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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6-7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 (Invention I) in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 2, 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 2, line 2 – “a bottom portion of the preform” should read “the bottom portion of the preform” to recite to the limitation in claim 1, line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (JP H04119819 A, an English machine translation was previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses a temperature adjustment mold (first mold 2, stopper 26, and stretching rod 30) for adjusting a temperature of an injection-molded bottomed resin preform (pg. 5, L. 17 – pre-molded body 1, obtained by injection molding a plastic), the temperature adjustment mold comprising:
a first mold (pg. 6, L. 2-4 – first mold 2 has a plurality of sub-molds) that accommodates the preform inside and is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the preform (pg. 6, L. 8-10 – partial molds 22a to 22g forming cavities corresponding to the shapes of the final pre-molded body 1; interpreted as intended use, see below);
a second mold (pg. 7, L. 4 – stopper 26) that is inserted into the preform and is in close contact with a neck portion of the preform (pg. 7, L. 4-5 – 26 fits snugly into the inner diameter of the opening 11 of the pre-molded body 1; interpreted as intended use and material worked upon, see below); and
a third mold (pg. 7, L. 3 – a stretching rod 30) that is inserted into the preform integrally with the second mold (pg. 7, L. 3 – first mold 2 is combined with 30) and receives a bottom portion of the preform on a mold surface (FIG. 2 depicts 30 in contact with the bottom of 1; interpreted as intended use, see below), wherein
the third mold has an opening for introducing compressed air into the preform (pg. 7, L. 5-7 – a passage for blowing gas into 1 is provided inside 30, connected to a gas supply device, via a valve 27), and
when the third mold is inserted into the preform, a distance from the mold surface of the third mold to the first mold is larger than a thickness of the preform (FIG. 2 depicts the distance from 30 to 2 is larger than a thickness of 1; interpreted as intended use, see below).
The limitation “a first mold … is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the preform”, “a second mold … is in close contact with a neck portion of the preform”, “a third mold that is inserted into the preform … and receives a bottom portion of the preform on a mold surface”, and “a distance from the mold surface of the third mold to the first mold is larger than a thickness of the preform” recite a manner of operating the device for an intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
As Yamada discloses that first mold 2 has a plurality of sub-molds and partial molds 22a to 22g forming cavities corresponding to the shapes of the final pre-molded body 1 (pg. 6, L. 2-10), the first mold and partial molds are capable of performing the intended use of “in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the preform”. The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the first mold and partial molds in Yamada is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the limitations as claimed.
As Yamada discloses that stopper 26 fits snugly into the inner diameter of the opening 11 of the pre-molded body 1 (pg. 7, L. 4-5), the stopper is capable of performing the intended use of “is in close contact with a neck portion of the preform”. The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the stopper in Yamada is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the limitations as claimed.
As Yamada discloses first mold 2 is combined with a stretching rod 30 (pg. 7, L. 3) and FIG. 2 depicts the distance from 30 to 2 is larger than a thickness of 1, the stretching rod is capable of performing the intended use of “when the third mold is inserted into the preform, a distance from the mold surface of the third mold to the first mold is larger than a thickness of the preform”. The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the stretching rod in Yamada is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the limitations as claimed.
The limitation “an injection-molded bottomed resin preform” and “a neck portion of the preform” recites the material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Applicant is reminded material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada discloses the temperature adjustment mold according to claim 1, wherein the third mold receives a bottom portion of the preform to be contracted at the mold surface (FIG. 2 depicts 30 in contact with the bottom of 1) before the compressed air is introduced (pg. 8, last five lines, FIG. 3 – pushing 30 downwards, gas is blown into the pre-molded body; interpreted as intended use, see below), and the first mold receives an outer peripheral surface of the preform pressed by the compressed air introduced from the opening (pg. 8, L. 11-15 – body portion of 1 expands radially outward; FIG. 3 depicts an outer peripheral surface of the pre-molded body pressed by the compressed air).
The limitation “the third mold receives a bottom portion of the preform to be contracted at the mold surface before the compressed air is introduced” recites a manner of operating the device for an intended use. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
As Yamada discloses that stretching rod 30 is pushed downwards and gas is blown into the pre-molded body (pg. 8, last five lines, FIG. 3); the stretching rod and passage are capable of performing the intended use of “receives a bottom portion of the preform to be contracted at the mold surface before the compressed air is introduced”. The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the stretching rod and passage in Yamada is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada discloses the temperature adjustment mold according to claim 2, wherein the compressed air introduced from the opening preform (pg. 7, L. 5-7 – a passage for blowing gas into 1 is provided inside 30) flows between the third mold and an inner peripheral surface of the preform pressed against the first mold (pg. 8, L. 11-15 – body portion of 1 expands radially outward; FIG. 3 depicts the air will flow between 30 and the inner peripheral surface of 1 pressed against 2).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada discloses the temperature adjustment mold according to claim 1, further comprising an adjustment unit (pg. 8, last five lines, FIG. 3 – pushing 30 downwards) configured to adjust a distance between the third mold and the first mold (as 30 moves downwards, the distance between 30 and 2 is adjusted).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP H04119819 A), as applied to claim 1 and 4, in view of Horigome (US 2015290865 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada discloses the temperature adjustment mold according to claim 4.
Yamada does not disclose wherein the third mold is detachably attached to a base portion fixed to the second mold, and the adjustment unit is a spacer that adjusts an attachment position of the third mold with respect to the base portion.
Horigome discloses a blow molding machine comprising mold components including an injection core mold, an injection cavity mold, a blow core mold, a blow mold, a stretch rod, and a neck mold (¶ [0089]).
Horigome further discloses wherein the third mold is detachably attached to a base portion fixed to the second mold (¶ [0089] - stretch rod and blow core mold, which are superimposed on top of each other), and the adjustment unit is a spacer that adjusts an attachment position of the third mold with respect to the base portion (¶ [0089] – use of a spacer member; ¶ [0134-0137] – three preliminary stretch adjusting plates 330, the stretch rod 320 a stretches a perform longitudinally).
Yamada and Horigome disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to blow molding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the assembly of mold components and the use of a spacer member/preliminary stretch adjusting plates in Horigome to the stretching rod and stopper in Yamada to thereby be able to adjust the thickness distribution of a container to be blow molded and change the preliminary stretch stroke (¶ [0134-0137]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP S59230725 A discloses a temperature control member performing temperature control by cooling a parison by blowing air into the parison and bringing the outer surface of the parison into close contact with the temperature control member and further comprising a neck mold and a core
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights