector being connected to the conduit so as to receive molten plastic from the conduit and then inject it into the conduit; actuation means adapted to cause the piston of the third injector to move forward to inject the molten plastic into the conduit; wherein the first injector and the second injector are adapted to inject molten plastic into the mold, in particular into the same mold, through the same nozzle; wherein said actuation means are adapted to control the backward movement of the piston of the third injector while it receives the molten plastic from the conduit.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Park teaches an injection apparatus for injecting molten plastic (Fig. 12); the injection apparatus comprising a first injector (Fig. 12, item 10) and a second injector (Fig. 12, item 18) adapted to receive molten plastic and inject it into the mold (Fig. 12, item 12) alternately to each other [0067]; a conduit (Fig. 12, item 7) adapted to carry molten plastic from a plasticization apparatus (Fig. 12, item 2) towards the first injector and towards the second injector [0072]; and a third injector (Fig. 12, item 23) provided with a piston, the third injector being connected to the conduit so as to receive molten plastic from the conduit and then inject it into the conduit [0072-0073].
Park teaches an actuation means adapted to cause the piston of the third injector to move forward to inject the molten plastic into the conduit [0056]; wherein the first injector and the second injector are adapted to inject molten plastic into the mold, in particular into the same mold (Fig. 12, item 12); wherein said actuation means (See Fig. 3, hydraulics item 16, [0056]; or Fig. 4, spring-loaded item 24, [0060]) are adapted to control the backward movement of the piston of the third injector while it receives the molten plastic from the conduit [0056, 0060, 0073].
Park is silent on the use of PET as the molding material, molding bottle preforms, and that both injectors feed the same mold though the same nozzle.
However, the prior art of Weinmann, teaches a similar molding device with two alternating injectors (Fig. 15, items 24, 25; [P. 11, ¶ 3]) fed from a plasticizer conduit (Fig. 15, item 77), wherein both injectors can share the same nozzle (See Fig. 15) to feed material into a mold for molding bottle preforms (Fig. 6, item 30; [P. 8, ¶ 3]).
The Examiner notes that a PET molding material is not part of the injection apparatus and therefore does not limit its structure. However, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Weinmann teaches the molding material can be PET [P. 11, ¶ 1].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the bottle preform mold and the merging mold material flow path downstream of the first and second injectors, taught by Weinmann, in place of the dual nozzle mold taught by Park. This modification would predictably result in an injection apparatus of Park, comprising a third injector, being able to supply material via a merged header to a single mold inlet nozzle for feeding a plurality of bottle preform cavities, as taught by Weinmann, if bottle preforms were the desired molded product. The motivation to use PET would also be for the desired product, as PET is a commonly known material for use in blow molding bottles.
As both arts teach alternating injection by first and second injectors, there should be no expected molding interference by merging of the flow path to the mold for the modified apparatus of Park, in view of Weinmann.
2. The injection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the third injector has a lower molten plastic loading capacity than the loading capacity of the first injector and than the loading capacity of the second injector.
With respect to claim 2, Park clearly illustrates the third injector has a lower molten plastic loading capacity than the loading capacity of the first injector and than the loading capacity of the second injector (See Fig 12, resin capacity of item 23 compared to items 10 & 18).
3. The injection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein there is provided at least one transducer adapted to detect the pressure of the molten plastic in the third injector during the backward movement of the piston.
With respect to claim 3, Park teaches the importance of pressure control regulated by either a gear pump or by a third injector [0044]. Park teaches the ‘secondary accumulator’, or third injector, is ‘helpful to accommodate the melt during injection so that a continuous rotation of extruder screw and a consistent gas dosing can be realized’ [0071].
Park is silent on any sensor types, including pressure sensors, even though they would be necessary for pressure control and/or indication.
However, Weinmann teaches a plurality of pressure sensors adapted to detect the pressure at desired points of the system [P. 7, last ¶].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use at least one pressure transducer, taught by Weismann, to improve the similar injection apparatus taught by Park in the same way, by having the sensor adapted to detect the pressure of the molten plastic in the third injector, because pressure monitoring would be critical there since the third injector regulates pressure and gas dosing.
This pressure detector of the injection apparatus prima facie obviously would be capable of measuring pressure at the third injector at all times, including during the process step of backward movement of the third injector piston.
4. The injection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein said actuation means comprise a hydraulic cylinder, and wherein said at least one transducer is adapted to detect the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic cylinder.
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches said actuation means comprise a hydraulic cylinder [0071], and, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, wherein said at least one transducer would prima facie obviously be adapted to detect the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic cylinder.
5. The injection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the injection apparatus is configured to control the backward movement of the piston of the third injector while it receives the molten plastic so that the pressure of the molten plastic in the third injector is constant or substantially constant during the backward movement of the piston.
With respect to claim 5, Park teaches the injection apparatus is configured to control the backward movement of the piston of the third injector while it receives the molten plastic so that the pressure of the molten plastic in the third injector is constant or substantially constant during the backward movement of the piston [0042-0043].
6. The injection apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a first valve connected to the conduit, adapted to allow or prevent a molten plastic flow from the conduit to the first injector; and a second valve connected to the conduit, adapted to allow or prevent a molten plastic flow from the conduit to the second injector.
With respect to claim 6, Park teaches a first valve (Fig. 12, item 9) connected to the conduit, adapted to allow or prevent a molten plastic flow from the conduit to the first injector; and a second valve (Fig. 12, item 17) connected to the conduit, adapted to allow or prevent a molten plastic flow from the conduit to the second injector [0072].
7. The injection apparatus according to claim 6, wherein each valve of said first valve and second valve is adapted to take a first position, in which it allows the passage of molten plastic from the conduit to the respective injector of said first injector and second 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.
With respect to claim 7, Park teaches the first valve and second valve are “shut-off valves” [0072], which would be commonly known to a person of ordinary skill in the field of art to either permit or stop flow, and would not be used as throttling valves in intermediate positions.
Therefore, it is understood that the first valve and second valves are adapted to take a first position, in which it allows the passage of molten plastic from the conduit to the respective injector of said first injector and second 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.
8. The injection apparatus according to claim 7, configured to control the first valve and the second valve so that while the first valve is in the first position thereof, the second valve is in the second position thereof, and vice versa.
With respect to claim 8, Park teaches that the two compatible accumulators in the Figure 7 embodiment are configured to alternatingly accumulate and inject molding material, by controlling the first valve and the second valve so that while the first valve is in the first position thereof, the second valve is in the second position thereof, and vice versa [0067]. Park teaches the Figure 11 embodiment, which comprises a third accumulator, could also operate the first and second accumulators alternatingly (in sequence) in the same way [0071].
9. The injection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said conduit comprises a stretch provided with an inlet opening; and two branches, each branch being provided with a respective outlet opening; wherein a first branch of said two branches is adapted to carry the molten plastic towards the first injector and a second branch of said two branches is adapted to carry the molten plastic towards the second injector.
With respect to claim 9, Park teaches said conduit comprises a stretch provided with an inlet opening (Fig. 12, item 7 leading from item 1 barrel to the three accumulator branches); and two branches, each branch being provided with a respective “cutoff valve” (Fig. 12, items 9 & 17) to permit outlet opening; wherein a first branch (Fig. 12, item 7 leading through item 9 to item 10) of said two branches is adapted to carry the molten plastic towards the first injector and a second branch (Fig. 12, item 7 leading through item 17 to item 18) of said two branches is adapted to carry the molten plastic towards the second injector.
10. The injection apparatus according to claim 9, comprising a first valve connected to the conduit, adapted to allow or prevent a molten plastic flow from the conduit to the first injector; and a second valve connected to the conduit, adapted to allow or prevent a molten plastic flow from the conduit to the second injector; wherein the first valve is connected to the first branch so as to receive molten plastic therefrom; and wherein the second valve is connected to the second branch so as to receive molten plastic therefrom.
With respect to claim 10, Park teaches a first valve (Fig. 12, item 9) connected to the conduit, adapted to allow or prevent a molten plastic flow from the conduit to the first injector (Fig. 12, item 7 leading through item 9 to item 10); and a second valve (Fig. 12, item 17) connected to the conduit, adapted to allow or prevent a molten plastic flow from the conduit to the second injector (Fig. 12, item 7 leading through item 17 to item 18); wherein the first valve is connected to the first branch so as to receive molten plastic therefrom; and wherein the second valve is connected to the second branch so as to receive molten plastic therefrom.
11. The injection apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the third injector is adapted to receive molten plastic from said stretch of the conduit.
With respect to claim 11, Park teaches the third injector is adapted to receive molten plastic from said stretch of the conduit (See Fig. 12, item 7 conduit branch leading to item 23).
12. The injection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the third injector is configured to inject molten plastic at a lower injection speed than the injection speed of the first injector and the second injector.
With respect to claim 12, Park, in view of Weinmann, is silent on the third injector operating slower than the first and second injectors.
The Examiner notes that injector speeds and the comparison of speeds is not a positively recited apparatus claim element, as it does not limit its structure.
However, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Park teaches the third injector can have a hydraulic or spring-loaded piston and compensates for fluctuations in gas dosing [0044, 0071] and pressure [0045]; the first and second injectors drive the molding mixture into the mold cavity ‘under high pressure’ [0067].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the third injector could be configured to inject molten plastic at a slower speed than the injection speed of the first injector and the second injector, because the third injector should operate more slowly and smoothly for maintaining a constant conduit gas dosing and pressure; while the first and second injectors would be expected to move at a faster speed for the function of driving the molding material into a mold cavity before the material rapidly cools and hardens. It is commonly known in the art that increased material speed into the mold reduces viscosity to allow the cavity to fill completely and avoid defects such as shorts and voids.
13. The injection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first injector and the second injector are adapted to inject molten plastic into the mold, in particular into the same mold, through the same nozzle.
With respect to claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Weinmann teaches the first injector and the second injector have a merged outlet to inject molten plastic into the same mold (See Fig. 6, item 30), through the same nozzle (See Fig. 15, near outlet arrow, or intersection between Fig. 6, items 20 & 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748