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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 9/23/2024. Currently claims 1-5 are pending in the application.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 as being anticipated over Kiyoto et al. (JP 2022 032 349 A), hereafter, referred to as “Kiyoto”.
Regarding claim 1, Kiyoto teaches in Fig. 1, a blow molding machine. Kiyoto teaches that the blow molding mold unit comprises of: a pair of blow cavity split molds for forming a blow cavity, the blow cavity defining a shape of a side surface of a resin container in a state where the molds are closed; a bottom mold defining a shape of a bottom surface of the resin container; by teaching in Fig. 1. that the molding machine comprises an upper unit (mold unit) comprising a body mold (a pair of blow cavity split molds) divided into two parts, left and right, a bottom mold, and an upper support member. Kiyoto also teaches that the upper support member comprises an upper support member that supports a body part, and a lock ring (bottom mold support part), and when the mold is closed, the lock ring meshes with a lock ring receiving part provided on a pedestal (bottom mold fixing plate) to which the bottom mold is fixed, and thereby the body mold and bottom mold are fixed. Kiyoto also teaches that the blow mold comprises of a jig configured to integrally support the pair of blow cavity split molds and the bottom mold, by teaching in Fig. 1, that the upper support member is also provided to the end part of a mold, and thus the upper support member is equivalent to a jig, which is provided at an end of the blow molding mold unit. Regarding the first, second and third directions, it has been used to define the blow molding machine, which is essentially a user defied virtual axis, that has been used/interpreted for understanding of the system and used in this rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Kiyoto teaches in Fig. 1, a blow molding machine. The rejection of claim 1 also applies here. Kiyoto teaches that the blow mold comprises of a jig configured to integrally support the pair of blow cavity split molds and the bottom mold, by teaching in Fig. 1, that the upper support member is also provided to the end part of a mold in an inward direction to the lower support member under the bottom mold, and thus the upper support member is equivalent to a jig, which is provided at an end of the blow molding mold unit. Kiyoto also teaches in Fig. 1 that the bottom mold support portion is configured to support the bottom mold from a side of the bottom portion. It is further evident from Fig. 1, that Kiyoto also teaches that the upper support member comprises a fastening part, a bottom mold support part, and an arm part; wherein the bottom mold support portion extends from the arm portion toward the inside of the blow molding mold unit, and an arm portion provided between the fastening portion and the bottom mold support portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Kiyoto et al. (JP 2022 032 349 A), in view of Takehana et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0343697 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Takehana”.
Regarding claim 3, Kiyoto teaches in Fig. 1, a blow molding machine. Kiyoto teaches in Fig. 1, that the blow molding mold unit comprises a bottom mold fixing plate (element 30) to which the bottom mold (element 21) is fixed, wherein the bottom mold support portion is configured to support the bottom mold and the bottom mold fixing plate from the side of the bottom portion.
But Kiyoto fails to explicitly teach that the bottom mold fixing plate is configured to be connected to a bottom mold lifting plate provided in a device for manufacturing the resin container. However, Takehana teaches in Fig. 3, a blow molding machine. Takehana also teaches that the molding machine has a bottom mold opening and closing part and comprises an air cylinder (lifting/lowering rod), and that a second spacer member is interposed between the air cylinder and the bottom mold fixing plate, and the second spacer member and the bottom mold fixing plate are connected by a second connection part, and with this structure, the bottom mold and the bottom mold fixing plate are raised by the bottom mold opening and closing part. Takehana further teaches in Fig. 4, that the bottom mold fixing plate can be attached to and detached from the second spacer member while the bottom mold remains fixed, and thus the second spacer member is equivalent to the bottom mold lifting and lowering plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Takehana, and combine the feature of a bottom mold fixing plate is configured to be connected to a bottom mold lifting plate provided in a device, so that it would allow to automate the ejection of the finished part during the manufacturing the resin container (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143). Since both the refences deal with blow molding, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 5, Kiyoto teaches in Fig. 1, a blow molding machine, and teaches in Fig. 2 to use a preform (element 101) for the blow molding. Kiyoto teaches that the blow molding mold unit comprises of: a pair of blow cavity split molds for forming a blow cavity, the blow cavity defining a shape of a side surface of a resin container in a state where the molds are closed; a bottom mold defining a shape of a bottom surface of the resin container; by teaching in Fig. 1. that the molding machine comprises an upper unit (mold unit) comprising a body mold (a pair of blow cavity split molds) divided into two parts, left and right, a bottom mold, and an upper support member. Kiyoto also teaches that the upper support member comprises an upper support member that supports a body part, and a lock ring (bottom mold support part), and when the mold is closed, the lock ring meshes with a lock ring receiving part provided on a pedestal (bottom mold fixing plate) to which the bottom mold is fixed, and thereby the body mold and bottom mold are fixed.
Kiyoto teaches in Fig. 1, that the blow molding mold unit comprises a bottom mold fixing plate (element 30) to which the bottom mold (element 21) is fixed, wherein the bottom mold support portion is configured to support the bottom mold and the bottom mold fixing plate from the side of the bottom portion. But Kiyoto fails to explicitly teach that the bottom mold fixing plate is configured to be connected to a bottom mold lifting plate provided in a device for manufacturing the resin container. However, Takehana teaches in Fig. 3, a blow molding machine. Takehana also teaches that the molding machine has a bottom mold opening and closing part and comprises an air cylinder (lifting/lowering rod), and that a second spacer member is interposed between the air cylinder and the bottom mold fixing plate, and the second spacer member and the bottom mold fixing plate are connected by a second connection part, and with this structure, the bottom mold and the bottom mold fixing plate are raised by the bottom mold opening and closing part. Takehana further teaches in Fig. 4, that the bottom mold fixing plate can be attached to and detached from the second spacer member while the bottom mold remains fixed, and thus the second spacer member is equivalent to the bottom mold lifting and lowering plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Takehana, and combine the feature of a bottom mold fixing plate is configured to be connected to a bottom mold lifting plate provided in a device, so that it would allow to automate the ejection of the finished part during the manufacturing the resin container (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143). Since both the refences deal with blow molding, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject
matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a bold molding mold unit comprising “wherein the bottom mold lifting plate includes a recessed portion at an end of the bottom mold lifting plate in the third direction,
Examiner’s Note
The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure.
EP 2 977 175 A1 (Dong et al.): Dong teaches a bottle blow molding machine having a clamping mechanism for lifting and lowering a bottom die. Further, the molding machine comprises a machine frame, and on the machine frame, a fixed mold plate, a movable mold plate (a pair of blow cavity split molds), and a bottom mold are provided, and the machine frame is a frame that comprises an upper frame (fastening part), a support frame (arm part), and an upright frame (bottom mold support part), supports the mold, and is positioned at the mold end part (equivalent to a jig).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742