Detailed Action
The communications received 06/03/2026 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11- 20 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, 15-16 are currently amended.
Claims 2 and 10 are cancelled.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonomura et al (US 2003/0010462) hereinafter NON
As for claim 1, NON teaches a receptacle mould defining a cavity in which a receptacle is mouldable [Abstract],
wherein the receptacle mould comprises a guide channel for guiding, into the cavity [Fig. 4(a-d) #11 general vicinity of],
an expandable member that is usable to help mould the receptacle in the cavity [Fig. 4(a-d) #8-9];
wherein the guide channel has:
a first end and a second end, the second end opening into the cavity, wherein the expandable member is guidable through the guide channel from the first end to the second end and into the cavity [refer to modified fig. 1(c) below which is understood to be substantially the same cavity as the one of Fig. 4(a-c];
a first cross-sectional width at the first end [refer to modified fig. 1(c) below];
and a second cross-sectional width at the second end, the second cross-sectional width being less than the first cross-sectional width [refer to modified fig. 1(c) below].
it is understood that there being a third cross-section width corresponding to the cavity greater than the second cross-sectional width by at least 4mm is achieved by the section that produces the body having a larger diameter than the neck [0049], therefore the difference in size between the second width and third is such that the width is greater than 0 mm which overlaps the claimed range.
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
PNG
media_image1.png
404
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 3, NON teaches claim 1 and further wherein: the guide channel has an axis that is coaxial with an axis of the cavity [refer to modified fig. 1(c)].
As for claim 4, NON teaches claim 1, wherein:
the guide channel has a first cross-sectional shape at the first end (substantially a cylinder) [refer to modified fig. 1(c)],
the guide channel has a second cross-sectional shape at the second end (substantially a cylinder) [refer to modified fig. 1(c)],
and the first cross-sectional shape and the second cross-sectional shape are the same (as they are both cylinders).
As for claim 5, NON teaches claim 4 and wherein: the cavity has a third cross-sectional shape where the second end of the guide channel opens into the cavity; and the first cross-sectional shape, the second cross-sectional shape and the third cross-sectional shape are the same [refer to modified fig. 1(c) all three are cylindrical/circular].
As for claim 6, NON teaches claim 1, wherein: the second end of the guide channel comprises a fillet edge or a chamfered edge where the second end opens into the cavity (as the edge is chamfered as depicted) [Fig. 1(a) #11].
As for claim 7, NON teaches claim 1, wherein:
the guide channel has a first surface gradient, relative to an axis that is perpendicular to an axis of the receptacle mould, at a first point, and a second surface gradient,
relative to the axis that is perpendicular to the axis of the receptacle mould,
at a second point, the first and second surface gradients being different and the first point being closer to the first end than the second point (this can be met by selecting a point that is present along the first end and present along the second end) [refer to modified fig. 1(c)].
As for claim 8, NON teaches claim 7, and wherein the second surface gradient is greater than the first surface gradient (as there is more of a dip in the second end which can contain the second surface gradient) [refer to modified fig. 1(c) along with Fig. 1(a) #11].
As for claim 9, this limitation is essentially the method of using the mould of claim 1 which is taught by NON [Abstract, see claim 1; Fig. 4(a-d); 0005-13].
As for claim 11, see claim 4.
As for claim 12, see claim 4 combined with claim 5 for the third cross-sectional shape which is substantially also a cylinder [refer to modified figures 6 above].
As for claim 13, see claim 6.
As for claim 14, see claim 7.
As for claim 15, this is substantially claim 9 taught by NON except the claim includes a wall thickness produced and that the expandable member maintains a distance of at least twice the wall thickness between the cavity surface and the expandable member at a second end of the guide channel before expanding it, the Examiner understands this to be a spacing between #8 and 7b [0069] with a key concern being not contacting that edge so as not to cause deformation or damage due to contact [0088]. Although part of the potential damage or deformation is prevented via the inclusion of a flange [0088]. One of ordinary skill in the art would similarly want to increase the spacing of #8 and #7 to prevent as much accidental contact as much as possible.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the spacing of the distance between the surface of the cavity and the expandable member at the second end of the guide channel to be greater than at least twice the wall thickness in order to help prevent accidental contact.
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (in this instance would be greater than a ratio of 1) a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
As for claim 16, this limitation is understood to be substantially claim 9 which NON teaches along with the added consideration of utilizing a fibre suspension to molding [0006; 0053].
As for claim 17, NON teaches claim 16, and this claim includes the limitation addressed in claim 15 taught by NON pertaining to the distance of the expandable member to the surface of the cavity.
As for claim 18, NON teaches claim 17, and the distance being 2.5 or 3 times the wall thickness is understood to be similarly met by the motivation suggested in claim 15.
As for claim 19, NON teaches claim 16 and further the expandable member is introduced into the mold under vacuum (evacuated via suction) [Fig. 4(b-c); 0085-86].
As for claim 20, NON teaches claim 1 and a plurality of moulds that are co-operable are understood to be a duplication of the moulds of claim 1 combined with the method of their use. The method of using an apparatus does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art [MPEP 2114]. In addition the MPEP teaches that a duplication of parts is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2143.04(VI)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a kit formed of a plurality of moulds as this would have amounted through a duplication of parts which is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in light of newly found prior art Nonomura (US 2003/0010462).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights