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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 07/01/2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-8
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2
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 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 does not explicitly disclose wherein the pins are inserted to a distance of about 5 mm to 15 mm.
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. Further, the examiner notes that one skilled in the art would have understood that the pins of modified Kneer must necessarily be inserted to some distance, because otherwise the pins would not be inserted at all, and would also have understood that 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.
As the depth of delamination of the inner bag from the outer container is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the pin insertion distance, with the depth of delamination increasing as the pin insertion distance is increased, the pin insertion distance would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed pin insertion distance of about 5 mm to 15 mm cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the pin insertion distance in the invention of modified Kneer to obtain the desired depth of delamination by the tool, in order to achieve a suitable starting point prior to blowing in the pressure medium, as stated above, 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)).
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 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 07 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant's remarks that if holes are formed in the shoulder section of the container in Kneer as suggested by the examiner, the holes would only need to be large enough to allow the release of the trapped air, as there is no teaching or suggestion to form holes large enough to receive pins that are inserted through the holes, the examiner disagrees, and notes that 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, as stated in the rejection, Kneer is relied upon for the formation of the holes with the drill ([0014-0016]), and Taruno is relied upon for the use of the round pins ([0114]) and further discloses the pin has identical diameter to the air inlet ([0114]).
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on pages 11-12 of applicant's remarks that Taruno does not disclose inserting the pins to the claimed distance of about 5 mm to 15 mm, the examiner notes this argument is rendered moot by the new rejection of claim 1, which addresses this limitation and includes a result-effective variable analysis for the claimed range.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 12 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, 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, 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 12 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
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
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights