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 .
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-13 are pending and under examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitano et al. (US 2013/0061557), hereinafter Kitano.
Regarding claim 1, Kitano discloses an extrusion blow molding machine (not limiting; preamble, where the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention) comprising an extruder (30) (par. 0076; Fig. 2) and a blow molding tool (blowing machine 8 or blowing machine main unit 60) (par. 0086, 0118), wherein the blow molding tool (8) is separated from the environment (clean room 2) by an enclosure (clean booth 17) (par. 0069; Fig. 1).
Kitano further discloses that a fan (18) (par. 0070) located on a first end of the enclosure (non-limiting, can be any of the ends of the enclosure) is used to create a positive pressure (par. 0069) within the clean booth (17) (Fig. 1). The term “compressor” would be considered to be met by this fan under BRI, as it raises the pressure of the inside of the clean booth (17) with respect to the clean room (2) which represents the outside environment to the clean booth. This would seem to be the minimum structure required here under BRI.
Regarding claim 4, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there is an exhaust window (20) and lid (21) located on a side of the enclosure (non-limiting, can be any of the sides of the enclosure) (par. 0071) as to exhaust the clean booth (17) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the use of a conveyor belt for conveying the blow molded articles into a clean room (par. 0024; 0069).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 12, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the enclosure (clean booth 17) is arranged within a safety fence (clean room 2 is considered to read upon this element, under BRI) (Fig. 1, par. 0069-0070) with the extruder outside of the clean booth (17) (Fig. 2 shows the extruder outside of clean booth 17).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the enclosure is “at least partially at a distance from the floor, in particular is not sealed” is considered to be met by the exhaust window (20) as in claim 4 above, as is best understood.
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.
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) 3, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano (US 2013/0061557).
Regarding claim 3, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the second compressor at the second end opposite the first end.
However, it has been held that where there is a duplication of parts, without any unexpected results, and each of the parts performs the same function, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have duplicated the compressor as to have allowed for greater air flow into the enclosure.
Regarding claim 5, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 3, and further discloses (Fig. 1) the use of a HEPA filter (19) (par. 0070).
Regarding claim 10, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the volume enclosed by the enclosure is 10m^3 or less.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the size of the equipment would have determined the requirements for the size of the clean booth (17) for each of the stations of Kitano above. Furthermore, these dimensions of 10 m^3 are quite large in size, as to represent a scaling up or down from the disclosure of Kitano above. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have specified that the size of volume enclosed by the enclosure is less than 10 m^3 as to have appropriately housed the blow molding equipment, as is required in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Examiner missed the “arranged at a first end” limitation in view of an argued special definition in the specification as well as arguing that an extrusion blow molding machine is not disclosed in the art.
First, Examiner has not missed anything here with respect to the “arranged at a first end.” Applicant simply disagrees with Examiner’s interpretation as outlined above under BRI. Applicant claims par. 0011 overrides with a special definition. However, the pertinent sentence states “[t]he term front or front end is understood to mean a local assignment.” This is not limiting as to where the local assignment is located and would not seem to provide any special definition of the term. It is also not contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning thereof. Par. 0011 further discusses a front side but makes no mention of a front end which can also be arbitrarily termed. The term “front end” can be located at any of the sides of the device, since there are no further sides of the device defined in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term (emphasis added). There is no clear redefinition of any term here in par. 0011 as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so define the claim term. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “front end” is applied under BRI, as there is no special definition provided in par. 0011 or any of the specification that is contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of “front end.” The term “front” can be arbitrarily selected based on viewpoint - when one is viewing the object from the opposite side, that side would become the “front” and the opposite side of the object would be the “rear” or “back” of the object. Accordingly, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant also argues that Kitano does not disclose an extrusion blow molding machine, but this is the preamble of the claim and is not limiting as drafted. As discussed in MPEP 2111.02, the preamble of the claim is not limiting where the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention, and the term “an extrusion blow molding machine” is the preamble of the claim.
It is further noted that the extruder and blow molding machine of Kitano would meet this claim as drafted since that is what the body of the claim actually requires, and describes the elements of said “extrusion blow molding machine.” The Kitano reference has an extruder and a blow molding tool (see rejection above) and meets the wherein clauses, thus anticipating the claim (claim 1) as drafted which includes a combination of old claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as outlined above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights