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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant agues in response to drawing objections that “the specification provides sufficient description of the recited subject matter to permit a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention”. However, this is the standard under 35 USC § 112(a) but not the requirement for drawings under 35 USC § 113 and 37 CFR 1.83 which states:
37 CFR § 1.83 Content of drawing.
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
35 USC § 113 Drawings.
The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented.
Examiner maintains that it is customary and expected that the subject matter claimed (molded product with printed picture) requires drawings to meet the requirements under 35 USC § 113 and 37 CFR 1.83. Furthermore, drawings are necessary for the understanding of the subject matter. Although one of ordinary skill in the art of molding could create a plastic product, the subject matter of the present application includes design features such as a “printing field” and “outer contour” that are best understood by a drawing.
Regarding claim 15, rejections under 35 USC 112(b), applicant argues that “demolding bevel” is a term of the art, citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_plastic_components . However, the term “demolding bevel” is not found in the article, only the term “draft angles”. Applicant has not provided further support in the instant application for the term. Therefore, the term “demolding bevel” remains indefinite. Furthermore, without a drawing or further description the claimed “demolding bevel of 0.1° to 45°” is indefinite. It is not clear how this angle is measured in relation to the claimed object.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the steps of printing the white background on the printing field are not taught by the cited prior art. However, this newly recited limitation is met by newly cited Santillon (US 2023/0401981 A1). Santillon in combination with the previously cited prior art renders the new limitation obvious, see below.
Applicant further argues that Usami teaches “not a finished part but instead is an intermediary part that is formed via injection molding and subsequently formed to final shape via blow molding while still hot from the injection molding process” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that claim 11 recites “(d) demolding the product after cooling”. That is, claim 11 does not exclude a step of blow molding before step (d). As stated in MPEP 2111.03, a method comprising steps is inclusive and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Thus, the additional step of Usami still meets the claimed method.
The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
Applicant argues that “Even if it were possible to perform the printing and direct printing steps recited in claim 11 on the hot preform of Usami in a manner that is consistent with the disclosure of Usami, Applicant still submits that there can be no motivation to do so. In particular, and since the hot preform of Usami is subsequently blow molded, anything printed thereon prior to blow molding would be deformed and illegible after blow molding” but this is not found persuasive. As explained above, the blow molding step can occur before the cooling step (d) and the printing step (e). Moreover, the combination meets the claim. Higareda teaches dimensions of the container for the consumer product may also be sized or shaped to convey a message with a label or the like [0005]. Nowicki teaches marking plastics on the marked material is realized by means of flexography printing, digital printing, see [0052]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that printing is applied to a cooled plastic product.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“A plastic product… a printing field on an outer side of the plastic product…a printed picture printed on the printing field” Claim 1
“wherein the plastic product is a receptacle of a cartridge for receiving filling material.” Claim 9
“wherein the mold comprises an outer mold and a core which delimit the cavity, and the core is pulled out of the interior of the plastic product after step (c) and before step (d)” Claim 12
“wherein the plastic product comprises an outer contour corresponding to an inner contour of an outer mold and an inner contour corresponding to an outer contour of a core, wherein the inner contour has a demolding bevel of 0.1° to 45°” Claim 15
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “demolding bevel of 0.1° to 45°” rendering the claim indefinite. The term “demolding” is understood in the molding art to be a step of removing an article from a mold. Further, claim 11 of the instant application recite the final process step to be “demolding”. Thus, it is not clear as to the metes and bounds of a “demolding bevel” in claim 15. The instant specification lacks any further description or drawings of such a part. For purposes of examination it will be understood to recite a contour of the mold. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higareda et al. (US 2015/0298852 A1) in view of Nowicki (US 2021/0380830 A1) and Santillon (US 2023/0401981 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Higareda teaches a plastic product, made of plastic material comprising a ratio of at least 30 wt.-% of recycled material. (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Higareda is silent on wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background; and a printed picture printed on the printing field by direct printing in a digital printing process.
Higareda teaches dimensions of the container for the consumer product may also be sized or shaped to convey a message with a label or the like [0005].
Nowicki meets the claimed a printed picture printed on the printing field by direct printing in a digital printing process.
Nowicki teaches marking plastics on the marked material is realized by means of flexography printing, digital printing, see [0052]. Coating material(s) can be applied on the whole surface of the marked plastic or on its fragment, and the layers of coating materials can be homogenous (full transfer) or form patterns on the surface of plastic, [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the direct printing method of Nowicki as the generic labeling method of Higareda because it ensures adequate adhesion to the marked material, see [0053].
Higareda as modified does not teach wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background.
Santillon meets the claimed wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background. (scratch-off ink printed on a portion of the article, [0001], may be a bottle, can, or any other food or beverage container [0019] preferably made on a flexographic printing machine but may be made on any other type of printer [0037] a white UV ink is first applied so that the graphics of scratch pad 700 have a white background [0089], Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the present application to combine the white background printing step of Santillon with the method of printing label on a plastic container as taught by Higareda as modified by Nowicki because a white background improves contrast with the image and the white UV ink improves adherence of other inks to the plastic material, see Santillon [0089].
Regarding claim 2, Higareda teaches the plastic product according to claim 1, wherein said plastic material comprises a ratio of at least 50 wt.-% of the recycled plastic material. (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Regarding claim 3, Higareda teaches the plastic product according to claim 1, wherein said plastic material comprises a ratio of at least 60 wt.-% of the recycled plastic material. (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Regarding claim 4, Higareda teaches the plastic product according to claim 1, wherein said plastic material comprises a ratio of at least 70 wt.-% of the recycled plastic material. (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Regarding claim 5, Higareda teaches the plastic product according to claim 1, wherein said plastic material comprises a ratio of at least 80 wt.-% of the recycled plastic material. (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Regarding claim 6, Higareda teaches the plastic product according to claim 1, wherein said plastic material comprises a ratio of at least 90 wt.-% of the recycled plastic material. (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Regarding claim 7, Higareda teaches the plastic product according to claim 1, wherein said plastic material 100 wt.-% of the recycled plastic material. (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Regarding claim 9, Higareda teaches the 9. The plastic product according to claim 1, wherein the plastic product is a receptacle of a cartridge for receiving filling material. (Fig. 1, molded article includes a container defining an interior space, the container having a base, a sidewall connected to the base and extending therefrom, [0022] the container may be configured to couple to a trigger sprayer head to enable a user to dispense a fluid composition from within the container [0033]).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higareda et al. (US 2015/0298852 A1) in view of Usami (US 2023/0049178 A1), Nowicki (US 2021/0380830 A1) and Santillon (US 2023/0401981 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Higareda teaches a method for producing the plastic product according to claim 1, using an injection molding process, the method comprising: (a) providing a partially recycled plastic material comprising a ratio of at least 30 wt.-% of the recycled plastic material; (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Higareda is silent on (b) liquefying the plastic material to form a liquid plastic material; (c) injecting the liquid plastic material into a cavity of a mold; and (d) demolding the product after cooling.
Usami meets the claimed (b) liquefying the plastic material to form a liquid plastic material; (an injection device 25 that melts and supplies resin material that is the raw material [0020]) (c) injecting the liquid plastic material into a cavity of a mold; (injecting resin material from the injection device 25 into this mold cavity in the shape of the preform as shown in FIG. 2B, [0025]) and (d) demolding the product after cooling. (operations relating to the closing and opening of the mold (demolding) of the preforms 11 in the injection molding unit 21, [0019] Usami teaches the final step is the container 15 is taken out of the blow molding apparatus 20, see [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the injection molding steps of Usami as the generic plastic molding steps of Higareda because it is capable producing a wide variety of resin containers with good appearance, see [0002].
Higareda is silent on wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background; and a printed picture printed on the printing field by direct printing in a digital printing process.
Higareda teaches dimensions of the container for the consumer product may also be sized or shaped to convey a message with a label or the like [0005].
Nowicki meets the claimed a printed picture printed on the printing field by direct printing in a digital printing process.
Nowicki teaches marking plastics on the marked material is realized by means of flexography printing, digital printing, see [0052]. Coating material(s) can be applied on the whole surface of the marked plastic or on its fragment, and the layers of coating materials can be homogenous (full transfer) or form patterns on the surface of plastic, [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the direct printing method of Nowicki as the generic labeling method of Higareda because it ensures adequate adhesion to the marked material, see [0053].
Higareda as modified does not teach wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background.
Santillon meets the claimed wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background. (scratch-off ink printed on a portion of the article, [0001], may be a bottle, can, or any other food or beverage container [0019] preferably made on a flexographic printing machine but may be made on any other type of printer [0037] a white UV ink is first applied so that the graphics of scratch pad 700 have a white background [0089], Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the present application to combine the white background printing step of Santillon with the method of printing label on a plastic container as taught by Higareda as modified by Nowicki because a white background improves contrast with the image and the white UV ink improves adherence of other inks to the plastic material, see Santillon [0089].
Regarding claim 12, Higareda as modified by Usami meets the claimed method according to claim 11, wherein the mold comprises an outer mold and a core which delimit the cavity, (Usami teaches the injection mold core 32 is inserted into the neck mold 27 from above in the drawing, with the neck mold 27 being set on the injection mold cavity 31 and the molds are closed, [0024]) and the core is pulled out of the interior of the plastic product after step (c) and before step (d). (Usami teaches at the ejection unit 24, the neck part 12 of the container 15 is released from the neck mold 27, and the container 15 is taken out of the blow molding apparatus 20, see [0063])
Regarding claim 13, Higareda teaches a method for producing at least a component of the plastic product according to claim 1, the method comprising: (a) providing recycled plastic material comprising a ratio of at least 30 wt-% to 100 wt-% of the recycled plastic material, (the container includes a polymer comprising 100% post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate, [0021])
Higareda is silent on (b) conducting continuous liquefaction of the plastic material, (c) extruding the plastic material to produce the plastic product or the component of the plastic product.
Usami teaches (b) conducting continuous liquefaction of the plastic material, (an injection device 25 that melts and supplies resin material that is the raw material [0020]) (c) extruding the plastic material to produce the plastic product or the component of the plastic product. (injecting resin material from the injection device 25 into this mold cavity in the shape of the preform as shown in FIG. 2B, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the injection molding steps of Usami as the generic plastic molding steps of Higareda because it is capable producing a wide variety of resin containers with good appearance, see [0002].
Regarding claim 15, Higareda as modified by Usami teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the plastic product comprises an outer contour corresponding to an inner contour of an outer mold (injection mold core 32 is the mold that defines the inner contour of the preform 11, [0024]) and an inner contour corresponding to an outer contour of a core, (injection mold cavity 31 is the mold that defines the outer contour of the preform 11, [0024])
Higareda as modified by Usami is silent on wherein the inner contour has a demolding bevel of 0.1° to 45°.
Usami depicts mold cavity 31 to include multiple contours including curved bevel of varying angles, see Fig. 2A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the contour of the mold of Usami to meet the claimed demolding bevel of 0.1° to 45° in order to define the shape of the neck part of the formed product, see Usami [0024].
Higareda is silent on wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background; and a printed picture printed on the printing field by direct printing in a digital printing process.
Higareda teaches dimensions of the container for the consumer product may also be sized or shaped to convey a message with a label or the like [0005].
Nowicki meets the claimed a printed picture printed on the printing field by direct printing in a digital printing process.
Nowicki teaches marking plastics on the marked material is realized by means of flexography printing, digital printing, see [0052]. Coating material(s) can be applied on the whole surface of the marked plastic or on its fragment, and the layers of coating materials can be homogenous (full transfer) or form patterns on the surface of plastic, [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the direct printing method of Nowicki as the generic labeling method of Higareda because it ensures adequate adhesion to the marked material, see [0053].
Higareda as modified does not teach wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background.
Santillon meets the claimed wherein the plastic product comprises a printing field on an outerside of the plastic product, the printing field having a white background. (scratch-off ink printed on a portion of the article, [0001], may be a bottle, can, or any other food or beverage container [0019] preferably made on a flexographic printing machine but may be made on any other type of printer [0037] a white UV ink is first applied so that the graphics of scratch pad 700 have a white background [0089], Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the present application to combine the white background printing step of Santillon with the method of printing label on a plastic container as taught by Higareda as modified by Nowicki because a white background improves contrast with the image and the white UV ink improves adherence of other inks to the plastic material, see Santillon [0089].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Limatibul (US 2023/0405982 A1). Limatibul teaches [0002] Many studies suggest recycled plastics contain over 25% w/w less green-house/carbon gas emissions than virgin resins. The more PCR resins you include in your products, the higher impact you can make on saving the environment. [0053] to help incorporate PCR or increase the existing PCR content in containers from 30% w/w to 60% w/w.
Limatibul teaches that some recycled pellet properties do not meet the requirements in the recycling industry. The requirement includes extrusion evaluation, pellet testing, physical and mechanical properties, bottle production and testing, [0056]. Recyclable tube can be achieved by adding more than 50% w/w HDPE in the laminate tube. The HDPE resin selection has been shown in Table 2, [0057].
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 MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights