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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/5/2026 has been entered.
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) such that the blow molding tool is within the enclosure.
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.
Furthermore, “a longitudinal direction” can also be arbitrarily selected as the vertical direction, meaning the “first and second longitudinal end surfaces” would still both “longitudinally delimit the structure” and the compressor fan would be located on one of the end surfaces with this interpretation.
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 (par. 0071) as to exhaust the clean booth (17) (Fig. 1). The side is different from the side containing the compressor.
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.
Furthermore, with respect to the arrangement of the compressors, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success from having placed the compressor on any of the surfaces/walls of the enclosure as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that air can be forced in or out at any location within 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 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below.
First, Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s offered alternate English translation regarding par. 0010-0011 of the Instant Specification, but still does not find that this constitutes a special definition that would serve to limit the claim term in accordance with the guidance in the MPEP. Examiner does not “disregard a reasonable interpretation of the disclosure” because the disclosure does not limit the claim terms in this way, unless a special definition is present in the disclosure. Examiner has simply followed the guidance presented in the MPEP (MPEP 2111.01). It is also not “a reasonable interpretation” which governs, but the broadest reasonable interpretation, in view of the specification while taking into account the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art – including the plain and ordinary meanings of each of the terms. While limitations from the specification are not imported into the claims, the claims can be amended to include features that were included in/supported by the specification as filed.
With respect to claim 1, the “longitudinal direction” can also be the vertical direction, since there is no other direction introduced in the claims and so this element can still be applied to the prior art in a broad manner. The use of the term “upper side” is nominal in the Kitano reference (see p. 4, Remarks) and would not be limited in the same way when applying the Kitano reference to the claims. It could also be termed a front side, since there is no defined front, back, top, or bottom and so these can be selected based on the perspective of a viewer. If one is upside down, the “upper side” becomes the “lower side” from that perspective.
However, Examiner recognizes that this interpretation seems to be less tenable with claim 3 (not anticipated, but still under an obviousness rejection), since this would require the inclusion of the compressor on the bottom surface, or within the floor of the clean booth (17), but would still be seemingly obvious over the reference, since this would be in effect, a floor vent. Thus, claim 3 still would be met in this type of a modification and Applicant does not specifically contest the obviousness analysis provided in claim 3. As the arguments are not found persuasive, the rejections are maintained as updated above.
Conclusion
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