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 03/31/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6 and 9 have been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. (US 2018/0311882 A1), in view of at least one of Farrell (US 4,018,860 A), or Adachi et al. (JP 2006035667 A – of record).
Claim Interpretation: The claim is direct towards a method for manufacturing a resin container. However, it has been held that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”, see MPEP 2112.02. Therefore, it is considered the prior art (Nishiyama’s) apparatus having the all the claimed structural features would necessarily have the same functionality/processability.
Nishiyama teaches a blow molding apparatus. The apparatus is configured to have an injection molding for injection molding section 110 for injection molding a preform 200 having a bottomed shape, see [0024], [0028], FIGS. 3-5, 8 – (construed as injection-molding a preform made of a resin and having a bottomed shape). And having a cooling device 300 functional for jetting cooling air onto the inner surface of the preform to cool the predetermined site of the preform locally, see [0052]. It being noted Nishiyama does not restrict the cooling device to any particular portion of the apparatus, see [0051]. Thus, one would have good reason to place the cooling device in the injection molding section to thereby cool the preform as this would predictably allow for cooling the preform locally at the injection molding site – (construed as introducing compressed air into the preform manufactured in the injection molding to cool the preform from the inside and adjusting a temperature of the preform). And further have a blow molding section 140 for blow molding the preform placed in a blow cavity mold, see [0024] – (construed as blow-molding the preform adjusted in temperature to manufacture a resin container). Furthermore, as Nishiyama teaches the preform is cooled during/after leaving the injection mold section, see at least [0029], and the figures, 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 Nishiyama discloses the preform is cooled while in the blow molding section, see [0050] – [0051]; it does not explicitly disclose 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.
Farrell discloses cools the blowing mold and the plastic article blown therein to shorten the time that a core rod must remain at a blowing station of a blow molding machine for making plastic articles. The cooling is configured to be refrigerated to improve the cooling effect of the air see Col 7 line 65-66. This to include cooling passages 126 formed in the mold sections 22a, 22b, see Col 7 lines 22-26 – (construed as a pair of blow cavity split molds; and 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). One of ordinary skill would appreciate Farrell for its suggestion of providing cooling to increase the cooling effect of the air.
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). 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 modify Nishiyama to have in the blow molding section, a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of blow cavity split molds for blow-molding the preform to cool the preform, as reasonably suggested by Farrell or Adachi to provide the apparatus with a means for increasing and locally controlling the cooling temperature of the preform as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nishiyama 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, modified Nishiyama further discloses a temperature of the refrigerant is 15°C to 30°C, see Adachi - (overlaps the range of 0°C to 20°C). 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. (US 2018/0311882 A1), in view of at least one of Farrell (US 4,018,860 A), or Adachi et al. (JP 2006035667 A – of record), 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, While modified Nishiyama discloses that the time from the start of injection molding until the resin is sufficiently cooled varies depending on the material, size, thickness, etc. of the preform, but here it is about 6.0 seconds, see Adachi [0090]; it does not provide any specifics between the injection time and the colling 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 Nishiyama 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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. (US 2018/0311882 A1), in view of at least one of Farrell (US 4,018,860 A), or Adachi et al. (JP 2006035667 A – of record).
Regarding claim 6, Nishiyama teaches a blow molding apparatus. The apparatus is configured to have an injection molding for injection molding section 110 for injection molding a preform 200 having a bottomed shape, see [0024], [0028], FIGS. 3-5, 8 – (construed as injection-molding a preform made of a resin and having a bottomed shape). And having a cooling device 300 – (construed as a temperature adjusting unit) functional for jetting cooling air onto the inner surface of the preform to cool the predetermined site of the preform locally, see [0052]. It being noted Nishiyama does not restrict the cooling device to any particular portion of the apparatus, see [0051]. Thus, one would have good reason to place the cooling device in the injection molding section to thereby cool the preform as this would predictably allow for cooling the preform locally at the injection molding site – (construed as introducing compressed air into the preform manufactured by the injection molding to cool the preform from the inside and adjusting a temperature of the preform). And further have a blow molding section 140 for blow molding the preform placed in a blow cavity mold, see [0024] – (construed as blow-molding the preform adjusted in temperature to manufacture a resin container). Furthermore, as Nishiyama teaches the preform is cooled during/after leaving the injection mold section, see at least [0029], and the figures, 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 Nishiyama discloses the preform is cooled while in the blow molding section, see [0050] – [0051]; it does not explicitly disclose 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.
Farrell discloses cools the blowing mold and the plastic article blown therein to shorten the time that a core rod must remain at a blowing station of a blow molding machine for making plastic articles. The cooling is configured to be refrigerated to improve the cooling effect of the air see Col 7 line 65-66. This to include cooling passages 126 formed in the mold sections 22a, 22b, see Col 7 lines 22-26 – (construed as a pair of blow cavity split molds; and 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). One of ordinary skill would appreciate Farrell for its suggestion of providing cooling to increase the cooling effect of the air.
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). 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 modify Nishiyama to have in the blow molding section, a refrigerant is circulated through a pair of blow cavity split molds for blow-molding the preform to cool the preform, as reasonably suggested by Farrell or Adachi to provide the apparatus with a means for increasing and locally controlling the cooling temperature of the preform as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, modified Nishiyama 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 paths are formed in the blow cavity split molds and the accommodating portions, see at least Adachi figure 3.
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 1-8 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, 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 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights