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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024, and 03/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 8 – 10 and 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsamura et al. (JP-H063626-U).
Regarding claim 1, Matsamura et al. teaches a blow molding mechanism (see Matsamura et al. lines 30 – 33, 40 – 41, and FIGs. 1 – 5) comprising:
a split mold (2, 12 and 22 denote blowable split molds, see lines 41 – 43 and lines 117 – 119) that forms a part of a mold used in blow molding with respect to an intermediate molding product (products 11, 21, see FIGs. 4 – 5 and line 41), capable of performing mold opening after the blow molding is completed (see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 2, 6 – 7 and lines 53 – 54, lines 78 – 80, lines 115 – 117; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims);
a first bottom portion mold (e.g., bottom molds 3, 13, 23 see lines 47 – 50, and lines 119 – 120) that forms a part of the mold (see FIGs. 1, 4 – 5), and capable of molding at least a part of a bottom portion of the intermediate molding product on a side opposite to a mouth portion (see Matsamura et al. lines 43 – 44, lines 119 – 120 and FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) in which an inlet for a fluid in the blow molding is formed (see Matsamura et al. lines 131 – 132; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims); and
a suction unit (see elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122) and hence capable of starts suction of at least a part of the bottom portion of a final molding product, which is a result of the blow molding, after the split mold performs the mold opening and before the final molding product is separated from the first bottom portion mold due to a change in a posture of the final molding product, at the same time as the split mold performs the mold opening, or before the split mold performs the mold opening, after the blow molding is completed (see Matsamura et al. lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims).
Therefore, Matsamura et al. anticipates the blow molding mechanism as currently claimed in the instant application.
Regarding the limitations indicated as reciting the manner of operating the device being claimed or what certain features are used for, the Examiner has considered the limitations to the extend they further limit the claimed apparatus structure. However, Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 2, Matsamura et al. teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 1, further comprising: a second bottom portion mold (e.g., ejector pin 5 in FIG. 1 lines 122 – 124, ejector pin 15 FIG. 4 lines 63 – 64, core 28 FIG. 5 lines 49 – 50) that is disposed in a portion penetrating a part of the first bottom portion mold in an axial direction of the intermediate molding product (FIGs. 1, 4 – 5), and that molds at least a part of the bottom portion (FIGs. 1, 4 – 5).
Regarding claim 3, Matsamura et al. teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the blow molding mechanism is a mechanism that is applied to an intermediate mold (e.g., mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39) included in a mold unit (see FIG. 3) that performs injection blow forming (see FIG. 3 and lines 30 – 33, lines 51 – 59, lines 114 – 117).
Regarding claim 8, Matsamura et al. teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the first bottom portion mold (3, 13, 23) includes a through-hole (7, 17, 27) penetrating in a direction where the intermediate mold and a movable mold are opened and closed (see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 4 – 5).
Regarding claim 9, Matsamura et al. teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 8, wherein a diameter of the through-hole (7, 17, 27) is larger than an outer diameter of the second bottom portion mold (5, 15, 28) – (see FIGs. 1, 4 – 5).
Regarding claim 10, Matsamura et al. teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the suction unit sucks at least a part of the bottom portion through a gap (e.g., Matsamura et al. suction/blowing air ports 7, 17, 27) between the second bottom portion mold (e.g., 5, 15, 28) and the first bottom portion mold (e.g., 3, 13, 23), which is formed around the second bottom portion mold (see FIGs. 1, 4 – 5).
Regarding claim 12, Matsamura teaches an intermediate mold (e.g., mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39) comprising:
a blow molding mechanism that performs blow molding with respect to an intermediate molding product (see Matsamura et al. lines 30 – 33, 40 – 41, and FIGs. 1 – 5),
wherein the blow molding mechanism includes a split mold (2, 12, 22 FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) that forms a part of a mold used in the blow molding with respect to the intermediate molding product (see FIGs. 1 – 7), capable of performing mold closing before the blow molding starts, and performs mold opening after the blow molding is completed (Matsamura et al. lines 41 – 43, lines 51 – 59),
a first bottom portion mold (3, 13, 23 FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) that forms a part of the mold, and molds at least a part of a bottom portion of the intermediate molding product on a side opposite to a mouth portion in which an inlet for a fluid in the blow molding is formed (Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 lines 43 – 50, lines 51 – 59), and
a suction unit (see elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122) capable of starting suction of at least a part of the bottom portion of a final molding product, which is a result of the blow molding, after the split mold performs the mold opening and before the final molding product is separated from the first bottom portion mold due to a change in a posture of the final molding product, at the same time as the split mold performs the mold opening, or before the split mold performs the mold opening, after the blow molding is completed (see Matsamura et al. lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims).
Therefore, Matsamura et al. anticipates the intermediate mold as currently claimed in the instant application.
As previously indicated, Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 13, Matsamura et al. teaches a mold unit comprising:
a stationary mold (e.g., injection stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39);
an intermediate mold that includes a blow molding mechanism performing blow molding with respect to an intermediate molding product (e.g., mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39); and
a movable mold (e.g., rotary stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39),
wherein the blow molding mechanism of the intermediate mold includes a split mold (2, 12, 22 FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) that forms a part of a mold used in the blow molding with respect to the intermediate molding product (see FIGs. 1 – 7), capable of performing mold closing before the blow molding starts, and performs mold opening after the blow molding is completed (Matsamura et al. lines 41 – 43, lines 51 – 59),
a first bottom portion mold (3, 13, 23 FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) that forms a part of the mold, and molds at least a part of a bottom portion of the intermediate molding product on a side opposite to a mouth portion in which an inlet for a fluid in the blow molding is formed (Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 lines 43 – 50, lines 51 – 59), and
a suction unit (see elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122) capable of starting suction of at least a part of the bottom portion of a final molding product, which is a result of the blow molding, after the split mold performs the mold opening and before the final molding product is separated from the first bottom portion mold due to a change in a posture of the final molding product, at the same time as the split mold performs the mold opening, or before the split mold performs the mold opening, after the blow molding is completed (see Matsamura et al. lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122; however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims).
Therefore, Matsamura et al. anticipates the mold unit as currently claimed in the instant application.
As previously indicated, Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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.
Claim(s) 4 – 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsamura et al. (JP-H063626-U), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of GUPTA (US 2009/0250848 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Matsamura et al. teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the split mold includes a second split mold (2, 12, 22; FIGs. 1, 4 – 5), and the second split mold (2, 12, 22) is a split mold that is configured to perform mold opening and mold closing (see the arrows in FIGs. 1 – 2, 4 – 5, see FIGs. 1 – 2, 4 – 7) in a direction perpendicular to a direction where the intermediate mold (e.g., mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39) and a movable mold (injection stage FIG. 3 lines 35 – 39) are opened and closed (FIGs. 2 – 3), except for, wherein the split mold includes a first split mold.
GUPTA teaches a container molding process by blow molding extrusion or vacuum extrusion or reduced pressure molding [0002], and discloses molds (10, 100) comprising of split molds 12, 112a, 112b (main mold – e.g., a second split mold) and 16, 116 (head mold operatively above the main mold FIGs. 1, 4 – e.g., a first slit mold) [analogous to the claimed “split mold includes a first split mold and a second split mold”], both split molds (12, 112a-b and 16, 116) supported by mold back plates (18, 118) which are in turn supported on carriages [not shown] of the molding machine [not shown], and further discloses that these molds open and close for receiving a parison and carrying out the molding operation [0037, 0041]. GUPTA discloses that by providing the head mold (e.g., 16, 116), it is possible to form a neck and head of a containers and seal the filled upper tier of containers [0038 – 0043].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the split mold in the blow mechanism of Matsamura et al. by providing a first split mold (e.g., GUPTA 16, 116), wherein the split mold includes said first split mold (GUPTA 16, 166) and the second split mold (Matsamura et al. 2, 12, 22; FIGs. 1, 4 – 5), for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art of GUPTA, provide the split mold with the capability of forming a neck and head of an intermediate molding product (GUPTA [0038 – 0043]). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 5, Matsamura/GUPTA teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the first split mold (e.g., GUPTA 16, 116) molds the mouth portion in a state of the mold closing during injection molding, and grips the mouth portion in a state of the mold closing during the blow molding (see GUPTA FIGs. 1 – 6).
Regarding claim 6, Matsamura/GUPTA teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 5, wherein the first split mold (e.g., GUPTA 16, 116) releases the mouth portion by performing the mold opening after the blow molding is completed (see GUPTA FIGs. 1 – 6).
Regarding claim 7, Matsamura/GUPTA teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the second split mold (e.g., Matsamura et al. 2, 12, 22; FIGs. 1, 4 – 5) is a split mold that is configured to perform the mold opening and the mold closing (see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 2 – 7) in the direction (see the arrows in Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 2, 4, 5) perpendicular to the direction where the intermediate mold (e.g., mold device of a blow stage FIG. 3, lines 35 – 39) and the movable mold (e.g., Matsamura et al. injection stage in FIG. 3) are opened and closed (see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 11, Matsamura/GUPTA teaches the blow molding mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the split mold includes a first split mold (GUPTA 16, 116) that molds the mouth portion, and a second split mold (Matsamura et al. 2, 12, 22; FIGs. 1, 4 – 5; GUPTA 12, 112 FIGs.1, 4 [0038]) that molds a main body which is a portion other than the mouth portion and the bottom portion (e.g., see Matsamura et al. FIGs. 1, 4 – 5; GUPTA FIGs. 1, 4), and the suction unit (see Matsamura et al. elements 7, 17, 27 in FIGs. 1, 4 – 5 and lines 43 – 50, lines 57 – 59, lines 120 – 122) is capable of starting the suction after the first split mold and the second split mold perform mold opening and before the final molding product, which is the result of the blow molding, is separated from the first bottom portion mold due to the change in the posture of the final molding product, at the same time as the first split mold and the second split mold perform the mold opening, or before the first split mold and the second split mold perform the mold opening, after the blow molding is completed – (however, the Examiner notes that these limitation recites the manner of operating the apparatus or what certain features are used for, which fail to limit apparatus claims).
As previously indicated, Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EMHART IND INC. (GB-1536466-A): Discloses a method of forming a biaxially-oriented hollow plastics container comprising the steps of, inter alia, forming a parison of plastics material by injection molding the plastics material about a core pin disposed within a parison cavity defined by a parison body mold and a neck ring mold which forms the finish of the container, transferring the parison to a split blow mold which is closed around the parison, and forming the final container in the blow mold by stretching and blowing the parison in the said blow mold (EMHART page 1 lines 40 – 69).
Aoki (US Pat. No. 4,303,381): Discloses a mold unit (e.g., FIG. 1) comprising a stationary mold (e.g., transfer plate 11, Col. 2 lines 64 – 68; FIGs. 1, 4, 5); an intermediate mold (formed by the neck mold 12, blow mold 3 and bottom mold 33, FIG. 4 and Col. 2 lines 60 – 68) that includes a blow molding mechanism capable of performing blow molding with respect to an intermediate molding product (see FIG. 4, Col. 2 lines 38-39); and
a movable mold (FIG. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742