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/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of group 1: claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 03/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is hereby withdrawn.
IDS
The IDS entered 10/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascal (FR2874193) of record.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-7, Pascal discloses a blowing mold for molding a plastic container (fig.1, 2a, 2b), by blow molding a preform having a neck and a neck ring (neck ring 6), the blowing mold being adapted to be opened and closed, and comprising at least two parts which (claim 1, P0007, pg.17), when the blowing mold is closed, form a support (5a), or striker plate, adapted to abut against the neck ring of the preform (fig.3A); wherein a surface of said support is provided with one or more protrusions adapted to come into contact with the preform (fig.3B, 14a and 14b).
Pascal does not teach that the protrusions come into contact with the portion of the preform below the neck ring and leave a corresponding impression below the neck ring, where the protrusions are on a molding surface of the mold, however, this amounts to a rearrangement of parts. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Pascal discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of protrusions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the protrusions, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange protrusions for the purpose of adapting the mold machine to the processing of blanks of different conformations as taught by Pascal (P0007, pg.17).
Regarding claim 8, Pascal discloses two protrusions (fig.3B, 14a and 14b).
Regarding claim 10, Pascal discloses a support that has a face adapted to abut against the neck ring of the preform; and wherein said surface is transverse, preferably perpendicular, to said face (P0010, fig.3a, surface 4 is perpendicular to surface 5 where the neck ring abuts).
Regarding claims 11-12, Pascal discloses when the blowing mold is closed, said surface delimits an opening adapted to be crossed by the preform and the two parts define the surface of the support (P0010, fig.3a, surface 4).
Regarding claim 13, Pascal discloses said two parts are adapted to approach each other during the closure of the blowing mold and to move away from each other during the opening of the blowing mold (P0010-11).
Regarding claim 14, Pascal discloses two half-molds wherein each part of said two parts is fixed to a respective half-mold (P0010-11).
Regarding claim 15, Pascal is not specific to the two parts being disassemblable from the respective half mold. Pascal discloses the claimed invention except for the two parts being disassemblable from the respective half mold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the two parts being disassemblable from the respective half mold, since it have been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of easy replacement to suit different configurations of the mold. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights