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
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group II (claims 5-19) in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, lines 4, 5, respectively, ‘a base container’ should read “the base container”
In claim 11, line 2, ‘a base container’ should read “the base container”
In claim 13, line 2 (two places), ‘a base container’ should read “the base container”
Claims 6-19 depending on claim 5 are objected as well.
Claims 12-19 depending on claim 11 are objected as well.
Claims 14-19 depending on claim 13 are objected as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laumer (US 2013/0040009) in view of Hahn et al. (US 2021/0163167).
Regarding claim 5, Laumer discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, a system for producing containers (ABSTRACT), wherein the containers are suitable for infusion application or for irrigation application (e.g., it is noticed that these are intended use), the system comprising:
a mold selection unit for selecting a mold for a base container comprising at least one opening from a group of molds (e.g., items 46, 47, 48 in Fig. 1 ([0129], [0130], [0131]); it is noticed that, at least in Fig. 3, the bottom portion of the mold will provide a negative shape to the container(s) 6) consisting of molds for a base container (item 6, Fig. 1 ([0093])) for infusion application and molds for a base container for irrigation application (i.e., intended use);
a blow molding unit for blow molding the base container in the mold (items 2, 23, Fig. 1 or 2 ([0089], [0107]));
a transporting unit comprising the holder for the base container (items 32, 33, 34, 67, 73, Fig. 2 ([0116], [0117], [0118], [0148], [0153]); it is noticed that, at least in the third transfer wheel 34, the base container(s) 6 are held being transferred to the next stop);
a positioning unit for positioning the base container in the holder on the transporting unit (e.g., when the base container(s) are held in the third transfer wheel 34, at least the base container(s) will be in a right position for the next filling process);
a filling unit for filling the base container with a liquid (item 8, Fig. 2 ([0095])); and
a closing unit for closing the base container in the holder on the transporting unit (items 70, 70A, Fig. 2 ([0149], [0150])).
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Note: In re Pearson 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush 177 USPQ 705, 706 In re Otto et al 136 USPQ 458.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include infusion application or for irrigation application in the system of Laumer thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the base containers will be applied to the desired application(s).
However, Laumer does not explicitly disclose that, the holder selection unit for selecting a holder for the base container from a group of holders according to a volume of a negative shape of the mold.
In the same field of endeavor, processing containers, Hahn discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, plastic containers, which has at least one changeover accessentry, at which at least one of format parts (i.e., item 7 ([0050])) and tools (i.e., item 8 ([0051])) can be exchanged during changeover operation (ABSTRACT, lines 1-5). Here, the multiple format parts 7 and tools 8 can be considered as being the group of the holders.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Laumer to have the holder in the third transfer wheel as Hahn teaches that it is known to have the holder selection unit for selecting a holder for the base container from a group of holders according to a volume of a negative shape of the mold. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 6, Laumer discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2 or 3, in the beverage filling machine 8 ([0095]; including the beverage filling unit 3 ([0090])), a beverage will be prepared for filling the base container(s) 6.
Regarding claim 7, Laumer discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, the region 66 capable of being cleaned and sterilized starts immediately after the region 65 capable of being sterilized and ends after the application of closures (i.e., caps) to the plastics material beverage bottles 6 on the closure machine 9 with a closure sterilization unit 70 for closures 70A ([0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Laumer does not explicitly disclose that, the holder selection unit for selecting a holder for the base container from a group of holders according to a volume of a negative shape of the mold and each holder from the group of holders comprises a footprint for being attached to the transporting unit, wherein the footprints of all holders of the group of holders are identical.
Hahn discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, plastic containers, which have at least one changeover accessentry, at which at least one of format parts (i.e., item 7 ([0050])) and tools (i.e., item 8 ([0051])) can be exchanged during changeover operation (ABSTRACT, lines 1-5). As illustrated in Fig. 1, a carrying frame 15 is indicated by the dotted lines. Format parts 7 and tools 8 are arranged on the carrying frame 15 for the changeover of the container-processing apparatus ([0038]). It is noticed that, the footprint(s) of the multiple format parts 7 and tools 8 in the carrying frame 15 (i.e., the transporting unit) are identical.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Laumer to have the holder in the third transfer wheel as Hahn teaches that it is known to have the holder selection unit for selecting a holder for the base container from a group of holders and a footprint for being attached to the transporting unit, wherein the footprints of all holders of the group of holders are identical. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 9, Laumer does not explicitly disclose that, each holder is formed to achieve the same distance between the footprint and the at least one opening of the base container when the base container corresponding to the respective holder is inserted in the holder.
Hahn discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, plastic containers, which has at least one changeover accessentry, at which at least one of format parts (i.e., item 7 ([0050])) and tools (i.e., item 8 ([0051])) can be exchanged during changeover operation (ABSTRACT, lines 1-5). As illustrated in Fig. 1, a carrying frame 15 is indicated by the dotted lines. Format parts 7 and tools 8 are arranged on the carrying frame 15 for the changeover of the container-processing apparatus ([0038]). It is noticed that, there is a distance between the footprint(s) and the at least one opening of the base container. However, Hahn does not explicitly disclose the same distance is achieved for each holder.
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Note: In re Pearson 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush 177 USPQ 705, 706 In re Otto et al 136 USPQ 458.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Laumer to have the holder in the third transfer wheel as Hahn teaches that it is known to have the holder selection unit for selecting a holder for the base container from a group of holders and each holder is formed to achieve the same distance between the footprint and the at least one opening of the base container when the base container corresponding to the respective holder is inserted in the holder. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Laumer (US 2013/0040009) and Hahn et al. (US 2021/0163167) as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Hasen (US 7,192,549).
Regarding claims 10, 11, the combination does not explicitly disclose that, each of the molds of the group of molds comprises a bottom plate, a body part, a shoulder part, a neck insert, a neck part, and a cutting plate.
In the same field of endeavor, blowing moulding, Hasen discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 5, a dispensing container in the dorm of an ampule whose wall (i.e., having a negative shape) is made by the molding device having a bottom plate (i.e., the bottom portion of the primary mold section jaws 8), a body part (i.e., the middle portion of the primary mold section jaws 8), a shoulder part (i.e., the upper portion of the primary mold section jaws 8) , a neck insert (i.e., item 3), a neck part (i.e., item 10), and a cutting plate (i.e., items 14, 16) (col. 3, lines 11-37 and lines 39-60).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Hasen teaches that it is known to have each of the molds of the group of molds comprises a bottom plate, a body part, a shoulder part, a neck insert, a neck part, and a cutting plate. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Laumer (US 2013/0040009) and Hahn et al. (US 2021/0163167) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Nakamura (US2021/0204761).
Regarding claim 12, the combination does not explicitly disclose the bottom part of the negative shape of the base container has an oval shape.
In the same field of endeavor, portable container, Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, in the portable bidet 10A, a tank portion 20A (i.e., the bottom portion) is formed to have a hollow oval spherical interior([0076]). Thus, Nakamura discloses that, the bottom part of the negative shape of the base container has an oval shape, wherein the oval shape is a shape selected from the group consisting of an ellipsoid, a rectangle with quadrant corners, and a stadium.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Nakamura teaches that it is known to have the bottom part of the negative shape of the base container has an oval shape, wherein the oval shape is a shape selected from the group consisting of an ellipsoid, a rectangle with quadrant corners, and a stadium. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 13, the combination does not explicitly disclose the detailed structures of the base container(s).
Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, the body part of base container of the negative shape of a base container of each of the molds for a base container for irrigation of the group of molds comprises:
a lower body part that is cylindrical or conical (item 20A, Fig. 7(a) or 7(b) (i.e., the tapered part, at least, can be considered as conical lower body part (2))), the lower body part comprising a lower bottom area and a lower top area (i.e., the tapered part comprising a lower bottom area (3) and a lower top area (4));
a first transition part (as shown in Fig. 7(b) (i.e., the first transition part as being conical (lower)));
a middle body part that is cylindrical or conical (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7(b), at least a small portion of the middle body part is cylindrical), the middle body part comprising a middle bottom area and middle top area (as shown in Fig. 7(b)); and
a second transition part (as shown in Fig. 7(b) (i.e., the second transition part as being conical (upper))),
wherein the bottom part is fluidly connected with the lower body part via the lower bottom area, the first transition part is fluidly connected with the lower body part via the lower top area, the first transition part is fluidly connected with the middle body part via the middle bottom area, the second transition part is fluidly connected with the middle body part via the middle top area, and the second transition part is fluidly connected with the upper body part via an upper bottom area (as shown in Fig. 7(b)),
wherein the lower bottom area, the lower top area, the middle bottom area, the middle top area, and the upper bottom area have an oval shape, wherein the oval shape is a shape selected from the group consisting of an ellipsoid, a rectangle with quadrant corners, and a stadium (i.e., Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, in the portable bidet 10A, a tank portion 20A (i.e., the bottom portion) is formed to have a hollow oval spherical interior([0076])), and
wherein a surface area of the middle bottom area is smaller than a surface area of the lower top area, and wherein a surface area of the middle top area is smaller than a surface area of the upper bottom area (as shown in Fig. 7(b)).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Nakamura teaches that it is known to have the detailed elements of the body of the base container. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 14, the combination does not explicitly disclose the detailed structures of the base container(s).
Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, the shape of the lower body part, the middle body part, and/or the upper body part is cylindrical or conical (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7(b)).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Nakamura teaches that it is known to have the shape of the lower body part, the middle body part, and/or the upper body part is cylindrical or conical. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 15, the combination does not explicitly disclose the detailed structures of the base container(s).
Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, the shape of the middle body part is cylindrical (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7(b), at least a small portion of the middle body part is cylindrical).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Nakamura teaches that it is known to have the shape of the middle body part is cylindrical. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 16, the combination does not explicitly disclose the detailed structures of the base container(s).
Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, the shape of the lower body part and/or the upper body part is cylindrical (e.g., as shown in Fig. 9(b)).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Nakamura teaches that it is known to have the shape of the lower body part and/or the upper body part is cylindrical. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 17, the combination does not explicitly disclose the detailed structures of the base container(s).
Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, the lower bottom area, the lower top area, and the upper bottom area have the same shape (e.g., as shown in Fig. 8(b)).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Nakamura teaches that it is known to have the lower bottom area, the lower top area, and the upper bottom area have the same shape. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 18, the combination does not explicitly disclose the detailed structures of the base container(s).
Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, main axes of the lower top area and the middle bottom area are parallel (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7(b)).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Nakamura teaches that it is known to have main axes of the lower top area and the middle bottom area are parallel. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 19, the combination does not explicitly disclose the detailed structures of the base container(s).
Nakamura discloses that, as illustrated from Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, main axes of the upper bottom area and the middle bottom area are parallel (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7(b)).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the mold for making the container as Nakamura teaches that it is known to have main axes of the upper bottom area and the middle bottom area are parallel. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 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, Alison L 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights