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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 9 in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/23/2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims and species is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims. Thus, the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the restriction mailed on 02/11/2026 was based on a lack of unity of the invention and it was not based on US practice. The restriction established that the special technical features is known in the art, and the prior office action stated on page 3 that "the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature therefore lack of unity of invention exists and the grouping as described in the restriction mailed on 02/11/2026 is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The term “substantially coincide” in claim 1 has been interpreted below in view of paragraph [0079] of the publication.
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) 1-2,6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2012/0040197 - of record) in view of Thibault (Automatic perform shape optimization for the stretch blow molding process, 2005).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method for manufacturing a labeled container (see [0001-0003]), comprising:
disposing an in-mold label on an inner wall surface of a mold (see [0068]);
preparing a heated preform (parison) having an inner hollow (i.e. hollow part of the parison that is later blow molded into a hollow container) (see [0050], [0069] and [0092]);
inserting the preform (parison) into the mold (see [0069]); and
blow molding by blowing a gas into the hollow of the preform (i.e. pressurized air was fed into the parison so that the parison was expanded), and thus expanding the preform to form a labeled container to which the in-mold label is attached (see [0092]),
wherein the in-mold label has a tensile strength of 10 kN/m or more in one direction (see [0058], [0060] and [0062]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the disposing includes the following (a) or (b) of adjusting an orientation of the in-mold label: (a) making the one direction of the in-mold label substantially coincide with a horizontal direction when a size of the labeled container is 2 times or more of a size of the preform in the horizontal direction, and the size of the labeled container is 1 time or more and less than 2 times of the size of the preform in a depth direction; or (b) making the one direction of the in-mold label substantially coincide with a perpendicular direction when the size of the labeled container is 1 time or more and less than 2 times of the size of the preform in the horizontal direction, and the size of the labeled container is 1 time or more and less than 2 times of the size of the preform in the depth direction.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding process, Thibault (Automatic Perform Shape Optimization for the Stretch Blow Molding Process) teaches a numerical optimization process which provides a strategy to control a container dimensions by manipulating the perform geometry and a detailed mathematical for understanding the relationship between the container and the perform based on stretch ratios (axial and hoop) (Abstract), the optimization process utilizes a stretch ratios relationship between a container and a perform in horizontal and depth directions (see Figs. 2-3 and pages 1-2). Thibault discloses an axial stretch ratio ([Symbol font/0x6C]ax), wherein a size of the labeled container is 2.2 times of the size of the preform in a depth direction, and a hoop ratio ([Symbol font/0x6C]h) with a size of the labeled container is 2 times or more of a size of the preform in the horizontal direction (see Fig. 2 below; Pages 1-2). Thibault further teaches that the axial stretching ratio and the hoop stretch ratio are critical for predicting and controlling final shape and size of the container (Abstract); and the optimization strategy configured to automatically manipulates the preform geometry (shape and thickness) that targets a container thickness distribution (see Fig. 3 and Page 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although, Suzuki in view of Thibault does not explicitly teach adjusting an orientation of the in-mold label by making the one direction of the in-mold label substantially coincide with a horizontal direction when a size of the labeled container is 2 times or more of a size of the preform in the horizontal direction, and the size of the labeled container is 1 time or more and less than 2 times of the size of the preform in a depth direction, based on the engineering concept of force analysis, this arrangement would yield the predictable result of preventing breakage of the label as the label would be expected to be under higher tensile strength during the expansion in such horizontal direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method for manufacturing a labeled container as taught by Suzuki in view of Thibault by adjusting an orientation of the in-mold label making the one direction of the in-mold label substantially coincide with a horizontal direction when a size of the labeled container is 2 times or more of a size of the preform in the horizontal direction, and the size of the labeled container is 1 time or more and less than 2 times of the size of the preform in a depth direction as such is known in the art of blow molding process given the discussion of Thibault (Automatic Perform Shape Optimization for the Stretch Blow Molding Process) above presenting a reasonably expectation of success; with the added benefit of doing so allows for preventing breakage of the label as the label would be expected to be under higher tensile strength during the expansion in such horizontal direction.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Thibault further teaches the method for manufacturing a labeled container, wherein the in-mold label has a tensile strength of 12 kN/m or more in the one direction (see [0058], [0060] and [0062] of Suzuki).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Thibault further teaches the method for manufacturing a labeled container, wherein the in-mold label includes a stretched layer (i.e. a stretched film to constitute the substrate layer is a biaxially stretched film) (see [0014] of Suzuki).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in view of Thibault further teaches the method for manufacturing a labeled container, wherein the in-mold label has a thickness of 50 to 300 pm (see [0041] of Suzuki).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Thibault further teaches the method for manufacturing a labeled container, wherein the preform is a bottomed cylinder-shaped molded product (see Figs. 1-4; Pages 2-4 of Thibault).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2012/0040197 - of record) in view of Thibault (Automatic perform shape optimization for the stretch blow molding process, 2005) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slat (US 4 ,662,528).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Thibault teaches the method for manufacturing a labeled container as discussed in claim 1 above.
Suzuki in view of Thibault does not explicitly teach wherein a temperature of the heated preform is 105°C or higher.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding containers process, Slat teaches a blow molding process for making a container (10) made from a heated plastic parison (preform) (20) (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 5; column 3, lines 55-60 and column 4, lines 14-16), wherein the parison (20) is heated to a temperature in the range of about 75 to 125 0C in order to have sufficient heat to activate the adhesive (48) so that the label becomes permanently adhered to the container side wall (12) (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 8; column 6, lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method for manufacturing a labeled container as taught by Suzuki in view of Slat with a temperature of the heated preform is 105°C or higher as such is known in the art of blow molding containers process given the discussion of Slat above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for providing sufficient heat to activate the adhesive so that the label becomes permanently adhered to the container side wall (as recognized by Slat at column 6, lines 29-33).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2012/0040197 - of record) in view of Thibault (Automatic perform shape optimization for the stretch blow molding process, 2005) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hidaka (US 2022/0176609 - of record).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Thibault teaches the method for manufacturing a labeled container as discussed in claim 1 above.
Suzuki in view of Thibault does not explicitly teach, wherein a pressure of the gas blown in the blow molding step is 3.5 MPa or less.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding containers process, Hidaka teaches an injection stretch blow molding method for making a hollow container (20) using injection stretch blow molding apparatus (100) (see Figs. 1-2; [0001] and [0030]), comprises blow molding by of blowing air into a preform (10), wherein a pressure of the gas blown in the blow molding step is 3.5 MPa or less (see Figs. 3A-3d; [0048-0050]). Hidaka disclose that the blow air is introduced into the preform (10), thereby stretching the preform (10) in a vertical axis direction and a horizontal axis direction, wherein the operation of blowing the air is controlled independently. For example, the start of the supply of the blow air is controlled based on a waiting time starting from a blow start time, and is controlled independently (see [0004] and [0050] of Hidaka).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method for manufacturing a labeled container as taught by Suzuki and Thibault in view of Hidaka with a pressure of the gas blown in the blow molding step is 3.5 MPa or less as such is known in the art of blow molding containers process given the discussion of Hidaka above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for providing the operation of the blow air controlled independently. For example, the start of the supply of the blow air is controlled based on a waiting time starting from a blow start time, and is controlled independently ([0004] of Hidaka).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Thibault teaches the method for manufacturing a labeled container as discussed in claim 1 above.
Suzuki in view of Thibault further teaches wherein the orientation of the in-mold label is adjusted by the (b), a rod is inserted into the hollow of the preform in the blow molding and when the rod reaches the mold container bottom wall, a high blow pressure is applied inside the preform to reach the final container shape (see page 1; introduction section of Thibault). However, Suzuki in view of Thibault does not explicitly teach the blowing of the gas is started after a length of an inserted portion of the rod exceeds 1/2 of the size of the labeled container in the perpendicular direction when the preform is stretched in a perpendicular direction by the rod.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding containers process, Hidaka teaches an injection stretch blow molding method for making a hollow container (20) using injection stretch blow molding apparatus (100) (see Figs. 1-2; [0001] and [0030]), the process comprises a stretching rod (145) is inserted into the hollow of the preform in the blow molding (see Fig. 2; [0045]), and blowing of the gas is started after the stretching rod reaches a second position (P2) to further stretch the preform (10) and the stretching rod (145) is stopped at a third position (P3) that is a preset final lowered position (stretching completion position) (see Fig 3a-3d below; [0049-0050]).
PNG
media_image2.png
637
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method for manufacturing a labeled container as taught by Suzuki and Thibault in view of and Hidaka with the blowing of the gas is started after a length of an inserted portion of the rod exceeds 1/2 of the size of the labeled container in the perpendicular direction when the preform is stretched in a perpendicular direction by the rod as such is known in the art of blow molding containers process given the discussion of Hidaka above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide the stretching rod and the supply of the blow air are independently controlled and a resin container manufacturing method that can appropriately stretch blow mold a preform in a relatively short time and can stably manufacture a resin container having good quality (see [0009] and [0013] of Hidaka).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
David (US 2002/0166833) teaches a process for making a labeled container using a stretch blow molding process includes positioning a label sleeve over at least a portion of the exterior surface of a preform to produce a sleeved preform and stretch blow molding the sleeved preform to produce a labeled container (see Figs. 1-2; [0019]).
Darr (US 4,802,295) teaches a method for making the labeled container (20) using a blow mold (54) (see Fig. 5-10), comprises blow molding operation proceeds after the in-mold labeling operation by introduction of parison (P) between open mold sections (56) in alignment with the cavity sections (58) and a stretch rod (78) is inserted within the parison and upon mold closing (see Figs. 5-9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights