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
The applicant is thanked for the correction to the specification submitted on 7/24/2025 with respect to the obvious errors generated during processing. The corrections will greatly aid clarity of the record.
Drawings
The applicant is thanked for the submission of drawings submitted on 7/24/2025 with respect to the application. Further drawing/specification clarifications may be required based on the submissions of 7/24/2025 based on the clarification of the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, at least for the reasons that follow:
With respect to Drawing Objections: Drawing objections for the initial Office Action dated 4/25/2025 have been withdrawn.
With respect to Specification Objections: Specification objections for the initial Office Action dated 4/25/2025 have been withdrawn.
Clarification of patentable differences with applicant’s Prior Art as shown in Riethmueller’s Patent Application (US 20120055832 – Hereafter referred to as Riethmueller’s Prior Art) and compared with the instant application in the Examiner’s Clarifying Diagram included below:
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Clarifying Diagram
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The arguments with respect to the terms “the first adhesive force value” and “second adhesive force value” are not persuasive. , IT SHOULD BE NOTED that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Bi-directional adhesive values administered by an undefined strength test.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (NOTE: The claim only recites a force differential between two unclear and difficult to resolve force vectors that are not shown in the drawings.). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections are maintained.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The method for determining the limitation “first adhesive force value” and the limitation “second adhesive force value” are not defined in a quantitative manner. The applicant is thanked for the website (https://seal-bond.com/news/shear-strength-vs-tensile-strength), where the considerations and resolution of packaging forces are highlighted as design considerations for one of ordinary skill in the packaging arts.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive and are responded to as follows:
With respect to Messerschmid’s suitability for modifying the Miyashita (Second Paragraph, Page 13 of Response.), the applicant stated that “…Messerschmid...would not improve the stacking/unstacking performance of the cup…” with respect to the holding means (7 and 8). The examiner disagrees with the applicant – pointing out that the features Out Sleeve 17 features of a rolled edge – Curled Part – 20 and the interaction with the dimensions of the sleeve in Figures 4 and 5 are described in paragraph 0080 in the rejection. Paragraph 0062 of Messerschmid teaches the stacking advantages of the sleeved arrangement where the “…Sliding of the outer sleeve – 17 onto the sleeve – 2 is simplified as a result of the area 23 extending parallel to the outer sleeve, as the outer sleeve – 17 can no longer get stuck on the bottom skirt – 4.”
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant’s argument against the use of Messerschmid as a modifying reference is unpersuasive and the rejection is restated below.
With respect to Miyashita’s teaching away from the invention claimed (Third Paragraph, Page 13 of Response), the applicant states that Miyshita teaches a single, thin layer at the bottom edge – 112. The examiner disagrees, pointing out that the problem being solved by both Miyashita and Messerschmid relies on the interaction of the bottom supporting surface of the sleeve - 112 interacting with the shoulder (Annotated Diagram A, Item D). The examiner modified the interaction of the sleeve with the shoulder because both structures are known in the prior art. The Miyashita structure of an interference fit between the shoulder (D) and the Sleeve (11) is taught in the previous art. Miyashita moves the overlapping sleeve interference fit from the structure along the bottom of the sleeve removing the tolerancing issue of the entire thickness of the sleeve at the interference fit at the shoulder (D). NOTE THAT: Per Miyashita (Paragraph 0044-45) “…the exterior body – 1 according to the present invention has a single layer portion – 16 in which the bottom edge side edge of the sheet member side end – S1 overlapped in the inner direction is missing in overlapping portion 15. The edge on the bottom side of the overlap portion – 15 becomes a single layer…” transitioning to paragraph 0045 “The size and shape of the single layer portion – 16 are not particularly limited as long as the effects of the present invention are not impaired, and can be freely designed according to the form of the container used, the size and shape of the locking means.” This is interpreted to mean that an acceptable inner diameter for ease of mounting the sleeve’s – 11 bottom edge – 112 is a function of both the bottom edge – 112 and the locking means – 211. Therefore – Miyashita appears to teach that accounting for the interaction of the bottom edge – 112 with the locking means – 211 is within the range of options taught by Miyashita.
Again, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem (Shoulders of inner containers supporting outer sleeves) with which the inventor was concerned (Degree of support from the shoulder to the sleeve), in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both inventions in Miyshita and Messerschmidt are concerned with the degree of interaction between the Supporting Shoulder of the inner container with the Outer Sleeve structures.
The applicant’s argument against the use of Miyashita as a primary reference is unpersuasive and the rejection is sustained.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “…additional support device…with a clear inner dimension…” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). IN THIS CASE: the support device is broadly claimed and does not contain the details from Page 14, First Paragraph where “…additional support that achieves an improved latching effect on the inner container…(resulting in) a container that compensated for manufacturing inaccuracies and without the adhesive point required for securing purposes.” (NOTE: the above items show the level of structure and results required to overcome the prior art cited.) Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification (Paragraphs 0016 and 0029) are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Because (A) the Inventor has not provided direction (for example, with respect to “the first adhesive force value” and “second adhesive force value”),
(B) no working examples have been disclosed, to show or describe how the adhesive force values are derived (what process, test or specific adhesive/material combination) and…
(C) the breadth of the claims(Claims 22), undue experimentation would be required for a person of ordinary skill in the art, in order to make or use the invention.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Reviewing the specification with part numbers annotated, dated 8/24/2023 (Specifically Pages 18-19 of the specification), the examiner notes that the adhesive forces are not numbered but seem to be a part of a recycling processing capability for the combination container. This limitation will be interpreted as “the separation force of the two end portions (14-15) in a crushing (inward) direction is greater than the separation force of a peeling (outward) direction. (See Specification, Lines 6-16.)
In response to a potential argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Bi-directional adhesive values administered by an undefined strength test.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (NOTE: The claim only recites a force differential between two unclear and difficult to resolve force vectors that are not shown in the drawings.). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim(s) 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (JP 2011025958 – hereafter referred to as Miyashita) in view of Messerschmid et al. (US 20110281704 – hereafter referred to as Messerschmid). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for Miyashita follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
728
1116
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram A for Miyashita
In regards to Claim 16, Miyashita teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10), comprising: a cup-shaped inner container (Container - 20) including: a container jacket (Sidewall - 21); a bottom (Bottom – 22); a flange (Annotated Diagram A, Item B); an undercut (Annotated Diagram A, Item C) disposed in a bottom region (Between Undercut – C and Bottom – 22 on Annotated Diagram A) of the container jacket (21); and at least one of a shoulder (Annotated Diagram A, Item D – Shoulder) and a bead projecting (Both Shoulder and Bead structures perform the same function) on a side facing away from a longitudinal axis (Annotated Diagram A, Item E) in an immediate transition region (Annotated Diagram A, Item F) between the bottom (22) and the container jacket (21); a sleeve-shaped outer part (Exterior Main Body – 11) at least partially surrounding the inner container (20) on the container jacket (21) (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 11 where the sleeve – 11 surrounds the container jacket – 21); the outer part (11) formed from a blank cut (See Paragraph 0024 where the exterior part – 11 is formed from a blank, and see Annotated Diagram A, Figure 8), the blank cut wound into a jacket in a raised state with a first end portion (First End Portion – S1) of the jacket and a second end portion (Second End Portion – S2) of the jacket facing the first end portion connected to one another in an overlapping region (Overlapping portion – 15); the outer part (11) having a first end face (112) and a second end face (113) disposed spaced apart from one another (Annotated Diagram A, Figure 8) and, in the raised state, defining a structural height of the jacket (Delineated by Annotated Diagram A, Figure 11, where part 11 runs along the side of the wall – 21) with the longitudinal axis (E) extending in a direction of the structural height (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 11 where the outer part – 11 runs alongside the inner container – 20 along the longitudinal axis-E); the first end face (112) defining a support region (On Shoulder D) at least in sections (See 211 – where the support regions are sectionalized); the first end face (112) facing the bottom (22) and the second end face (113) facing an open end (Opening – 23) of the inner container (20); the outer part (10) configured such that the outer part (10), with the first end face (112) facing the bottom (22) of the inner container (20), is supportable via the inner container (20) in the shoulder (D) configured in the transition region (Between Annotated Diagram A, Items C and D); (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {an additional support device disposed on the outer part, the additional support device at least one of arranged and formed in a region of the first end face of the outer part; and wherein the additional support device defines a clear inner dimension, which is smaller than an internal dimension of the outer part in an undeformed configuration in the region of the first end face.}
Miyashita does not explicitly teach an additional support device on the outer part.
Messerschmid – in a similar disclosure on sleeved, insulated containers – does teach the missing analogous structures. See Annotated Diagram B for Messerschmid that follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
502
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram B for Messerschmid
Messerschmid teaches a sleeved composite cup wherein an additional support device (Messerschmid, Curled Part – 20) disposed on the outer part (Outer Sleeve – 17), the additional support device (20) at least one of arranged and formed in a region of the previously taught first end face of the outer part (17); and wherein the additional support device (20) defines a clear inner dimension (V element of Figure 5 of Annotated Diagram B, described as a dimension that is smaller than the analogous outer part of the region of the first end face – See Paragraph 0080 where this limitation is described), which is smaller than an internal dimension of the outer part (17) in an undeformed configuration (See Figure 4 where V is Smaller than Y – allowing the outer sleeve – 17 to be slid over the protruding bottom skirt – 4) in the region of the previously taught first end face (112 for Miyashita – or 4 – bottom skirt for Messerschmid) (MOTIVATION: Improving the stacking and unstacking performance of the cup assemblies by use of the lower region contour to prevent wedging – Paragraph 0023.).
Messerschmid also teaches:
A support element (20) with a clear (read as smaller) inner dimension (See Annotated Diagram B, Figure 10, Item 20 and Items 41 where “…Figure 10, a knurl or a ribbing is indicated on the inner side of the rolled part 20.) (Per Instant Application - Specification, Page 17, Lines 7-10 where “…the at least one supporting element defines the clear inner dimension, which is smaller than the internal dimension of the outer part (sleeve).).
A support element (20) with at least one support element (20) is molded into a material (Paragraph 0007, Paper) of the blank cut starting from an outer surface of the outer part (17) in a direction of an inner surface (Ribbing is shown on Figure 10 as being on the inner surface) and projects in a radial direction (away from centerline of cup) beyond an undeformed inner surface in a direction of the longitudinal axis (See Figure 5 of Messerschmid – where the support element outer surface goes beyond the undeformed inner surface of the support element – 20 based on the geometry of the support assembly and the vertical inclination of the sleeve.).
A support element is molded into a material of the blank cut starting from an outer surface of the outer part in a direction of an inner surface and projects in a radial direction beyond an undeformed inner surface in a direction of the longitudinal axis (Note – per Figure 10, the ribs seem to extend further than the support element – 20 – meeting this limitation.) .
A support element (20) includes a plurality of support elements (41); and the plurality of support elements (41) are arranged spaced apart from one another (See Figure 10, Annotated Diagram B where this limitation is met.) along the first end face in a circumferential direction (The first circumferential direction being the lower circumference traced by the plurality of support elements – 41 and Paragraph 0080.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the Sleeve structure of Miyashita, providing the rolled or curled end structure taught by Messerschmid (Curled part – Lower – 20, Curled Part – Upper – 19, Support element – 20 and plurality of support elements – 41, and configured where the inner and outer diameters and circumferences ensure that the surfaces provide support for the outer sleeve and spaced support ribs – 41 as shown in Figure 10 and described in Paragraph 0080), motivated by the benefit of Improving the stacking and unstacking performance of the cup assemblies by use of the lower region contour to prevent wedging – Paragraph 0023. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods (edge treatments to facilitate stacking) to yield predictable results (Improved stacking and unstacking performance) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 17, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10): wherein the additional support device (Messerschmid - 20) includes at least one support element (Surface of 20 contacting the cup.); and the at least one support element (Surface of 20 that contacts the cup) defines the clear inner dimension (See Annotated Diagram B, Figure 10, Item 20 and Items 41 where “…Figure 10, a knurl or a ribbing is indicated on the inner side of the rolled part 20.) (Per Instant Application - Specification, Page 17, Lines 7-10 where “…the at least one supporting element defines the clear inner dimension, which is smaller than the internal dimension of the outer part (sleeve).) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 18, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10), wherein the at least one support element (Messerschmid - Surface of 20 contacting the surface of the cup) is molded into a material (Material -Paper – per Paragraph 0007 of Messerschmid) of the previously taught blank cut starting from an outer surface (Outer surface of 17) of the outer part (17) in a direction of an inner surface (Inner surface of 17) and projects in a radial direction beyond an undeformed inner surface (Annotated Diagram B, FIGURE 10, Item V) in a direction of the longitudinal axis (Annotated Diagram B, Figure 10, Item U) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 19, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10). wherein the at least one support element (Messerschmid – 20) has a longitudinal extension (Area extending parallel to the outer sleeve – 23) starting from the previously taught first end face (Miyashita - 112) and extending in a direction of the second end face (Miyashita - 114) (See Annotated Diagram B, Figures 4-5 and 9-10 where this is true, described in paragraph 0063 of Messerschmid.) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 20, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein: the at least one support element (20) includes a plurality of support elements (41); and the plurality of support elements (41) are arranged spaced apart from one another along the previously taught first end face (Miyashita - 112) in a circumferential direction (See Annotated Diagram B, Figure 10 and Paragraph 0080.) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 26, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10): further comprising an adhesive (Paragraph 0040 describes the side ends – S1 and S2 are bonded – which is adhered) disposed in the overlapping region (Shown in Figure 8, bottom figure – where the S1 and S2 areas are overlapped when the blank is formed into an insulating sleeve.) between the first end portion (S1) and the second end portion (S2), wherein: the adhesive has a first adhesive force value in a circumferential direction and has a second adhesive force value in a radial direction; and the first adhesive force value is greater than the second adhesive force value (See 112 (a) and 112 (b) rejections with respect to the undefined character of the “force values” as described in the limitations above.).
Per MPEP 707.07 (f), paragraph 7.37.09; in response to applicant's argument that “a first adhesive force” and “a second adhesive force” are structurally significant, THE EXAMINER NOTES THAT a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (IN THIS CASE – the jacket (11) will withstand the compressive forces of the sleeved container when stacked, but capable of peeling the sleeve away from cup assembly when removing the sleeve (11).).
In regards to Claim 27, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container – 10) wherein: at least one target separation region (First Break Line – 12) is at least one of formed and provided in the jacket (First Break Line - 112) of the outer part (11).
In regards to Claim 28, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein: the outer part (11) is supported in an axial direction (Support Force from D in the Longitudinal Axis – E) on the shoulder (D) of the inner container (21) via the additional support device (From Messerschmid modification – 20) without an additional adhesive (See Translation - Paragraph 0056 where the locking means – 211 – secures the outer package -1 to the bottom inner package – 22).
SEPARATE INDEPENDENT CLAIM SET:
In regards to Claim 29, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) comprising: a cup-shaped inner container (20) including: a container jacket (21); a bottom (22); a flange (Annotated Diagram A, Item B); an undercut (Annotated Diagram A, Item C) disposed in a bottom region (Between Undercut -C and Bottom – 22) of the container jacket (21); and a shoulder (Annotated Diagram A, Item D – Shoulder) disposed in an immediate transition region (Annotated Diagram A, Item F) between the bottom (22) and the container jacket (21), the shoulder (D) projecting away from a longitudinal axis (Annotated Diagram A, Item E) of the inner container (20) (See Annotated Diagram A, Item E on Figure 11 – where this is true); a sleeve-shaped outer part (11) at least partially surrounding the inner container (20) at least in a region of the container jacket (21); the outer part (11) formed from a blank cut (See Paragraph 0024, where the exterior part-11 is formed from a land and see Annotated diagram A, Figure 8 that shows the blank cut.), which, when in a raised state (See Figure 11 where the cut is in the raised (Read as assembled) state), is wound into a jacket (21) having a first end portion (S1) and a second end portion (S2) connected to one another in an overlapping region (Overlapping Portion – 15); the outer part (11) having a first end face (112) and a second end face (113) disposed spaced apart from one another (Annotated Diagram A, Figure 8 shows the faces are apart.) and, when in the raised state (Assembled State – Figure 11), defining a structural height (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 11, where the outer part -11 runs alongside the inner container – 20 along longitudinal axis – E) of the jacket (21) that extends in a direction of the longitudinal axis (E); the first end face (112) facing the bottom (22) of the inner container (20) and defining a support region (Annotated Diagram A - On Shoulder- D) at least in sections (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 12 where the support shoulders are shown as discreet protrusions – 211); the second end face (113) facing an open end (23) of the inner container (20); (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {an additional support device disposed on the outer part in a region of the first end face; wherein the first end face of the outer part is disposed on the shoulder of the inner container such that the inner container supports the outer part; and wherein the additional support device defines a clear inner dimension that is smaller than an internal dimension of the outer part in the region of the first end face when the outer part is in an undeformed configuration.}
Miyashita does not explicitly teach an additional support device on the outer part.
Messerschmid – in a similar disclosure on sleeved, insulated containers – teaches a sleeved composite cup further comprising: an additional support device (Messerschmid – Curled Part – 20) disposed on the outer part (Outer Sleeve – 17) in a region of the previously taught first end face (On the outer part – 17, Annotated Diagram B, Item B); wherein the first end face (B) of the outer part (17) is disposed on the shoulder (Annotated Diagram C, Item C) of the inner container such that the inner container supports the outer part (See Annotated Diagram B, Figures 4 and 5 where this limitation is met.); and wherein the additional support device (20) defines a clear inner dimension (V) that is smaller than an internal dimension of the outer part (17) in the region of the first end face (B) when the outer part (17) is in an undeformed configuration (READ AS: when assembled and in static state as an assembly.) (MOTIVATION: Improving the stacking and unstacking performance of the cup assemblies by use of the lower region contour to prevent wedging – Paragraph 0023.).
Messerschmid also teaches:
A support element (20) is molded into a material of the blank cut starting from an outer surface of the outer part in a direction of an inner surface and projects in a radial direction beyond an undeformed inner surface in a direction of the longitudinal axis (Note – per Figure 10, the ribs seem to extend further than the support element – 20 – meeting this limitation.) .
A support element (20) includes a plurality of support elements (41); and the plurality of support elements (41) are arranged spaced apart from one another (See Figure 10, Annotated Diagram B where this limitation is met.) along the first end face in a circumferential direction (The first circumferential direction being the lower circumference traced by the plurality of support elements – 41 and Paragraph 0080.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the Sleeve structure of Miyashita, providing the rolled or curled end structure taught by Messerschmid (Curled part – Lower – 20, Curled Part – Upper – 19, Support element – 20 and plurality of support elements – 41, and configured where the inner and outer diameters and circumferences ensure that the surfaces provide support for the outer sleeve and spaced support ribs – 41 as shown in Figure 10 and described in Paragraph 0080), motivated by the benefit of Improving the stacking and unstacking performance of the cup assemblies by use of the lower region contour to prevent wedging – Paragraph 0023. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods (edge treatments to facilitate stacking) to yield predictable results (Improved stacking and unstacking performance) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 30, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein the additional support device (20) includes at least one support element (41) projecting radially inwardly from an inner surface of the outer part (17)(See Annotated Diagram B, Figures 9-10 where the support device – 20 projects radially inwardly.) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 31, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein the at least one support element (20) is integrally molded (Product by Process – see below.) with the outer part (17) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
However, pursuant of MPEP 2113.1, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The Support Element - 20 disclosed by Messerschmid anticipates the claimed “integrally molded” support element structure, and is formed through a process, (See Messerschmid, Paragraph 0079-0080 – where the support element is formed through deformation of the blank), and as such meets the limitation that a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim.
In regards to Claim 32, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein the at least one support element (20) extends longitudinally (Annotated Diagram A, Axis E) from the first end face (112) toward the second end face (113) (See Annotated Diagram A, Figures 4-5 and Figures 9-10 show the curl is folded from the first face – 112 towards the second face – 113) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 33, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein: the at least one support element (20) includes a plurality of support elements (41); and relative to the longitudinal axis (Vertical Axis in Figures 4-5), the plurality of support elements (41) are arranged spaced apart from one another in a circumferential direction (See Annotated Diagram B, Figure 10 and Paragraph 0080 where the ribbing is constructed to allow the fitting of the sleeve over the container shoulder (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 34, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein the plurality of support elements (41) define the clear inner dimension (See Annotated Diagram B, the comparison of dimension V to Dimension U in Figure 10) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 35, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein the outer part (17) is supported on the shoulder (Bottom Skirt – 4 of Figure 4) of the inner container in an axial direction via without an adhesive (See Paragraph 0080 where the inner container at the bottom skirt supports the rolled part – 20 – And See Figure 5 of Annotated Diagram B) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
Claim(s) 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita in view of Messerschmid et al. (US 20110281704 – hereafter referred to as Messerschmid) and in further view of Tokunaga (US 6068182 – hereafter referred to as Tokunaga). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram C for Tokunaga follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
770
1140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram C
In regards to Claim 21, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein: the additional support device (Messerschmid - 20) includes at least one forming portion (Rolled Part – 40); the at least one forming portion (40) is molded into a material of the blank cut (Outer Sleeve – 22) (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {starting from an inner surface of the outer part in a direction of an outer surface}; and the at least one forming portion (40) is arranged at a distance from the first end face (The structure of 40 has an end point that is away from the end face – see Diagram B, Figures 9-10 where this is true.)(See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
Miyashita – as previously modified by Messerschmid – does not explicitly teach a deformation from the inner surface towards to outer surface.
However, Tokunaga – in a similar disclosure on insulating sleeves – does teach the claimed supporting structure configurations and arrangements, including: starting from an inner surface of the outer part in a direction of an outer surface (Note – see top curl – 3 and bottom curl – 4) have an inner surface that is moved in the direction of the outer surface by means of the curl in order to improve insulation and package strength – Column 2, Lines 24-44) (MOTIVATION: Improve rigidity of the insulating container – Column 2, Lines 37-42.).
Tokunaga also teaches:
A curled forming portion (Parts 3 and 4) wherein the at least one forming portion (4), as viewed in axial section, has a curved longitudinal extension (See Annotated Diagram C, Figure 2 where this is true) and an end portion adjoining the at least one forming portion (Bottom Curl adjoining straight sidewall of sleeve) in a direction of the first end face (Bottom) oriented to be inclined in a direction of the longitudinal axis (the Bottom Curl – 4 – is inclined with respect to the longitudinal axis per Annotated Diagram C, Figure 1).
A curled forming portion (Parts 3 and 4) wherein the at least one forming portion (Bottom Curl – 4) extends continuously in a circumferential direction along the first end face (bottom) (See Annotated Diagram C, Figure 1 where this is true.).
A curled forming portion (Parts 3 and 4) wherein the at least one forming portion (4) includes a plurality of forming portions (See Annotated Diagram C, Figure 5, where the Lower Curl – 4 is separated into four sections by Crushed or Incised portions – 7, Column 1, Lines 62-67); and the plurality of forming portions (4) are arranged spaced apart from one another along the first end face (bottom) in a circumferential direction (See Figure 5 of Annotated Diagram C where this is true.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the support device structure on the sleeve of Miyashita as modified by Messerschmid, providing the Support Device Configuration of Tokunaga (Top and Bottom Curls, 3 and 4, curved longitudinal extensions – 3 and 4 and Figures 1, 2 and 5 for different curl support structures, Crushed or Incised Portions – 7 on Figure 5 that result in a plurality of forming portions) taught by Tokunaga, motivated by the benefit of improving the rigidity of the insulating container – Column 2, Lines 37-42. Moreover, simple substitution of a known element (Different types and geometric configurations for forming support structures on insulating sleeves) for another (Curl edge, straight edge, formed or shaped or molded or crimped) with a predictable result (Create and insulated barrier with the insulation sleeve.) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
However, pursuant of MPEP 2113.1, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The support structures disclosed by Miyashita, Messerschmid and Tokunaga anticipates the claimed “formed support structure” feature as claimed, and is formed through a process, (note that the process of making the features is described in the claims – where different surfaces are formed towards other surfaces), and as such the modified insulated composite container meets the limitations claimed; so that a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim.
In regards to Claim 22, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein the at least one forming portion (Bottom Curl - 4) , as viewed in axial section (Side View), has a curved longitudinal extension (Curled configuration meets this limitation) and an end portion adjoining the at least one forming portion (Side wall joining the Bottom Curl – 4) in a direction of the first end face (Bottom) oriented to be inclined in a direction of the longitudinal axis (the Bottom Curl – 3 – is inclined with respect to the longitudinal axis per Annotated Diagram C, Figure 1) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 23, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein: the at least one forming portion (Messerschmid – 20) has a parallel longitudinal extension (See Item 20, at Figure 10 – where the inner and outer surfaces are in parallel after support portion is formed.) in relation to the first end face (112) (See Annotated Diagram B, Figures 9-10 that show the forming of the support portion – 20.).
In regards to Claim 24, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein: the at least one forming portion (Top Curl – 3 and Bottom Curl – 4) extends continuously in a circumferential direction along the previously taught first end face (At Bottom Curl – 4 and Annotated Diagram C, Figure 2) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.).
In regards to Claim 25, Miyashita – as modified above - teaches a combination packaging container (Miyashita, Composite Container - 10) wherein: the at least one forming portion (Top Curl – 3 and Bottom Curl – 4) includes a plurality of forming portions (See Annotated Diagram C, Figure 5 where the lower curl – 4 is separated into four sections by Crushed or Incised portions – 7, Column 1, lines 62-67); and the plurality of forming portions (7) are arranged spaced apart from one another along the first end face in a circumferential direction (See Figure 5 of Annotated Diagram C where this is true.) (See MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM.). .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John M. Hoppmann whose telephone number is (571)272-7344. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 571-270-5055. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN HOPPMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 01 December 2025