DETAILED ACTION
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
In response to the amendment received 11/17/2025, the following rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-8
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3
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 1-2 and 4-8 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 "along the inner wall of the stiff outer container" in the 3rd to last paragraph of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, it is noted that in the same paragraph it is later recited “from an inner wall of the stiff outer container”. The examiner suggests amending the earlier limitation of “the inner wall of the stiff outer container” to “an inner wall of the stiff outer container” and amending the latter “an inner wall of the stiff outer container” to “the inner wall of the stiff outer container” in order to fix the problem.
By virtue of their dependency from claim 1, claims 2 and 4-8 are also thereby rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20090039549A1, hereafter Kneer, in view of Published Application US20170313462A1, hereafter Taruno, further in view of Published Application US20150231790A1, hereafter Landru, and further in view of Published Application US20140271962A1, hereafter Rogaczewski.
Regarding claim 1, Kneer discloses a method of manufacturing a usable container consisting of a stiff outer container and a deformable inner bag ([0002]), the method comprising:
supplying a first thermoplastic plastic material for the stiff outer container to an extruder ([0002] parison is coextruded, implicit that materials are supplied to the extruder nozzle); supplying at least one second thermoplastic plastic material for the deformable inner bag to the extruder ([0002] parison is coextruded, implicit that materials are supplied to the extruder nozzle), which coextrudes a preform ([0002] parison is coextruded), which is arranged between the open halves of a blow mold of a blow molder ([0002] coextruded parison is arranged between opened halves of a blow mold), wherein the blow mold is closed when the preform has a length necessary for the manufacture of the container ([0002] blow mold is closed when parison has reached the length required for producing the container), wherein excess material in a base region of the container to be manufactured is squeezed out and a web is formed from material of the stiff outer container ([0002] excess material is squeezed off in the bottom area of the container to be produced and an outwardly projecting web is formed from welded material of the stiff outer container), in which the welded base seam of the deformable inner bag is clamped ([0002] the welded bottom seam of the inner pouch is clamped and held in the axial direction), and wherein the preform is inflated by a pressure medium into engagement with the wall of the blow mold ([0002] the parison is then inflated by a pressure medium for contact with the wall of the blow mold), the excess material beneath the weld seam is severed ([0002] excess material is squeezed off) and the container is removed from the blow mold ([0002] parison removed from blow mold after inflation by pressure medium);
cutting at least two diametrically opposed holes in the stiff outer container at a shoulder section ([0014] wall openings at both sides of a plane, [0015] holes are expediently opposite each other [0016] holes in shoulder region); and
exerting an increased pressure from an exterior through the holes onto the deformable inner bag to detach the deformable inner bag from the inner wall of the stiff outer container ([0010] pressure introduced into through hole to space between stiff outer container and deformable inner bag), or
producing a reduced pressure in the deformable inner bag to detach the deformable inner bag from an inner wall of the stiff outer container ([0023] internal pressure can be relieved or reduced with an increasing detachment of the inner pouch and thus accompanying volume reduction).
Kneer further discloses that the angle of incidence of the drilling tools and their position is adjustable ([0022]), and notes a problem in the prior art that air gets entrapped in the transition area of the shoulder to the main body of the stiff outer container ([0004]).
Kneer does not specifically state the opposing holes are located in a lower edge of the shoulder section.
It would however have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify Kneer to select the lower edge of the shoulder section for the holes, to enable release of air that may otherwise be entrapped in the transition area of the shoulder to the main body of the container.
Kneer is silent on using first and second screw conveyors to supply respective materials for the deformable inner bag and stiff outer container to be coextruded, inserting pins with rounded head pins vertically through the at least two diametrically opposed holes, between the deformable inner bag and the stiff outer container, along the inner wall of the stiff outer container to loosen the deformable inner bag from the inner wall of the stiff outer container.
In the analogous art of extrusion blow molding of delamination containers, Taruno discloses inserting a rounded head pin (42) ([0114] rod shaped member with a round end) through the hole (15) having equal diameter to the pin ([0114] insertion tool 42 has identical diameter to fresh air inlet 15) in the same direction and orientation in which the hole was drilled (Fig 10B, Fig 13C), between the deformable inner bag and the stiff outer container ([0114], Fig 14A-B), to loosen the deformable inner bag from the inner wall of the stiff outer container ([0113] large local separation of the inner bag 14 from the outer shell 12) for the advantage of facilitating the entire circumference delamination with the preliminarily delaminated region as a good starting point ([0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the method of Kneer to include a step of placing rod shaped members with round ends having equal diameter to the drilled holes inside the holes in the shoulder region at the same angle at which the holes were drilled as disclosed by Taruno (Fig 10B, 13C) in order to facilitate large local separation of the deformable inner bag from the stiff outer container, as suggested by Taruno ([0113]).
Modified Kneer is silent on using first and second screw conveyors to supply respective materials for the deformable inner bag and stiff outer container to be coextruded and the insertion of the pins vertically into the holes along the inner wall of the stiff outer container in the shoulder region.
In the analogous art of layer delamination with an inserted tool, Landru discloses the insertion of the delamination tool along the laminated interface of the product to be separated (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Kneer to adjust the angle of incidence, as disclosed by Kneer ([0022]), of the drilling tools to be aligned with the laminated interface of the container as suggested by Landru (Fig 2), in order to give the insertion tool, which is inserted at the same angle as the drilled hole as disclosed by Taruno (Fig 10B, 13C), access to the laminated interface between the inner bag and outer container, thereby enabling further separation of the deformable inner bag from the stiff outer container on the sides of the container that include the through holes which is further considered to be advantageous by Taruno ([0126] “preliminary delamination of the inner bag 14 from the outer shell 12 in a partial region in advance facilitates the entire circumference preliminary delamination with the preliminarily delaminated region as a good starting point”), since moving the insertion tools parallel to the length of the container would necessarily reach a larger area of the deformable inner bag-stiff outer container adhesion interface, as disclosed by Landru ([0024] separation occurs at the interface of separation where the bonding energy is lowest), allowing the delamination to proceed in a more controlled and uniform manner once pressure is introduced externally to or reduced internally in the deformable inner bag, as is disclosed by Kneer ([0010]).
Further, such a modification of the orientation of the holes drilled would have been obvious to try, since Kneer discloses the angle of incidence of the drilling tools to be adjustable, and the angles of orientation of the drilled holes are limited to a range representing the outer contour of the container’s shoulder. Since the stated goals of Kneer and Taruno are delamination of the inner bag and outer container, and since more separation of the adhesion interface in advance of full delamination is considered advantageous as disclosed by Taruno ([0126] “preliminary delamination of the inner bag 14 from the outer shell 12 in a partial region in advance facilitates the entire circumference preliminary delamination with the preliminarily delaminated region as a good starting point”), the results thus would have been predictable that the pins would reach and therefore separate more of the interface between the deformable inner bag and stiff outer container as a starting point prior to blowing in the pressure medium (MPEP 2143 (I) (E)).
Modified Kneer is further silent on using first and second screw conveyors to supply respective materials for the deformable inner bag and stiff outer container to be coextruded.
In the analogous art of extrusion blow molding, Rogaczewski discloses using first and second screw conveyors to supply respective materials for the parison to be coextruded ([0032] one or more upstream extruders to supply multiple ports of first parison flowhead 100, extruders may be screw extruders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Kneer to use a first and second screw extruder to supply the deformable inner bag and stiff outer container materials separately to the coextrusion die, as disclosed by Rogaczewski, in order to plasticize the thermoplastic materials prior to coextrusion, as is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kneer is silent on wherein the pins are introduced a short distance of about 5 to 15 mm between the deformable inner bag and the stiff outer container.
However, applicant states in the present specification on page 3 lines 7-10 that the optimum depth of insertion of the pins may be readily determined by experiments.
Since the distance the tool is inserted scales linearly with the amount of the interface between the inner bag and outer container that is separated by the insertion tool, the distance the tool is inserted would have been considered a result-effective variable by one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed pin insertion distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the tool insertion distance to achieve the desired amount of the lamination interface separated by the tool prior to blowing in the pressure medium, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 4, Kneer further discloses wherein the increased pressure is applied externally ([0010] pressure introduced into through hole to space between stiff outer container and deformable inner bag, as stated above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kneer further discloses wherein the reduced pressure is applied in the deformable inner bag ([0004] known to use negative pressure in deformable bag, as stated above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kneer further discloses wherein the cutting is performed in a cutting station of a detaching machine ([0026] drilling stations are part of the manufacturing device)
Regarding claim 7, Kneer further discloses wherein the producing is performed in a detaching station of the detaching machine (implicit, since the detaching process happens in the manufacturing device, and the detaching station would be located wherever the detaching process happens).
Regarding claim 8, Kneer further discloses wherein the detaching machine is connected to the blow molder so that the usable containers which are still warm may be further processed in the detaching machine ([0026] automatic container transfer station that communicates between blow molding machine and drilling stations within manufacturing device, so that a freshly blow molded container may be automatically transferred to the drilling stations from the blow molding machine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 8 of applicant's remarks that Kneer does not disclose forming any holes in the wall of the container that have axes that extend longitudinally and/or inserting pins with rounded heads vertically into such holes in the container, the examiner notes 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). In this case, these features were disclosed and suggested by Landru (Fig 2) and Taruno ([0113-0114], [0126]), as stated in the rejection.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant's remarks that Taruno does not disclose or suggest inserting the tool 42 vertically into the hole as recited in amended claim 1, the examiner notes 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). In this case, the cutting of the holes was disclosed by Kneer ([0014], [0016]), and the vertical inserting of the pins was suggested by Landru (Fig 2), as stated in the rejection.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on pages 9-10 of applicant's remarks that if the separating tool of Landru were used with the container of Kneer, the inner bag would be damaged by the tool such that the container would be unusable, the examiner notes the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Landru was cited for the teaching of moving the delamination tool along the interface between components to be delaminated, and not the specific tool used by Landru, since the tool used in the combination comes from Taruno (Fig 10B, 13C, [0114] insertion tool 42), as stated in the rejection.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 10 of applicant's remarks that Rogaczewski does not disclose or suggest the cutting and inserting steps of amended claim 1, the examiner notes 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). In this case, the cutting of the holes was disclosed by Kneer ([0014], [0015], [0016]), and the vertical inserting of the pins was suggested by Landru (Fig 2), as stated in the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights