DETAILED ACTION
International Search Report
The PCT/KR2022/013208 International Search Report has been carefully considered. Although two documents of particular reference were cited, the Examiner believes that Meadors provides more (and a better depiction) of the claimed features and is relied upon in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadors (US 4,127,378) in view of Johns (US 4,832,676).
As to claim 1, Meadors teaches an apparatus which manufactures an article interpreted to be a pouch. The Meadors apparatus comprises a lower die (12) with a cavity (14, 16) that meets the claimed forming groove for forming a cup part in a film (104). Meadors teaches an upper die (72) spaced from the lower die (12) and a punch (20, 22) vertically positioned with respect to the upper die and configured to move toward the forming groove configured to press the film (104) disposed on the lower die. The Meadors punch comprises an upper punch (22) and an elastic part (38) which supports a spaced lower punch (20) disposed spaced downward from the upper punch (see 36). The upper punch (22) and lower punch (20) are configured to move together to press a film (104).
Meadors is silent to the punch “supported by” the upper die and the upper punch “movably connected” to the upper die.
Johns teaches a similar apparatus which has an upper die (60) and an upper punch (26) movably connected to and supported by (Fig. 1, see annotated figure below) the upper die.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Johns
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these movable connection and support features from Johns into Meadors because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another which obtains a predictable result. Meadors provides a device which differs from the claimed device because it appears to use pneumatic pressure instead of the claimed movable connection and support for moving an upper punch relative to an upper die. However, a movable connection which supports an upper die were known and obvious from the prior art of Johns, and one could have substituted these features for the pneumatic pressure of Meadors to provide the same movement of an upper punch to an upper die already required by Meadors.
As to claim 2, the Meadors elastic part (38) is configured to elastically press the lower punch (20) downward.
As to claims 12 and 13, the Meadors punch is provided to move downward to move the pouch film toward a bottom mold, but Meadors is silent to a nest which is vertically movable inside the forming groove and supporting the punch moving into a forming groove.
Johns teaches a knockout (16) that meets the claimed nest which is vertically movable inside the forming groove to support the punch.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Johns knockout/punch (16) as an obvious improvement on the Meadors apparatus. Meadors provides the base device which differed from the claimed device because it lacks a knockout/punch, however, Johns provided a knockout which functions to support the blank prior to forming and facilitate ejection of the formed product. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement to the similar Meadors device and the result would have been predictable (supported, then ejected, film 104).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadors (US 4,127,378) in view of Johns (US 4,832,676), and further in view of Dunbar (US 4,961,700).
As to claim 3, Meadors teaches an upper punch, a lower punch, a connection bar (42) and a spring (38) interpreted to be an elastic member between the upper punch and lower punch.
Meadors is silent to the connection bar surrounded by the elastic member and movable in a vertical direction.
Dunbar teaches upper (12) and lower (26, 28) press/punch members. Dunbar further teaches a connection bar (22) connected to the lower press/punch (26, 28), and a spring elastic member (24) which surrounds the connection bar
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this feature from Takase into the modified Meadors apparatus because this is an obvious interchangeable substitute for features already taught by Meadors. Meadors teaches a device that differed from the claimed invention by its use of separate connection bars (42) and springs (38). However, the substituted component – a connection bar which moves vertically and is surrounded by a spring – is known from Dunbar, which guides and cushions movement of one punch element with respect to another (See Figs. 2-4). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another to provide the predictable result that the Dunbar connection bar and spring combination would operate similarly to the separate connection bar (42) and a spring (38) already provided in Meadors.
As to claims 4-7, in the combination of Dunbar with Meadors above, Meadors provides an upper punch with an upper punch body with an outer appearance. Dunbar provides a first through hole (within which 22 slides) which passes through an upper punch body top surface in the manner claimed, and the connection bar (22) has a head which extends above the equivalent of the top punch (12) and has a diameter larger than the first through hole. The other end of the connection bar is fixed to an equivalent of the lower punch (26, 28). Dunbar also provides a second through hole having an inner diameter larger than the first through-hole which passes through the upper punch body (12) in the configuration claimed. The Dunbar spring/elastic member (24) is inserted into the second through hole (within 16) and seated on a jaw/shoulder provided by the difference between the difference in diameter between the first through-hole (where 22 slides) and second through-hole (within 16). In light of the obvious substitution of these components for the similar features in Meadors, these additional features are obvious for the same reasons.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadors (US 4,127,378) in view of Johns (US 4,832,676), and further in view of Fukushima (US 4,999,142).
As to claim 8, Meadors teaches an upper punch body defining an outer appearance, and a through-groove configured to pass through part (from one point between a top surface and a bottom surface to a bottom surface of the upper punch body), wherein an upper end of the elastic member is inserted into the through-groove.
Meadors is silent to a connection bar comprising a head disposed in the through-groove and a fixed bar having a diameter less than that of the head and extending downward from the head.
Fukushima teaches a head disposed in a groove, an equivalent of a connection bar, and a spring/elastic member in the groove, as shown in Fukushima’s annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this configuration from Fukushima into the modified Meadors apparatus because this is an obvious interchangeable substitute for features already taught by Meadors. Meadors teaches a device that differed from the claimed invention by its use of separate connection bars (42) and springs (38). However, the substituted component – a connection bar surrounded by a spring with a head in a groove – is known from Fukushima, which guides and cushions movement of one punch element with respect to another. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another to provide the predictable result that the Fukushima connection bar and spring combination would operate similarly to the separate connection bar (42) and spring (38) already provided in Meadors.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadors (US 4,127,378) in view of Johns (US 4,832,676), and further in view of Takase (US 20040048416).
As to claim 10, Meadors teaches two springs (38) interpreted to be outer elastic members, and is therefore silent to an inner elastic member adjacent/closer to a center of a punch.
Takase teaches a process where a punch (202) is supported by a series of elastic members (203) wherein the center elastic member is positioned at the center of the punch.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this feature from Takase into the modified Meadors apparatus because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide more springs and more cushioning effect to modify/control the pressing force of Meadors’ punch parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 9, Meadors and the other prior art simply does not teach or render obvious the “elastic part” comprising “a body portion” with an “inverted U-shaped cross-section” “configured to be inserted” in the claimed manner. With respect to claim 11, Meadors and the other prior art simply does not show inner and outer elastic members where the outer elastic member has an elastic modulus less than that of the inner elastic member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742