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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 should read “the shaft protrusion molding cavity” in the clause beginning “a sliding jig installed…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/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 limitation "the material filled in the shaft protrusion molding cavity" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claims 2 and 3 include the same limitation.
The term “close” (configured to move “close to”) in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation renders the claim unclear as to the required movement capability of the pair of mold units.
Claims 2 and 3 each recite “the blow molding jig of claim 1” in the preamble. The limitation is unclear as to whether it is intended to refer to “the blow molding device” of claim 1, to the sliding “jig” of claim 1, or something else. For further examination, the limitation is interpreted to refer to the device of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the material of the main body" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "and the first height of the protrusion reduced by the injection of the molding air can become a second height lower than the first height" in the last two lines. The limitation is vague and unclear in terms of its intended meaning and corresponding effect on the claim scope. The limitation is unclear as to if/when a first height is required to be reduced by injection of the molding air as a result of the control configuration (if so, the corresponding step is not positively recited), or if only a capability of the structures to perform this function is required, or something else. The limitation is additionally confusing in reciting that “the first height…can become a second height” that is lower/different (e.g., is a height change of the protrusion required? How can a height, i.e., a numerical value, become a different height?).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Renaud et al., US 20130032516 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Renaud discloses a blow molding device (system 4000, Figs. 7-12, [0086]) for molding a molded article (extruded parison 4110, Figs. 8-9) comprising a cylindrical main body (body 4340, Fig. 9) and a shaft protrusion protruding and extending from the main body along an axis direction (protrusion at top end of parison, Fig. 9), the blow molding device comprising:
A pair of mold units (molders 4220, 4230, Fig. 7, [0087]) configured to move close to and away from each other in a transverse direction (Figs. 7-12, movable along x-axis direction, [0089]) with respect to a material supplied downwardly (with respect to material supplied downwardly from extrusion head 4100, Figs. 7-12), and coupled to each other (Figs. 9-11) to form a main body molding cavity (housing formation area of molding cavity 4300 below transition points 4270 and 4280, Figs. 9-11) and a shaft protrusion molding cavity (base formation area of molding cavity 4300 above transition points 4270 and 4280, Figs. 9-11) for respectively molding the main body and the shaft protrusion (Figs. 9-11);
A mold unit actuator (press 4500, Figs. 7-12) configured to drive the mold units to move close to and away from each other (press 4500, Figs. 7-12, [0089], [0095]);
A blower (blow pin 4700, Figs. 7-12) configured to inject molding air into the main body molding cavity (Figs. 10-11, [0091]);
A sliding jig (base formation molders 4250, 4260, Figs. 7-12) installed to slide in the axis direction (Figs. 7-12, along y-axis direction, [0090]) through an opening communicating with the shaft protruding [protrusion] molding cavity of the mold unit (Figs. 7-12), and comprising a pressing surface on one end thereof (bottom surface, Figs. 7-12); and
A jig actuator configured to drive the sliding jig (press 4600, Figs. 7-12, [0090]) so that the pressing surface of the sliding jig can press downwardly the material filled in the shaft protrusion molding cavity (Figs. 10-11, [0094]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud et al., US 20130032516 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Voth et al., US 20100156009 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Renaud discloses the blow molding jig [device] of claim 1, wherein the mold unit actuator, the blower, and the jig actuator are configured and operated so that the sliding jig can press downwardly the material filled in the shaft protrusion molding cavity (Fig. 10) and additionally press downwardly the downwardly pressed material after the injection of the molding air (Fig. 11).
Renaud discloses the mold structures being capable of and used to perform the operations as set forth above but is silent as to a controller configured to control the structures to do so.
In the analogous art, Voth discloses a blow molding device for molding plastic containers (Abstract) including a controller (controller/control unit, [0046]-[0050], [0071]) for controlling the molding operations of the structural components of the device, such as drive units for moving mold parts and a gas supply ([0046]-[0050]). Voth teaches that controllability enables a higher adaptability of the system to be achieved ([0026]), that different process parameters can be stored in a memory of the control unit for controlling the device to make different products ([0050]), and all of the operations of a blow molding process can be consistently controlled ([0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Renaud to include a controller configured to control the mold unit actuator, the blower, and the jig actuator to perform the molding operations disclosed by Renaud in order to provide a device with higher adaptability, to facilitate conversion to making products with different processing parameters, and for consistent control over the blow molding process as taught by Voth.
Regarding claim 3, Renaud discloses the blow molding jig [device] of claim 1, wherein the mold unit actuator, the blower, and the jig actuator are configured and operated so that the sliding jig can press downwardly the material filled in the shaft protrusion molding cavity to form a protrusion protruding inwardly (Fig. 10, protrusion at top center of parison protruding inwardly) to a predetermined first height along the axis direction into a region of the material of the main body corresponding to the shaft protrusion (Fig. 10, to a first height corresponding to the movement of the sliding jig into an interior of the parison), and the first height of the protrusion reduced by the injection of the molding air can become a second height lower than the first height (Figs. 10-11, the height can be reduced by injected air and the corresponding conforming of the preform to the mold as measured in terms of its protrusion distance into the interior of the molded part).
Renaud discloses the mold structures being capable of and used to perform the operations as set forth above but is silent as to a controller configured to control the structures to do so.
In the analogous art, Voth discloses a blow molding device for molding plastic containers (Abstract) including a controller (controller/control unit, [0046]-[0050], [0071]) for controlling the molding operations of the structural components of the device, such as drive units for moving mold parts and a gas supply ([0046]-[0050]). Voth teaches that controllability enables a higher adaptability of the system to be achieved ([0026]), that different process parameters can be stored in a memory of the control unit for controlling the device to make different products ([0050]), and all of the operations of a blow molding process can be consistently controlled ([0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Renaud to include a controller configured to control the mold unit actuator, the blower, and the jig actuator to perform the operations disclosed by Renaud in order to provide a device with higher adaptability, to facilitate conversion to making products with different processing parameters, and for consistent control over the blow molding process as taught by Voth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4170622 A, Uhlig discloses a relevant blow molding configuration including forming internal ribs in a blown container via sliding jigs and air pressure (Figs. 6-9).
US 20200307850 A1, Melrose et al. disclose a relevant blow molding device including a sliding jig (Figs. 12A-12C).
JP 2780367 B2, Ishikawa et al. disclose a relevant blow molding device including a sliding jig (Figs. 1-5).
US 20190337218 A1, Kawamura et al. disclose a configuration for blow molding a preform having a protrusion in a corresponding cavity and pressing the protrusion inward (Figs. 8-9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights