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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamoto et al. (US Patent No. 6,649,121), and further in view of DeGroff et al. (US Patent No. 6,554,146).
Re: Claim 5, Hamamoto discloses the claimed invention of a manufacturing method for a delamination container (20) having an outer layer (20b) formed from a first resin material and a bag-shaped inner layer (20c) provided on an inner peripheral side of the outer layer and formed from a second resin material different from the first resin material (Fig. 1-3, Col. 6, lines 15-20, different materials), the manufacturing method comprising:
injection-molding an outer layer of a bottomed cylindrical preform with the first resin material by applying a first core mold, a first cavity mold (3) and a neck mold (2), as a first injection molding ( Fig. 6, Col. 8, lines 17-24, injection molding outer layer with first resin into as fires cavity core mold);
injecting a second resin material different from the first resin material, onto the inner peripheral side of the outer layer which is conveyed with its a neck portion held in the neck mold to form the inner layer by applying a second core mold (8) different from the first core mold and a second cavity mold different from the second cavity mold, as a second injection molding (Fig 8, Cool. 8, lines 24-31, second core mold); and
blow-molding, in a state of having residual heat from injection molding, the preform obtained in the second injection molding and is conveyed with its a neck portion held in the neck mold (Figs. 8-10 depict the neck held in the neck mold), to manufacture the delamination container,
wherein, the delamination container comprising:
a neck portion having an opening (20d) communicating with an inside of the inner layer (Fig. 3);
a shoulder portion continuously extending in the radial direction from the neck portion (Figs. 2-3 depict the shoulder portion extending radially from the neck);
a body portion having a bottomed cylindrical shape (depicted in Figs. 1-3); and
Hamamoto discloses the claimed invention except for a constricted portion. However, DeGroff discloses a constricted portion (18) interconnecting the shoulder portion and the body portion (12) (Depicted in Fig. 2);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective date to including a container with constricted portion as taught by DeGroff, since such a modification provides the user with enhanced gripping area, and further it has been held that the configuration of the claimed plastic container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Hamamoto in view of DeGroff is silent regarding a specific diameter of an outer shoulder edge, the specific axial length between the edge and a constricted bottom portion, and a ratio of the diameter of the bottom portion to the diameter of edge. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamamoto in view of DeGroff by causing the diameter of an outer peripheral edge of the shoulder portion is 40 mm or more and 55 mm or less, the axial length from the outer peripheral edge of the shoulder portion to a constricted bottom portion which has a smallest diameter in the constricted portion is 12 mm or more and 25 mm or less, and a ratio of the diameter of the constricted bottom portion to the diameter of the outer peripheral edge of the shoulder portion is 0.80 or more and 0.93 or less. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular ratio (see Specification wherein it is stated that design changes may be made) and it appears that the device of Hamamoto in view of DeGroff would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of dimensions.
Re: Claim 6, Hamamoto as modified by DeGroff in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention including the constricted portion includes a first curved surface portion which is connected to the shoulder portion and having a diameter decreasing toward the constricted bottom portion (DeGroff: Depicted in Fig. 1), and a second curved surface portion which is connected to the body portion and having a diameter decreasing toward the constricted bottom portion (DeGroff: Depicted in Fig. 1, and a curvature radius of the first curved surface portion is smaller than a curvature radius of the second curved surface portion (DeGroff: Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 7, Hamamoto discloses the claimed invention including a pump member that ejects contents of the inner layer by pressuring a top portion is attached to the neck portion (Col. 9, lines 47-49, pump may be attached to the neck) except for specifying an axial length being 65 mm or less from the top portion of the pump member to the outer peripheral edge of the shoulder portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamamoto to have a length between the pump top portion and should edge be 65 mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights