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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 and 05/24/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
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 16 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16: “The device” lacks antecedent basis. Further, the scope of the claim is unclear. It appears that claim 16 attempts to essentially claim a device configured to carry out the method of claim 1. In this case, the specific structure would not be positively recited and, as such, the metes and bounds of the claim would still be unclear. The examiner recommends merely cancelling this claim or re-writing it similar to claim 15, but using the language from claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al. (US 20010040016 A1) in view of Mayer et al. (US 20200254677 A1).Regarding claim 1:Kumamoto teaches method for monitoring and regulating wall thickness distribution in a production process of containers comprising fibers, wherein the method comprises:
- producing a container comprising fibers by means of a production process comprising a plurality of production steps which uses a fiber-containing pulp or dry fibers (e.g., [0025]-[0026]; FIGS. 1a-1e as a non-limiting example),
- controlling a wall thickness distribution of the produced container ([0033], [0043], [0051]),
- a target wall thickness (e.g., [0085], [0114])
Kumamoto fails to explicitly teach:
measuring a wall thickness distribution of the produced container
comparing the measured wall thickness distribution with a target wall thickness distribution
when there is a deviation of the measured wall thickness distribution from the target wall thickness distribution, regulating at least one of the plurality of production stepsMayer teaches:
measuring a wall thickness distribution of the produced container (e.g., [0041]-[0044])
comparing the measured wall thickness distribution with a target wall thickness distribution (e.g., [0041]-[0044])
when there is a deviation of the measured wall thickness distribution from the target wall thickness distribution, regulating at least one of the plurality of production steps (e.g., [0041]-[0044])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wall thickness distribution measurement device of Mayer in the method of Kumamoto to allow for real-time, online changes to the production steps to ensure the product meets specifications.
Regarding claim 2:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Kumamoto and Mayer teach:
wherein the regulating of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises a regulation of pressing force(Kumamoto - e.g., [0033], [0043], [0051]; Mayer - [0043])
Regarding claim 3:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Kumamoto and Mayer render obvious:
wherein the pressing force regulation comprises a force regulation of an electric motor for generating a pressing force
It is well-known to generate pressure in a pressing member such as that of Kumamoto and generate suction pressure such as that of Kumamoto using an electric motor.
Regarding claim 4:Kumamoto and Mayer render obvious all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.Kumamoto also teaches:
wherein the pressing force acts on at least a portion of the container (e.g., [0025]-[0026]; FIGS. 1a-1e as a non-limiting example)
Regarding claim 5:Kumamoto and Mayer render obvious all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 3 rejection above Kumamoto and Mayer render obvious:
wherein the regulation of force comprises a regulation of current
It is well-known to generate pressure in a pressing member such as that of Kumamoto and generate suction pressure such as that of Kumamoto using an electric motor or other current driven device, said current being changed to change the pressing member pressure and/or the suction pressure.
Regarding claim 6:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Kumamoto also teaches:
wherein the regulation of pressing force comprises a regulation of a hydraulic pressure of an elastic inner tube(e.g., [0025]-[0026], [0031], FIGS. 1a-1e -> elastic tube 6)
Regarding claim 7:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Kumamoto and Mayer render obvious:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises regulating a coating and/or injection distribution of the pulp
Kumamoto teaches regulating the coating distribution of the pulp along the surface it is pressed against, yielding differing thicknesses (e.g., FIG. 4, [0043]).
Regarding claim 8:Kumamoto and Mayer render obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Kumamoto and Mayer render obvious:
wherein the coating and/or injection distribution can be regulated along a height and/or a circumference of the container(e.g., Kumamoto - FIG. 4, [0043])
Regarding claim 10:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Kumamoto and Mayer render obvious:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises regulating a water content of the pulp and/or a temperature of the pulp
Kumamoto teaches (e.g., [0094], but in many more sections as well) that the water content in the pulp is altered to a predetermined level that allows for uniform thickness after the container is finished. Mayer teaches regulation of the production steps to ensure intended thickness. As such, combined, these references render obvious altering the water content if the thickness is not the intended thickness.
Regarding claim 14:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Kumamoto and Mayer teach:
a container comprising fibers which was produced by means of the method for monitoring and regulating a wall thickness distribution in a production process of containers comprising fibers according to claim 1(see claim 1 rejection above; e.g., Kumamoto - FIG. 1 - 7; Mayer abstract)
Regarding claim 15: All limitations of this claim are met by the citations, combination, and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16: All limitations of this claim are met by the citations, combination, and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17: All limitations of this claim are met by the citations, combination, and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al. (US 20010040016 A1) in view of Mayer et al. (US 20200254677 A1) and further in view of Appel (US 20200262599 A1).Regarding claim 9:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Kumamoto fails to teach:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises a configuration of a hollow support ringAppel teaches:
wherein the plurality of production steps comprises a configuration of a hollow support ring (FIG. 12 - 1204, 1205)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hollow support ring, as taught by Appel, in the method of Kumamoto, to allow for better handling (especially automated handling) of the container after it’s manufactured (Appel - [0223]). The examiner notes that claim 9 is rendered obvious upon combination of Kumamoto, Mayer, and Appel. E.g., In the combination, the thickness of the support ring is predetermined, monitored, and altered if needed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al. (US 20010040016 A1) in view of Mayer et al. (US 20200254677 A1) and further in view of Enderby (US 5665399 A).Regarding claim 11:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Kumamoto fails to teach:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises regulating a movement of mold parts after introduction of the fiber-containing pulp for producing a container comprising fibersEnderby teaches:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises regulating a movement of mold parts (e.g., Col. 3, Lines 46-63)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to regulate a movement of mold parts, as taught by Enderby, as it is an art recognized equivalent means for making the container and adjusting wall thickness. The examiner holds it is well-known to produce containers via forming by: inflation/pressure of an elastic element inside a mold (such as Kumamoto); extrusion; spray coating on a pre-form; and applying pressure on a material between two mold halves (e.g., making a bowl by pressing a material between a dome mold part and a recessed mold part, the geometry between being the bowl). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, based on the state of the art and the instant prior art, that the differing forming steps have differing ways of controlling wall thickness and that regulating the movement of mold parts is obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al. (US 20010040016 A1) in view of Mayer et al. (US 20200254677 A1) and further in view of Starken et al. (WO 2018033212 A1).Regarding claim 12:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Kumamoto fails to teach:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises regulating a movement of a spray head for applying the fiber-containing pulpStarken teaches:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises regulating a movement of a spray head for applying the fiber-containing pulp (page 16, line 4 through page 17 line 20)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a moving spray head for applying the fiber-containing pulp, as taught by Starken, in the method of Kumamoto as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for application of the fiber-containing pulp to the walls of the mold. Additionally / alternatively, the spraying action of Starken allows for more control over where and how much pulp is placed.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al. (US 20010040016 A1) in view of Mayer et al. (US 20200254677 A1) and further in view of Jalaluddin (GB 2553410 A).Regarding claim 13:Kumamoto and Mayer teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Kumamoto fails to teach:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises regulating an inclined arrangement of a mold during a coating process of the fiber-containing pulpJalaluddin teaches:
wherein the regulation of at least one of the plurality of production steps comprises regulating an inclined arrangement of a mold during a coating process of the fiber-containing pulp(Page 8, Lines 6-16; Page 7, Lines 7-9)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the mold inclination, as taught by Jalaluddin, in the method of Kumamoto to use gravity to assist and optimize the vacuum / suction steps and/or to ensure proper thickness (Jalaluddin - Page 8, Lines 6-16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855