Detailed Action
The communications received 09/17/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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) 1, 3-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Appel (US 2020/0262599 A1) hereinafter APP.
As for claim 1, APP teaches a receptacle mould defining a cavity in which a receptacle is mouldable [Abstract],
wherein the receptacle mould comprises a guide channel for guiding, into the cavity [refer to modified figure 6],
an expandable member that is usable to help mould the receptacle in the cavity [Fig. 6-10 #404-405];
wherein the guide channel has:
a first end and a second end, the second end opening into the cavity, wherein the expandable member is guidable through the guide channel from the first end to the second end and into the cavity [refer to modified figure 6];
a first cross-sectional width at the first end;
and a second cross-sectional width at the second end, the second cross-sectional width being less than the first cross-sectional width [refer to modified figure 6].
PNG
media_image1.png
594
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 3, APP teaches claim 1 and further wherein: the guide channel has an axis that is coaxial with an axis of the cavity [refer to modified figure 6].
As for claim 4, APP teaches claim 1, wherein:
the guide channel has a first cross-sectional shape at the first end (substantially a cylinder) [refer to modified figure 6];
the guide channel has a second cross-sectional shape at the second end (substantially a cylinder) [refer to modified figure 6];
and the first cross-sectional shape and the second cross-sectional shape are the same (as they are both cylinders).
As for claim 5, APP teaches claim 4 and wherein: the cavity has a third cross-sectional shape where the second end of the guide channel opens into the cavity; and the first cross-sectional shape, the second cross-sectional shape and the third cross-sectional shape are the same [refer to modified figure 6].
As for claim 6, APP teaches claim 1, wherein: the second end of the guide channel comprises a fillet edge or a chamfered edge where the second end opens into the cavity (as the edge is chamfered as depicted) [refer to modified figure 6 below].
PNG
media_image2.png
594
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 7, APP teaches claim 1, wherein:
the guide channel has a first surface gradient, relative to an axis that is perpendicular to an axis of the receptacle mould, at a first point, and a second surface gradient,
relative to the axis that is perpendicular to the axis of the receptacle mould,
at a second point, the first and second surface gradients being different and the first point being closer to the first end than the second point (this can be met by selecting a point that is present along the first end and present along the second end) [refer to modified figures 6 above].
As for claim 8, APP teaches claim 7, and wherein the second surface gradient is greater than the first surface gradient (as there is more of a dip in the second end which can contain the second surface gradient) [refer to the modified figures 6 above].
As for claim 9, this limitation is essentially the method of using the mould of claim 1 which is taught by APP [Abstract, see claim 1; 0001-7; 0020-27].
As for claim 11, see claim 4.
As for claim 12, see claim 4 combined with claim 5 for the third cross-sectional shape which is substantially also a cylinder [refer to modified figures 6 above].
As for claim 13, see claim 6.
As for claim 14, see claim 7.
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) 2, 10, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APP.
As for claims 2 and 10, APP teaches claims 1 and 9 and it is understood that there being a third cross-section width corresponding to the cavity greater than the second cross-sectional width by at least 4mm is a matter of changing the shape of the desired receptacle formed by the cavity such that the resultant receptacle has a greater than 4mm wider body than neck.
In accordance with the MPEP, changes in shape are prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived to the third cross-sectional width greater than the second cross-sectional width by at least 4mm as this would amount to merely changing the shape of the desired resultant receptable such that its body is 4mm wider than its neck which then changes the cavity and neck molding parts of APP.
As for claim 15, this is substantially claim 9 taught by APP except the claim includes a wall thickness produced and that the expandable member maintains a distance of at least twice the wall thickness between the cavity surface and the expandable member at a second end of the guide channel before expanding it. As the thickness of the overall container can be 100-2000 um [0001-7; 0020-27; 0081] and otherwise as depicted the expandable member has some spacing [Fig. 6 #404-405] in the guide channel that depends on the size of the mold that produces the container [refer to the modified figures 6 above].
In accordance with the MPEP changes in size are prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the expandable member maintaining a distance of at least twice the wall thickness between the cavity surface and the expandable member at a second end of the guide channel before expanding it as this would have amounted to a change in the size of the produced container which the MPEP teaches is prima facie obvious.
As for claim 16, this limitation is understood to be substantially claim 9 which APP teaches along with the added consideration of utilizing a fibre suspension to molding [Abstract; 0152-153].
As for claim 17, APP teaches claim 16, and this claim includes the limitation addressed in claim 15 taught by APP pertaining to the distance of the expandable member to the surface of the cavity.
As for claim 18, APP teaches claim 17, and the distance being 2.5 or 3 times the wall thickness is understood to be a matter of changing the size of the mold that produces the container [refer to the modified figures 6 above].
In accordance with the MPEP changes in size are prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the expandable member maintaining a distance of at least 2.5 or 3 times the wall thickness between the cavity surface and the expandable member at a second end of the guide channel before expanding it as this would have amounted to a change in the size of the produced container which the MPEP teaches is prima facie obvious.
As for claim 19, APP teaches claim 16 and further the expandable member is introduced into the mold under vacuum (reduced pressure which would provide a vacuum effect) [0192; 0215].
As for claim 20, APP teaches claim 1 and a plurality of moulds that are co-operable are understood to be a duplication of the moulds of claim 1 combined with the method of their use. The method of using an apparatus does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art [MPEP 2114]. In addition the MPEP teaches that a duplication of parts is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2143.04(VI)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a kit formed of a plurality of moulds as this would have amounted through a duplication of parts which is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748