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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“cooling means” in claims 1 and 5, wherein the written description provides the following corresponding structure on pg. 12 “clamp 40 provided with the cooling mans (e.g., the cooling water inlet 48, the cooling water outlet 49)”
“thin-walled forming means” in claims 1 and 3-5 on pg. 7 [0023] “The leading clamp 40 is formed with protruding linear portions 42a and 43a, which are a thin-walled forming means”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dragulinescu (US20220212393).
Regarding claim 4, Dragulinescu teaches a thermoforming device that thermoforms a resin sheet, which is continuously fed (Abstract: A multi-cavity mould (1) for a thermoforming machine used in the process of high-volume, continuous thermoforming of a plurality of thin-gauge plastic products (2)), to simultaneously form two or more rows of containers ([0003] Thin-gauge films are used to manufacturing trays, containers, disposable cups, blisters, etc.; see multi-cavity mold 1 with four rows in Figure 5)) in a feed direction of the resin sheet (see preheated thin-gauge thermoplastic sheet 3 in Figure 16 and [0091] In the Form/Cut/Stack or In-Mould-Cut thermoforming moulds according to the present invention, the common edges are arranged in the transport direction (x) and/or in a direction (z) perpendicular to the transport direction (x) in the same horizontal plane),
wherein the thermoforming device comprises a thin-walled forming means (plurality of common-edge cut dies (131, 132)) provided between the two or more rows of containers (see 131, 132 between rows of containers in Figure 10 and Figure 16) and configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction ([0091] a plurality of common-edge cut dies (131, 132) is arranged to sever the adjacent formed plastic products (2) on the common edge, in order to obtain finished thin-gauge plastic products (2)), and the thin-walled portion is formed at a leading end portion of a protruding ridge (see annotated Figure 14 and Figure 15 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
535
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi et al. (US5618486), and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (US20060185789).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimi teaches a thermoforming device that thermoforms a resin sheet (Figure 6), which is continuously fed (see sheet 30 continuously fed in Figure 4B), to simultaneously form two or more rows of containers in a feed direction of the resin sheet (see upper die 1a with 5 rows of molding portions 10 in Figure 2; col 5 line 49-54),
wherein the thermoforming device comprises a cooling means (coolant passages 3; Figure 6) provided between the two or more rows of containers to prevent walled portions from rising to a crystallization temperature during heat-set thermoforming (col 6 line 14-22).
While Yoshimi teaches a separate cutting step after thermoforming has occurred (col 10 line 66-67), Yoshimi fails to teach a thin-walled forming means provided between the two or more rows of containers and configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a thermoforming device that thermoforms a resin sheet, Matsuoka teaches a thin-walled forming means (push cutter 15; Figure 3A and Figure 3B) configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction (see Figure 1A to Figure 1D). The thin-walled forming means of Matsuoka prevents the formation of burrs ([0014] In addition, since there can be provided a structure of only push-cutting the multilayer structure by the push cutter, any burr is not formed to a lower end portion of the cut face as in the shearing working, thus eliminating a burr removing working), can perform cutting with high precision ([0015] By performing a final push-cutting of the compressed thin thickness portion after the cooling and hardening of the resin material constituting the multilayer structure below a melting point thereof, the cutting can be performed with high precision), and eliminates additional forming steps by combining cutting with molding of a container body ([0026] Since the flange portion is cut by pushing the push-cutter into the multilayer structure having at least one fused layer, the flange portion can be cut at the same time of forming the container body and [0027] According to this structure, the push-cutting is performed in correlation to the opening/closing of the mold, thus eliminating forming steps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the cooling means of Yoshimi comprise a thin-walled forming means provided between the two or more rows of containers and be configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction, as taught by Matsuoka, for the benefit of preventing the formation of burrs, performing cutting with high precision, and eliminating additional forming steps by combining cutting with molding of the container body.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimi modified with Matsuoka teaches the thermoforming device according to claim 1.
Further, Matsuoka teaches wherein the thin- walled portion is formed extending continuously over from one end face to the other end face of the resin sheet ([0084] The push cutter 15 is formed from a flexible band-shaped cutter blade and used by connecting both ends thereof to be endlessly (see FIGS. 3(B)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the cooling means of Yoshimi comprise a thin-walled forming means provided between the two or more rows of containers and be configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction, as taught by Matsuoka, for the benefit of preventing the formation of burrs, performing cutting with high precision, and eliminating additional forming steps by combining cutting with molding of the container body.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshimi teaches a thermoforming device (Figure 6) that thermoforms a resin sheet, which is continuously fed (see sheet 30 continuously fed in Figure 4B), to simultaneously form two or more rows of containers in a feed direction of the resin sheet (see upper die 1a with 5 rows of molding portions 10 in Figure 2; col 5 line 49-54),
wherein the thermoforming device comprises a leading clamp (upper and lower clamp plates 52; Figure 6) provided with a cooling means (coolant passages 13; Figure 6) provided between the two or more rows of container (col 6 line 14-22).
While Yoshimi teaches a separate cutting step after thermoforming has occurred (col 10 line 66-67), Yoshimi fails to teach a thin-walled forming means provided between the two or more rows of containers and configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a thermoforming device that thermoforms a resin sheet, Matsuoka teaches a thin-walled forming means (push cutter 15; Figure 3A and Figure 3B) configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction (see Figure 1A to Figure 1D). The thin-walled forming means of Matsuoka prevents the formation of burrs ([0014] In addition, since there can be provided a structure of only push-cutting the multilayer structure by the push cutter, any burr is not formed to a lower end portion of the cut face as in the shearing working, thus eliminating a burr removing working), can perform cutting with high precision ([0015] By performing a final push-cutting of the compressed thin thickness portion after the cooling and hardening of the resin material constituting the multilayer structure below a melting point thereof, the cutting can be performed with high precision), and eliminates additional forming steps by combining cutting with molding of a container body ([0026] Since the flange portion is cut by pushing the push-cutter into the multilayer structure having at least one fused layer, the flange portion can be cut at the same time of forming the container body and [0027] According to this structure, the push-cutting is performed in correlation to the opening/closing of the mold, thus eliminating forming steps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the cooling means of Yoshimi comprise a thin-walled forming means provided between the two or more rows of containers and be configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction, as taught by Matsuoka, for the benefit of preventing the formation of burrs, performing cutting with high precision, and eliminating additional forming steps by combining cutting with molding of the container body.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragulinescu (US20220212393), and further in view of Gonzalez (US20200324431).
Regarding claim 3, Dragulinescu teaches a thermoforming device that thermoforms a resin sheet, which is continuously fed (Abstract: A multi-cavity mould (1) for a thermoforming machine used in the process of high-volume, continuous thermoforming of a plurality of thin-gauge plastic products (2)), to simultaneously form two or more rows of containers ([0003] Thin-gauge films are used to manufacturing trays, containers, disposable cups, blisters, etc.; see multi-cavity mold 1 with four rows in Figure 5)) in a feed direction of the resin sheet (see preheated thin-gauge thermoplastic sheet 3 in Figure 16 and [0091] In the Form/Cut/Stack or In-Mould-Cut thermoforming moulds according to the present invention, the common edges are arranged in the transport direction (x) and/or in a direction (z) perpendicular to the transport direction (x) in the same horizontal plane),
wherein the thermoforming device comprises a thin-walled forming means (plurality of common-edge cut dies (131, 132)) provided between the two or more rows of containers (see 131, 132 between rows of containers in Figure 10 and Figure 16) and configured to form a thin-walled portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the feed direction ([0091] a plurality of common-edge cut dies (131, 132) is arranged to sever the adjacent formed plastic products (2) on the common edge, in order to obtain finished thin-gauge plastic products (2)). However, Dragulinescu fails to teach the thin-walled portion includes recesses formed in both opposing surfaces.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing an array of containers from a plastic sheet using thermoforming (Abstract: The invention relates to a multi-pack container which defines a series of containers (11) formed in a plastic sheet (L) and [0038] FIGS. 4a-4c partially show a thermoforming machine), Gonzalez teaches a thin-walled portion includes recesses formed in both opposing surfaces (see pre-cut upper line 13 and pre-cut lower line 14 in Figure 2). The recesses formed in both opposing surfaces allows for clean breakages without defining irregular projections ([0012]suitable features for obtaining clean breakage of the bridges along the precut lines, without defining irregular projections).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the thin-walled portion of Dragulinescu include recesses formed in both opposing surfaces, as taught by Gonzalez, for the benefit of obtaining clean breakages without defining irregular projections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743