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 Amendment
The Amendments filed 11/24/2025 responsive to the Office Action filed 08/27/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. New claim 17 has been added. Claims 9-16 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered. Due to the amendments, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground rejection has been made in view of Taruno (JP20200007036A).
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 1-4, 7, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taruno (JP20200007036A-Machine Translation provided herewith).
With respect to claim 1, Taruno teaches a system for detaching foldable inner bags from inner walls of associated rigid outer containers of containers (“manufacturing apparatus”), the system comprising:
co-extruders (“an extrusion device”) that form inner bags and wherein the outer containers each have an outer wall forming an outermost wall of the containers (“in the container body molding process, a molten laminated parison having a laminated structure corresponding to the container body 3 to be manufactured is extruded from an extrusion device”, Pa [0021]; “The container body 3 includes an outer shell 12 and an inner bag 14”, Pa [0012]); and
a conveyor track for upright containers, which is constituted by a horizontal, rotating first conveyor belt (“a conveying means 30”), a second conveyor belt (“belt portion 48c”) rotating in a same direction as the first conveyor belt (“The conveying means 30 is a belt conveyor, and has the function of conveying the container body 3 in the direction of arrow A… the belt portion 48c moves in the direction of arrow A by rotating at least one of the pair of support columns 48e”, Pa [0023]), wherein the second conveyor belt (“belt portion 48c”) is on a first side of the first conveyor belt, and a vertical, fixed belt (“he belt portion 49c is stationary”, Pa [0026]) is on a second side of the first conveyor belt that is opposite to the first side (Fig. 4A), wherein a distance between the second conveyor belt and the fixed belt is smaller than an outer diameter of the upright containers so that the upright containers rotate about a vertical axis when the upright containers pass between the rotating second conveyor belt and the fixed vertical belt and are laterally compressed so that the inner bags abruptly separate from the outer containers solely due to the lateral compression between the second conveyor belt and the fixed vertical belt (“The belt portions 48c and 49c press against the circumferential surface of the body portion 7.”, Pa [0024]; “the pressed surface fc is pressed uniformly in the circumferential direction by the belt portions 48c, 49c, and as a result, the inner bag 14 is peeled off uniformly in the circumferential direction from the inner surface of the outer shell 12”, Pa [0026]).
Even though Turano does not explicitly teach that the inner bag has a rough surface with microscopically small protuberances and recesses, one having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the extruded polymeric material layer inherently has a rough surface with microscopically small protuberances and recesses. Besides, it is noted that the limitation “the inner bag having… a rough surface with microscopically small protuberances and recesses” is an intended use since the apparatus taught by the prior art is capable of forming the claimed inner bag. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Furthermore, even though Turano does not explicitly teach that the outer containers each includes an at least partially open pinch seam at the base of the outer wall, in which a welded base seam of the inner bags is held, said at least partially open pinch seam having an opening extending through the outer wall of the outer container, the opening allowing air to pass through the outer wall and enter a gap between the inner bags and the outer containers, it is noted that this limitation is an intended use since the apparatus taught by the prior art is capable of using the claimed containers. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 2, Taruno as applied to claim 1 further teaches that the belt portions 48c and 49c contact the peripheral surface of the tapered portion 7A and press against the tapered portion 7A, but the belt portions 48c and 49c do not contact the position of the body portion 7 where the circularity is smallest (Pa [0024]), and the pressed surface fc is pressed uniformly in the circumferential direction by the belt portions 48c, 49c, and as a result, the inner bag 14 is peeled off uniformly in the circumferential direction from the inner surface of the outer shell 12 (Pa [0026]). One would have found it obvious to adjust the distance between the rotating second conveyor belt and the fixed belt as long as the belt portions 48c and 49c do not contact the position of the body portion 7 where the circularity is smallest in order to uniformly peel off the inner bag in the circumferential direction from the inner surface of the outer shell.
With respect to claim 3, even though Taruno as applied to claim 1 does not explicitly teach that the second conveyor belt runs at the same speed as the horizontal conveyor belt, it is noted that the limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of Taruno is capable of the claimed operation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
With respect to claim 4, Taruno as applied to claim 1 further teaches an individual drive device provided for the rotating second conveyor belt (“the belt portion 48c moves in the direction of arrow A by rotating at least one of the pair of support columns 48e, or by providing a separate drive shaft that engages with the belt portion 48c and rotating the drive shaft.”, Pa [023]).
With respect to claim 7, Taruno as applied to claim 1 further teaches that the rotating conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt run at a speed so that the upright containers rotate at least once through 360° against the second conveyor belt (“the pressed surface fc is pressed uniformly in the circumferential direction by the belt portions 48c, 49c, and as a result, the inner bag 14 is peeled off uniformly in the circumferential direction from the inner surface of the outer shell 12. “, Pa [0026] and Fig. 4A).
With respect to claim 8, Taruno as applied to claim 1 further teaches that the first conveyor belt is arranged adjacent to or below the blow mold of an associated coextrusion blowing machine (“The manufacturing method of this embodiment includes a container body molding step and a preliminary peeling step”, Pa [0020]; “a molten laminated parison having a laminated structure corresponding to the container body 3 to be manufactured is extruded from an extrusion device, and this molten laminated parison is set in a split mold for blow molding… Thereafter, the split mold is opened and the blow-molded product (corresponding to the container body 3) is taken out”, Pa [0021]; “the container body 3 moves in one direction (the direction of arrow A) while rotating. Therefore, a large number of container bodies 3 can be processed continuously, making it suitable for incorporation into a manufacturing line.”, Pa [0027]).
With respect to claim 17, Taruno as applied to claim 1 does not explicilty teach that a height of at least one of the rotating second conveyor belt and the fixed belt is adjustable. However, Taruno further teaches that the pressed surface fc of the body 7 is part or all of the circumferential surface of the tapered portion 7A, and the pressed surface fc of the body 7 is off the position of the body 7 where the circularity is smallest (Pa [0024]), and as long as the belt portions 48c, 49c are not in contact with the position of the body portion 7 where the circularity is smallest, the belt portions 48c, 49c may be in contact with the flat portion 7B (Pa [0025]). One would have found it obvious to adjust the height of at least one of the belt portions 48c, 49c in order to allow the belt portions 48c, 49c to be in contact with the tapered portion 7A and/or the flat portion 7B as long as the belt portions 48c, 49c are not in contact with the position of the body portion 7 where the circularity is smallest.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taruno (JP20200007036A-Machine Translation provided herewith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN210944771U-Machine Translation-of record).
With respect to claim 5, Taruno as applied to claim 1 above is silent to the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt consisting of fabric or rubber.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding equipment, Wang teaches that the utility model of a pressure-resistant device comprises the conveyor belt 2 being a rubber conveyor belt (Pa [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Taruno with the teachings of Wang and provide the rubber conveyor belt as the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt for the purpose of transferring, while rotating, the container body in one direction, since it has been held that Where the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)) and Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taruno (JP20200007036A-Machine Translation provided herewith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao (CN2321613Y-Machine Translation-of record).
With respect to claim 6, Taruno as applied to claim 1 above is silent to the fixed, vertical belt consisting of an aluminum alloy or steel.
In the same field of endeavor, fully automatic pre-heating blank-drawing blow-moulding formation machine, Cao teaches the machine comprises a stainless steel conveyor belt 7 (Pa [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Taruno with the teachings of Cao and provide the stainless steel conveyor belt as the fixed, vertical belt since it has been held that Where the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)) and Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742