DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 Interpretation
The Examiner interprets the “glass container” as intended use of the blow mold in claims 8-21.
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 12 is/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.
In claim 12, it is unclear to the Examiner what the term “bottom match plane” is referencing. For Examination purposes the Examiner interprets, a bottom match plane is defined as a plane at which the upper mating surface of the mold bottom plate and the lower mating surface of the mold meet (see Specification PGPUB [0025]). Please clarify claim 12.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. (US 2022/0152908 – hereinafter Bhat) in view of Kirkman (2008/0307831).
Regarding claim 8, Bhat (Figs. 1 and 4 and [0044]-[0046]) discloses modular blow mold system 100 having a first portion 105 and second portion 110 each having a mold portion 300, and a base portion 900 having a base mold portion 310. Mold portions 300 form a mold body establishing a mold body cavity and including a circumferential extending body outer wall having a lower surface (corresponding to a lower mating surface) that interfaces with the surface of base mold portion 310.
Bhat discloses an interchangeable mold bottom plate (corresponding to base mold portion 900) establishing a bottom plate cavity formed in bottom mold portion 310 that is disclosed as interchangeable ([0064] and [0055]). Bhat also discloses a circumferential extending wall circumscribing a longitudinal central axis formed in the base mold portion 900 and a mold mating wall in base mold portion 310 extending axially from the circumferential extending wall having an upper mating surface that mates with the lower mating surface of the mold body and also having an interior surface that extends axially and radially inwardly. Bhat discloses an axial end wall extending axially and radially inwardly from the circumferentially extending wall across the longitudinal central axis and having an interior surface that includes a punt uppermost surface and wherein the axial end wall extends inwardly and radially outwardly from the punt upper most surface toward the interior surface of the mold mating wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
537
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figs. 1 and 4 of Bhat
Bhat fails to disclose a mold mating wall extending radially outwardly from the circumferentially extending wall. However, Bhat ([0064]) discloses mold portion 300, base mold portion 310, and cavity retainer 700 are interchangeable and the base mold portion is interchangeable ([0055]) based on the desired container base shape. Additionally, Kirkman (Fig. 1 and [0010]-[0011]) teaches a bottom plate having a wall shape that extends axially and radially outwardly.
Both Bhat and Kirkman teach a bottom plate having a wall. Additionally, Bhat teaches the base mold portion comprising the mold mating wall and cavity retainer as interchangeable, and therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in addition to the mold mating wall that extends axially, the shape of the mold mating wall could be modified to extend radially outwardly from the circumferentially extending wall, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, one would have been motivated to select a shape where the mating wall extends axially and radially outwardly, since it is a known shape taught by Kirkman.
Bhat fails to state the modular system for blow molding of the container as a glass container blow mold. However, Bhat ([0048] and [0049]) teaches parts of the mold can be made of metal and Kirkman ([0002]) teaches blow molds used for glassware forming. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modular system for blow molding disclosed by Bhat could be modified for forming a glass container and therefore, the modified apparatus of Bhat in view of Kirkman would provide for a glass container blow mold.
Regarding claim 10, Bhat ([0060]) further teaches in some embodiments base mold portion 310 may be regulated including internal cooling channels. However, Bhat fails to disclose details of the cooling channels, such as the claimed cooling passage and cooling tube, as claimed in claim 3. However, Kirkman teaches a bottom mold plate which is similar to base portion 900. Kirkman (Fig. 4) teaches a central passage (corresponding to a cooling passage) through the longitudinal central axis extends and a cooling tube (“spud 50”) extending into the cooling passage and establishing an inlet path through the cooling tube and an outlet path (“passages 72”) between the cooling tube and the circumferentially extending wall. Both Bhat and Kirkman teach internal cooling channels/passages. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to apply the additional teachings by Kirkman to provide for cooling in the apparatus of Bhat, such as the claimed cooling passage through which the longitudinal central axis extends and a cooling tube extending into the cooling passage and establishing an inlet path through the cooling tube and an outlet path between the cooling tube and the circumferentially extending wall, as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Bhat (Fig. 4) illustrates the widest portion of the bottle (i.e. container to container contact band) is above the plane at which the plane at which the upper mating surface of the mold bottom plate and the lower mating surface of the mold meet. Accordingly, the modified apparatus of Bhat in view of Kirkman provides for the claimed bottom match plane is at a lower elevation that a container to container contact band.
Regarding claim 14, Bhat (fig. 4) suggests the mold mating wall tapers inward toward a longitudinal central axis to the axial end wall.
Regarding claim 18, Bhat (Fig. 1) discloses the mold mating wall is cylindrical. Accordingly, the modified apparatus of Bhat in view of Kirkman provides for the mold mating wall is cylindrical.
Regarding claim 20, Bhat (Figs. 1 and 4) discloses the punt uppermost surface is spaced axially inwardly from the upper mating surface of the mold mating wall. Accordingly, the modified apparatus of Bhat in view of Kirkman provides for the limitations claimed in claim 20.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. (US 2022/0152908 – hereinafter Bhat) in view of Kirkman (2008/0307831) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gino Pinto Inc. (“Wine Bottle Dimensions” – hereinafter GinoPinto).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above, Bhat discloses the bottom mold portion 310 of the interchangeable bottom plate (“base mold portion 900”) is interchangeable ([0055]) based on the desired container base shape. Additionally, Kirkman (Fig. 1) and GinoPinto (pgs. 1-22) teaches a slightly different shapes of the punt upper surface. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been taught by Bhat that the base mold portion is interchangeable based on the desired container base shape, and Kirkman and GinoPinto teach various punt upper surface shapes in the bottom of a bottle, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the glass container blow mold set forth in claim 8 further comprising a second interchangeable mold bottom plate having an alternative desired container base shape, such as the base shapes taught by Kirkman and GinoPinto. Accordingly, with the second interchangeable bottom plate based on the alternative base shapes taught by Kirkman and GinoPinto, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the second interchangeable mold bottom plate establishing a second bottom plate cavity having a different configuration from the first configuration. This provides for a second interchangeable mold bottom plate including the following structures:
a second circumferentially extending wall circumscribing a second longitudinal axis;
a second mold mating wall extending axially and radially outwardly from the second circumferentially extending wall, based on the same obviousness that the shape of the mold mating wall could be modified to extend radially outwardly from the circumferentially extending wall, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art;
the second mold mating wall having an upper mating surface that mates with the lower mating surface of the mold body and a second interior surface that extends axially and radially inwardly; and
a second axial end wall extending axially and radially inwardly from the second circumferentially extending wall across the second longitudinal central axis and having a second interior surface that includes a second punt uppermost surface and wherein the second axial end wall extends axially inwardly and radially outwardly toward the second interior surface of the second mold mating wall.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Bhat and Kirkman fail to disclose the axial depth of the bottom plate cavity is 3 to 50 mm, as claimed in claim 11 or a depth of the bottom plate cavity is 20 to 50 mm. However, as stated in the rejection of claim 8 above, Bhat teaches the base mold portion is interchangeable ([0055]) based on the desired container base shape. Additionally, GinoPinto (pgs. 2-7, 10-13, and 15-17 teaches various punt heights in a bottle, such as 4 mm, 16 mm, 19 mm, 22 mm, 29 mm, 30 mm, 31 mm, and 35 mm. Accordingly, since Bhat teaches the base mold portion comprising the bottom plate cavity can be interchanged based on a desired base shape, and GinoPinto teaches various punt heights, such as 4 mm, 16 mm, 19 mm, 22 mm, 29-31 mm, and 35 mm, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the bottom plate cavity depth can be varied based on the desired base shape and the axial depth of the bottom plate cavity is approximately the height of a punt that is 4 mm, 16 mm, 19 mm, 22 mm, 29-31 mm, or 35 mm, which provides for values within Applicant’s claimed range of 3 to 50 mm, as claimed in claim 11, and values within Applicant’s claimed range of 20 to 50 mm, as claimed in claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed in the rejection of claim 9 above, Kirkman (Fig. 1) and GinoPinto (pgs. 1-22) teaches a slightly different shapes of the punt upper surface. Accordingly, with the second interchangeable bottom plate based on the alternative base shapes taught by Kirkman and GinoPinto, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the second interchangeable mold bottom plate establishing a second bottom plate cavity having a different configuration from the first configuration.
Additionally, GinoPinto (pgs. 2-7, 10-13, and 15-17 teaches various punt heights in a bottle, such as 4 mm, 16 mm, 19 mm, 22 mm, 29 mm, 30 mm, 31 mm, and 35 mm. Accordingly, since Bhat teaches the base mold portion comprising the bottom plate cavity can be interchanged based on a desired base shape, and GinoPinto teaches various punt heights, such as 4 mm, 16 mm, 19 mm, 22 mm, 29-31 mm, and 35 mm, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the bottom plate cavity depth can be varied based on the desired base shape and the axial depth of the bottom plate cavity is approximately the height of a punt. Therefore, it would be obvious a first configuration can include a first bottom plate cavity size and the second configuration includes a second plate cavity size different from the first bottom plate cavity size based on a desired base shape.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. (US 2022/0152908 – hereinafter Bhat) in view of Kirkman (2008/0307831) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Stelzer et al. (US 2024/0101299 – hereinafter Stelzer).
Regarding claim 15, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above, Bhat discloses the bottom mold portion 310 of the interchangeable bottom plate (“base mold portion 900”) is interchangeable ([0055]) based on the desired container base shape. Bhat fails to disclose the first configuration includes first in sweep embossments or debossments. However, Stelzer (abstract, [0038], and Figures) discloses a plurality of recess at the heel (i.e. in sweep) of the bottle, a plurality of recess designs (Figs. 3-9) in the in sweep of the bottle, and ([0037] and Figs. 11 and 12) discloses a plurality of protrusions integral with the base mold to form the recesses. Bhat and Stelzer both teach blow molds with a bottom mold. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been taught by Bhat that the base mold portion is interchangeable based on the desired container base shape, and Stelzer teaches various recesses in the in sweep formed by a plurality of protrusions in the base of a blow mold, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the glass container blow mold set forth in claim 8, wherein the first configuration includes first in sweep or debossments to provide for desired design to the in sweep of the bottle, as taught by Stelzer.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. (US 2022/0152908 – hereinafter Bhat) in view of Kirkman (2008/0307831) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gino Pinto Inc. (“Wine Bottle Dimensions” – hereinafter GinoPinto) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Stelzer et al. (US 2024/0101299 – hereinafter Stelzer).
Regarding claim 16, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above, Bhat discloses the bottom mold portion 310 of the interchangeable bottom plate (“base mold portion 900”) is interchangeable ([0055]) based on the desired container base shape. Additionally, as discussed in the rejection of claim 9 above, Bhat in view of Kirkman and GinoPinto provides obviousness for a second configuration. Bhat, Kirkman, and GinoPinto fail to disclose the second configuration includes second in sweep embossments or debossments different from first in sweep embossments or debossments of the first configuration. However, Stelzer (abstract, [0038], and Figures) discloses a plurality of recess at the heel (i.e. in sweep) of the bottle, a plurality of recess designs (Figs. 3-9) in the in sweep of the bottle, and ([0037] and Figs. 11 and 12) discloses a plurality of protrusions integral with the base mold to form the recesses. Bhat and Stelzer both teach blow molds with a bottom mold. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been taught by Bhat that the base mold portion is interchangeable based on the desired container base shape, and Stelzer teaches various recesses in the in sweep formed by a plurality of protrusions in the base of a blow mold, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the glass container blow mold set forth in claim 9, wherein the first configuration includes first in sweep embossments or debossments to provide for desired design to the in sweep of the bottle, and wherein the second figuration includes second in sweep embossment or debossments to provide for desired designs to the in sweep of the bottle, as taught by Stelzer. Additionally, since Stelzer teaches different designs, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the second configuration includes second in sweep embossments or debossments different from first in sweep embossments or debossments of the first configuration.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. (US 2022/0152908 – hereinafter Bhat) in view of Kirkman (2008/0307831) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Leterc et al. (US 2019/0210266 – hereinafter Leterc).
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above, Bhat ([0064]) discloses mold portion 300, base mold portion 310, and cavity retainer 700 are interchangeable and the base mold portion is interchangeable ([0055]) based on the desired container base shape. Bhat fails to explicitly state the mold mating wall is rectangular. However, Leterc ([0001], [0040] and Fig. 6) teaches a blow mold having a square or rectangular contour. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, since Bhat teaches the mold portion, base mold portion, and retainer 700 are interchangeable, and the prior art teaches blow molds with a square or rectangular contour, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Bhat could be modified to provide for a square or rectangular blow mold having a mold mating wall in the base mold portion 310 that is also rectangular, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights