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, 6-7, 11-13, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoppas (U.S. Patent 7,425,124), in view of Krishnakumar et al. (U.S. Patent 4,449,913). Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Zoppas shows that it is known to have an apparatus for the continuous cycle production of containers from plastic material (Abstract; Column 1, lines 23-26), comprising a metering unit, extruder, and a plurality of outlets (Figure 1, element 6; Column 1, lines 38-46; Column 2, lines 37-42); a forming station including a plurality of female compression elements (Figure 1, element 9; Column 4, lines 3-4, 32-36); a plurality of male elements acting in conjunction the plurality of female compression elements (Column 4, lines 9-17); and a blow molding station (Column 4, lines 41-45). Zoppas does not show the claimed outlets and elements being arranged in a linear row. Krishnakumar et al., hereafter “Krishnakumar,” show that is known to have a plurality of metering elements which feed a plurality of male and female compression elements which are arranged in a linear row (Figures 1-3, runners, core elements, cavity elements). It would have been obvious to arrange Zoppas’ elements in a linear fashion, as in Krishnakumar, because there is art recognized suitability for this configuration (MPEP 2144.07) and because configuration is held to be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding Claims 6-7, 11, and 20, Zoppas shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, but he does not specifically disclose that the female compression elements (claim 6), metering heads (claim 7), male elements (claim 11, 20), are movable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for these elements of Zoppas’ apparatus to be movable in order to increase functionality of the apparatus and because adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04 (V)(D)).
Regarding Claim 12, and 17-18, Zoppas shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, but he does not show more than one male elements (claim 12), blow molding stations (claim 17), or transfer structures (claim 18). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include more than one of these elements in Zoppas’ apparatus in order to increase throughput of the apparatus and because duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 13, Zoppas shows that it is known to carry out a method for the continuous cycle production of containers from plastic material, comprising the following steps: receiving in a metering unit a flow of molten plastic produced by an extruder (Column 4, lines 32-34); separating from the flow of molten plastic a plurality of doses simultaneously through a respective plurality of outlets of the metering unit (Figure 1, element 6; Column 4, lines 33-36); providing a plurality of female compression elements to define a corresponding plurality of seats and receiving the plurality of doses in the corresponding plurality of seats of the plurality of female compression elements (Column 4, lines 18-21); providing a plurality of male elements that is configured to act in conjunction with the plurality of female compression elements to define a corresponding plurality of forming cavities (Column 4, lines 22-26); compressing each dose into a respective forming cavity by means of the plurality of male elements so as to make a plurality of parisons simultaneously by compression moulding (Column 4, lines 9-17); receiving the plurality of moulded parisons in a blow moulding station and blow moulding the plurality of parisons to form a corresponding plurality of containers (Column 4, lines 36-46).
Regarding Claim 16, Zoppas shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, including one comprising a first transfer structure (Column 5, lines 64-67).
Claim(s) 2-5, 8, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoppas and Krishnakumar, in view of Imatani et al. (U.S. Patent 8,153,048).
Regarding Claim 2, Zoppas shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, but he does not show the blow molding element specifics. Imatani et al., hereafter “Imatani,” show that it is known to have an extrusion/compression molding/blow molding apparatus which comprises a plurality of female blow molding elements (Column 5, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Imatani’s plurality of female blow molding elements with that of Zoppas’ apparatus in order to match the plurality of compression mold elements.
Regarding Claim 3, Zoppas shows the apparatus of claim 2 above, but he does not show more than one blow molding station. Imatani shows that it is known to have an apparatus which comprises more than one blow molding station (Column 10, lines 28-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Imatani’s plurality of blow molding stations with that of Zoppas’ apparatus in order to match the plurality of compression mold elements.
Regarding Claim 4, Zoppas shows the apparatus of claim 3 above, including a plurality of male compression molding elements, but he does not specifically disclose a plurality of male blow molding elements. Imatani shows that it is known to have an apparatus which comprises a plurality of male blow molding elements (Column 10, lines 17-24: male elements are responsible for axial stretching). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Imatani’s plurality of male blow molding elements with that of Zoppas’ apparatus in order to match the plurality of compression mold elements.
Regarding Claim 5, Zoppas shows the apparatus of claim 4 above, including movable male compression molding elements, but he does not specifically disclose these elements relative to blow molding. Imatani shows that it is known to for an apparatus to have a plurality of male elements which are movable between compression molding and blow molding (Column 9, lines 58-61; Column 10, lines 2-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Imatani’s plurality of male blow molding elements with that of Zoppas’ apparatus in order to match the plurality of compression mold elements.
Regarding Claim 8, Zoppas shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, but he does not specifically describe an unloading station. Imatani shows that it is known to for an apparatus to comprise an unloading station (Column 10, lines 25-27). It would have been obvious for Zoppas’ apparatus to include Imatani’s unloading station in order to effectively direct the finished containers to their final destination.
Regarding Claim 14, Zoppas shows the method of claim 13 above, but he does not show the blow molding element specifics. Imatani show that it is known to have an extrusion/compression molding/blow molding method which comprises a plurality of female blow molding elements which operate continuously/simultaneously (Column 5, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Imatani’s plurality of female blow molding elements with that of Zoppas’ apparatus in order to match the plurality of compression mold elements.
Regarding Claim 15, Zoppas shows the method of claim 13 above, but he does not show more than one blow molding station. Imatani shows that it is known to have an apparatus which comprises more than one blow molding station while another plurality of parisons are made by compression molding (Column 10, lines 28-34; Column 12, lines 47-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Imatani’s plurality of blow molding stations with that of Zoppas’ apparatus in order to match the plurality of compression mold elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant has incorporated previously-indicated allowable claim 10 into independent form.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are drawn to the claims as-amended, which required further consideration and search.
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