DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1 and 6. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganahl et al. (WO 2010/108291 A1), in view of Yoshiike et al. (US 20060290035 A1), in view of at least one of Maeda (JP 2014-156049 A or Kawamura (WO 2014/155759 A1), in view of Klatt et al. (DE 102014005172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ganahl discloses a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a hollow body. The method to include injection-molding a preform 41 made of a resin and having a bottomed shape, see at least Figs. 4-5. The method to further include a conditioning station 6 disposed between the spraying station 1 – (construed as an injection molding station) and a blow molding station 2, wherein the temperature of the preforms can be prepared specifically for the blowing step by cooling, see page 39 paragraph 2 – (construed as adjusting a temperature of the preform manufactured in the injection-molding and accommodated in a mold). And blow-molding the preform adjusted in temperature to manufacture a resin container, see at least Figs. 7-9. Furthermore, as Ganahl discloses the preform is cooled after leaving the injection mold section; one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand “the preform is released from a mold in a high temperature state in which an outer shape of the preform can be maintained”.
While Ganahl discloses in the blow-molding station 2, a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of blow cavity split molds 21 for blow-molding the preform to cool the preform, see at least Fig. 7, page 40 paragraph 8; it does not explicitly disclose wherein in the adjusting a temperature, air is introduced into the preform to cool the preform from the inside, and the preform is cooled from the outside by bringing the preform into close contact with the inner surface of the mold using air pressure, wherein in the blow-molding, the preform is blow molded under the condition that the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less; or a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of accommodating portions for accommodating the blow cavity split molds.
As to: “wherein in the adjusting a temperature, air is introduced into the preform to cool the preform from the inside, and the preform is cooled from the outside by bringing the preform into close contact with the inner surface of the mold using air pressure”, hereinafter “feature 1”.
Yoshiike discloses a method for injection stretch molding. The method to include the use of a core 5 and split mold 1 having cooling channels disposed therein to rapidly cool the preform from both sides. The examiner notes, the cooling feature from the split molds is disclosed as “outer side cooling” and the cooling feature from the core is disclosed as “inner side cooling”, see at least [0044], [0046], Fig. 1(A). As previously discussed, Ganahl contemplates the conditioning station 6 being a temperature adjustment unit whereby the preform is cooled in preparation for blow molding.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Yoshiike’s core and split mold arrangements both having cooling channels disposed therein to rapidly cool the preform. And have a reasonable expectation of success in forming Ganahl’s conditioning station 6 core and mold as such to provide a technique of “wherein in the adjusting a temperature, air is introduced into the preform to cool the preform from the inside, and the preform is cooled from the outside by bringing the preform into close contact with the inner surface of the mold using air pressure”. This being beneficial for rapidly cooling the preform between the injection and blow molding stations.
As to: “wherein in the blow-molding, the preform is blow molded under the condition that the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less”, hereinafter “feature 2”.
Maeda discloses a method for manufacturing a resin container. The method to include a technique which achieves high elongation and even thickness distribution. The technique is formed under molding conditions such that the product of a draw ratio in the longitudinal direction and the draw ratio in the transverse direction is between 3 to 25, see [0023] – (construed as and overlaps the preform is blow molded under the condition that the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less).
Kawamura discloses a preform molded into a resin container by a blow molding method. The method includes a technique which achieves forming of a high-strength container. The technique is formed under molding conditions such that the longitudinal stretching ratio – (construed as the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction) of the preform body is 1.7 to 2.1 and the lateral stretching ratio – (construed as the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction) on the long side is 3.3 to 3.9, see page 30 paragraph 2. It being readily seen that for a lateral stretching ratio of 3.3 and any longitudinal stretching ratio between 1.7 to 2.1 inclusive, a product thereof is from 5.61 to 6.93 – (construed as and overlaps the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Maeda’s and/or Kawamura’s stretching ratios. And have a reasonable expectation of success in forming Ganahl’s blow molding station 2 as such to provide a technique of “wherein in the blow-molding, the preform is blow molded under the condition that the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less”. This being beneficial for having a blow-molding station which achieves high elongation and even thickness distribution and forms the preform into a container having high-strength.
As to: “a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of accommodating portions for accommodating the blow cavity split molds”, hereinafter “feature 3”.
Klatt discloses a method for blow molding containers from preforms made of a thermoplastic material, with the steps: providing preforms, thermal conditioning of the preforms, introducing the preforms into a cooled blow mold. This includes as giving background in the art, it is conventional as a rule to cool the blow mold and carriers – (construed as accommodating portions for accommodating the blow cavity split molds) with a liquid cooling medium for example water, see [0005] – (construed as wherein in the blow-molding, a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of blow cavity split molds for blow-molding the preform and a pair of accommodating portions for accommodating the blow cavity split molds respectively, to cool the preform.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Klatt’s blow mold cooling scheme. And have a reasonable expectation of success in forming the Ganahl’s blow molding station 2 as such to provide a technique for cooling the formed container.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core and mold of the conditioning station to have cooling channels disposed therein and the functionality of feature 1 as reasonably suggested by Yoshiike to provide a means for rapidly cooling the preform between the injection and blow molding stations; and modify the blow molding station in the manner of feature 2 as reasonably suggested by Maeda and/or Kawamura to provide Ganahl’s method with a means for having a blow-molding station which achieves high elongation and even thickness distribution and forms the preform into a container having high-strength; and modify the blow molding station to have cooling channels disposed in the blow mold and blow mold carriers as in feature 3 and reasonably suggested by Klatt to provide the blow molding station with a means for rapidly cooling the newly formed container. Concerning the claimed ranges: Both Maeda and Kawamura teaches the surface ratio being values substantially less than 7 which fully encompasses the claimed 7 or less. The examiner takes note of the fact that as the prior art surface ratio range completely encompasses the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, the claimed range is anticipated. In re UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). MPEP 2131.03.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganahl et al. (WO 2010/108291 A1), in view of Yoshiike et al. (US 20060290035 A1), in view of at least one of Maeda (JP 2014-156049 A or Kawamura (WO 2014/155759 A1), in view of Klatt et al. (DE 102014005172 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima et al. (US 6,247,836 B1 – of record).
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Ganahl does not explicitly disclose any specifics between the injection time and the cooling time.
Nakajima discloses a process for injection molding a preform of a polyester resin to an injection screw therefor, and to a process for stretch blow molding a hollow molded article such as a thin-wall vessel from the preform, see Col 1 lines 13-15. Wherein the process sets a filing time of 3.6 seconds and a cooling time of 1.0 seconds, see Col 8 lines 13-15. It being readily seen that the cooling time is less than ½ of the injecting time. And one would consider such a timing scheme, as Nakajima discloses such a process contributes to forming products free from discoloration, voids and having high impact strength, see at least Col 12 lines 18-29. Moreover, it is considered, as all the requisite structure and functionality is present. One of ordinary skill would have the times of the injection molding, the adjusting the temperature of the preform, and the blow molding are set to be the same, as part of routine experimentation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Ganahl as claimed and reasonably suggested by Nakajima to provide the apparatus and method with a means for forming products free from discoloration, voids and having high impact strength.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganahl et al. (WO 2010/108291 A1), in view of Yoshiike et al. (US 20060290035 A1), in view of at least one of Maeda (JP 2014-156049 A or Kawamura (WO 2014/155759 A1), in view of Klatt et al. (DE 102014005172 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adachi et al. (JP 2006035667 A – of record).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Ganahl does not explicitly disclose any specifics of the blow mold carriers.
Adachi discloses an injection blow molding machine and injection blow molding method including the use of a raw material resin to form a preform. The method includes in the blow molding phase, a split mold 52a and female mold 51 – (construed as a pair of blow cavity split molds) is provided with refrigerant channels 65a, 65b, 65c, 66a, 66b to cool the preform, see FIG. 3, [0048], [0057] – (construed as in the blow molding, a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of blow cavity split molds for blow-molding the preform to cool the preform). And further discloses the pair of blow cavity split molds are fixed to a pair of cavity plates, see Adachi 13e – (construed as accommodating portions connected to a mold opening/closing mechanism), and the refrigerant flows into and out of the blow cavity split molds via the accommodating portions, see at least Adachi figure 3.
Regarding claim 5, Adachi discloses a temperature of the refrigerant is 15°C to 30°C, see Adachi [0079] - (overlaps the range of 0°C to 20°C).
One of ordinary skill would appreciate Adachi for its suggestion of providing cooling in the claimed manner is suitable for locally controlling the cooling temperature of the preform independently, see [0048].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Ganahl’s method as claimed and reasonably suggested by Adachi to provide the aforementioned benefits. Concerning the claimed range: It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganahl et al. (WO 2010/108291 A1), in view of Yoshiike et al. (US 20060290035 A1), in view of at least one of Maeda (JP 2014-156049 A or Kawamura (WO 2014/155759 A1), in view of Klatt et al. (DE 102014005172 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ganahl discloses a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a hollow body. The apparatus to include a spray station 1 configured to mold a preform from an injected thermoplastic material, see at least claim 1, Figs. 4-5 – (construed as an injection molding unit configured to inject-mold a preform made of a resin and having a bottomed shape). A conditioning station 6 disposed between the spraying station 1 – (construed as an injection molding station) and a blow molding station 2, wherein the temperature of the preforms can be prepared specifically for the blowing step by cooling, see page 39 paragraph 2 – (construed as a temperature adjusting unit configured to adjust a temperature of the preform manufactured by the injection molding unit and accommodated in a mold). A blow molding station 2 configured to blow-molding the preform adjusted in temperature to manufacture a resin container, wherein the temperature of the preforms can be prepared specifically for the blowing step by cooling in the conditioning station, see page 39 paragraph 2 – (construed as adjusting a temperature of the preform manufactured in the injection-molding and accommodated in a mold), see at least Figs. 7-9. And Furthermore, as Ganahl discloses the preform is cooled after leaving the injection mold section; one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand “the preform is released from a mold in a high temperature state in which an outer shape of the preform can be maintained”.
While Ganahl discloses in the blow-molding station 2, a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of blow cavity split molds 21 for blow-molding the preform to cool the preform, see at least Fig. 7, page 40 paragraph 8; it does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature adjusting unit introduces air into the preform to cool the preform from the inside, and cools the preform from the outside by bringing the preform into close contact with the inner surface of the mold using air pressure; wherein the blow molding unit blow-molds the preform under the condition that the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less; or a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of accommodating portions for accommodating the blow cavity split molds by circulating a refrigerant to the blow cavity split molds and the accommodating portions.
As to: “wherein the temperature adjusting unit introduces air into the preform to cool the preform from the inside, and cools the preform from the outside by bringing the preform into close contact with the inner surface of the mold using air pressure”, hereinafter “feature 1”.
Yoshiike discloses a method for injection stretch molding. The method to include the use of a core 5 and split mold 1 having cooling channels disposed therein to rapidly cool the preform from both sides. The examiner notes, the cooling feature from the split molds is disclosed as “outer side cooling” and the cooling feature from the core is disclosed as “inner side cooling”, see at least [0044], [0046], Fig. 1(A). As previously discussed, Ganahl contemplates the conditioning station 6 being a temperature adjustment unit whereby the preform is cooled in preparation for blow molding.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Yoshiike’s core and split mold arrangements both having cooling channels disposed therein to rapidly cool the preform. And have a reasonable expectation of success in forming Ganahl’s conditioning station 6 core and mold as such to provide a technique of “wherein the temperature adjusting unit introduces air into the preform to cool the preform from the inside, and cools the preform from the outside by bringing the preform into close contact with the inner surface of the mold using air pressure”. This being beneficial for rapidly cooling the preform between the injection and blow molding stations.
As to: “wherein the blow molding unit blow-molds the preform under the condition that the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less”, hereinafter “feature 2”.
Maeda discloses a method for manufacturing a resin container. The method to include a technique which achieves high elongation and even thickness distribution. The technique is formed under molding conditions such that the product of a draw ratio in the longitudinal direction and the draw ratio in the transverse direction is between 3 to 25, see [0023] – (construed as and overlaps the preform is blow molded under the condition that the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less).
Kawamura discloses a preform molded into a resin container by a blow molding method. The method includes a technique which achieves forming of a high-strength container. The technique is formed under molding conditions such that the longitudinal stretching ratio – (construed as the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction) of the preform body is 1.7 to 2.1 and the lateral stretching ratio – (construed as the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction) on the long side is 3.3 to 3.9, see page 30 paragraph 2. It being readily seen that for a lateral stretching ratio of 3.3 and any longitudinal stretching ratio between 1.7 to 2.1 inclusive, a product thereof is from 5.61 to 6.93 – (construed as and overlaps the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Maeda’s and/or Kawamura’s stretching ratios. And have a reasonable expectation of success in forming Ganahl’s blow molding station 2 as such to provide a technique of “wherein the blow molding unit blow-molds the preform under the condition that the surface ratio calculated by the maximum stretch ratio in the longitudinal direction x the maximum stretch ratio in the transverse direction is 7 or less”. This being beneficial for having a blow-molding station which achieves high elongation and even thickness distribution and forms the preform into a container having high-strength.
As to: “a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of accommodating portions for accommodating the blow cavity split molds by circulating a refrigerant to the blow cavity split molds and the accommodating portions”.
Klatt discloses a method for blow molding containers from preforms made of a thermoplastic material, with the steps: providing preforms, thermal conditioning of the preforms, introducing the preforms into a cooled blow mold. This includes as giving background in the art, it is conventional as a rule to cool the blow mold and carriers – (construed as accommodating portions for accommodating the blow cavity split molds) with a liquid cooling medium for example water, see [0005] – (construed as a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of accommodating portions for accommodating the blow cavity split molds by circulating a refrigerant to the blow cavity split molds and the accommodating portions).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Klatt’s blow mold cooling scheme. And have a reasonable expectation of success in forming the Ganahl’s blow molding station 2 as such to provide a technique for cooling the formed container.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core and mold of the conditioning station to have cooling channels disposed therein and the functionality of feature 1 as reasonably suggested by Yoshiike to provide a means for rapidly cooling the preform between the injection and blow molding stations; and modify the blow molding station in the manner of feature 2 as reasonably suggested by Maeda and/or Kawamura to provide Ganahl’s method with a means for having a blow-molding station which achieves high elongation and even thickness distribution and forms the preform into a container having high-strength; and modify the blow molding station to have cooling channels disposed in the blow mold and blow mold carriers as in feature 3 and reasonably suggested by Klatt to provide the blow molding station with a means for rapidly cooling the newly formed container. Concerning the claimed ranges: Both Maeda and Kawamura teaches the surface ratio being values substantially less than 7 which fully encompasses the claimed 7 or less. The examiner takes note of the fact that as the prior art surface ratio range completely encompasses the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, the claimed range is anticipated. In re UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). MPEP 2131.03.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganahl et al. (WO 2010/108291 A1), in view of Yoshiike et al. (US 20060290035 A1), in view of at least one of Maeda (JP 2014-156049 A or Kawamura (WO 2014/155759 A1), in view of Klatt et al. (DE 102014005172 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Adachi et al. (JP 2006035667 A – of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ganahl does not explicitly disclose any specifics of the blow mold carriers.
Adachi discloses an injection blow molding machine and injection blow molding method including the use of a raw material resin to form a preform. The method includes in the blow molding phase, a split mold 52a and female mold 51 – (construed as a pair of blow cavity split molds) is provided with refrigerant channels 65a, 65b, 65c, 66a, 66b to cool the preform, see FIG. 3, [0048], [0057] – (construed as in the blow molding, a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of blow cavity split molds for blow-molding the preform to cool the preform). And further discloses the pair of blow cavity split molds are fixed to a pair of cavity plates, see Adachi 13e – (construed as accommodating portions connected to a mold opening/closing mechanism), and the refrigerant flow paths are formed in the blow cavity split molds and the accommodating portions., see at least Adachi figure 3.
One of ordinary skill would appreciate Adachi for its suggestion of providing cooling in the claimed manner is suitable for locally controlling the cooling temperature of the preform independently, see [0048].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Ganahl’s method as claimed and reasonably suggested by Adachi to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record Adachi while disclosing the use of refrigerant and a flow path; does not teach or reasonably suggest forming the blow molding apparatus to include one or more blow cavity split molds are fixed in an accommodating portion, wherein the accommodating portion has a supply port, a flow dividing path, a collecting path, and a discharge port, which are part of the refrigerant flow path, wherein each of the blow cavity split molds has a cavity refrigerant flow path which is part of the refrigerant flow path, and wherein the flow dividing path and the collecting path are connected to a plurality of cavity refrigerant flow paths respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00AM--5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 571-270-5545. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights