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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the mold” in line 3; “the first container” in line 5. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “the container” in lines 11-12. It is unclear if this is the same or different than “the first container” in line 5?
Claims 2-5 and 7 disclose the limitation “a higher temperature” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same or different than “a higher temperature” in claim 1. It is also unclear if the steps of “keeping said mould at a higher temperature than room temperature” and “ keeping said mould at a maximum temperature higher than…” are the same or different. Is this suppose to be a temperature range that the mold is heated and maintained above the room temperature to a predetermined maximum temperature? Clarification and/or correction are needed.
Claim 2 also discloses that “keeping the maximum temperature time trend of said mould (2) within a range of about 30˚C”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for limitation “the maximum temperature” in the claim. It is unclear what is the maximum temperature time trend and how a temperature range is of about 30˚C. What are the upper and lower limits of the temperature range?
Claim 3 also discloses the phrase that “a maximum temperature higher than 60˚C”. Isn’t the maximum temperature already the highest temperature?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (2019/0337218).
Regarding claims 1-4, Kawamura et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a container made of resin, comprising the steps of:
positioning a first preform 11 made of plastic material in a forming chamber of a blow mold 40, 131;
blow molding the first preform 11 inside the forming chamber 40, 131 to obtain an opacification (a white-clouded) of at least a portion of the first container 10, [0083];
cooling said first container 10 by introducing a gaseous stream by a rod member 50 into the container 10 to fix the white-clouded problem [0083];
removing said first container 10 from the mould 40, 131 – Fig. 8;
keeping said mould 40, 131 at a higher temperature T14, T24 at 90˚C-105˚C, than room temperature at least from the step of performing said blowing of the first preform 10 to that of removing said first container 11, [0080], [0092].
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura et al. discloses a heating adjustment mechanism 22, 122 positioned outside of the blow molding chamber 23, 123 – see Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the method further comprising the step of stretching the first preform 11 by means of a stretching rod 50 which projects internally to the first preform 11, see Figs. 2-3, wherein the step of introducing a gaseous stream into the container 10 takes place by dispensing the gaseous stream through at least one hole 53, 54 placed on the stretching rod 50, [0081].
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (2019/0337218) as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Derrien (2017/0203495).
Kawamura et al. fails to disclose the step of introducing a second preform after the step of removing the first container.
Derreien discloses a method for blow-molding of plastic containers, comprising steps of continuously a plurality of preforms 2 from an oven 10 and transferred into molds of the blow-molding unit 12 by a first transfer device 18, wherein the blow-molding unit 12 comprises a rotating carousel 20 at the periphery of which several blow-molding stations 22 are mounted, wherein each hot preform 2 leaving the oven 10 is introduced into a mold 26 of the blow-molding station 22 to be blow molded there and transformed into a container 23. Once completed, the container 23 is removed from the blow-molding station 22 by a second transfer device 24, and the next preform 2 is introduced into the mold and the blow molding process is repeated for each of the preforms 2 – see Fig. 1, [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kawamura et al. with the steps of introduce the next preform into the blow mold as the formed product is removed from the mold as taught by Derrien in order for continuously blow molding a plurality of products while the molds are still hot to save energy and production time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights