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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 & 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are referring to “sizing chamber”, which need to be changed to “sizing block”. It is noted that the filed specification only referring to “sizing block 18”, no mention of any “sizing chamber”!
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leser et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318807).
Regarding claim 1: Leser discloses a method of forming a multi-layer sidewall of a container, the method comprising
adding a density-reducing additive to a base resin to form a base-layer mixture (Figs. 7-8; via agents 306 & 308; paragraph 0070; “introduced to expand the resin to reduce density”),
forming the base-layer mixture into a tube-shaped molten polymer blend (paragraph 0052; “the extrudate material may be in a form such as, but not limited to, a sheet, strip, tube, thread…” and/or Fig. 8; via die 312; paragraph 0071; “An annular die 312 is used to form a tube of material” and/or paragraph 0004; “the printed film to the strip to form a sheet, and converting the sheet into an insulative cup”),
rolling a film sheet into a film tube (Fig. 8; via 312 & paragraph 0071; die 312 is used to form a tube of material” & paragraph 0006; “the body is made of multi-layer sheet”),
extruding the tube-shaped molten polymer blend into an interior of the film tube to provide a multi-layer tube, see for example (Figs. 7-8; via 122 “Molten Resin” into 312 to form “tube of material” with a body “made of multi-layer sheet” and/or paragraph 0119; “The sheet or strip may have a layer of adhesive, such as a pressure sensitive adhesive, applied to one or both faces”),
adjusting a diameter of the multi-layer tube to a predetermined diameter, (paragraph 0073; “Other adjustments may be made to ensure a sufficiently small cell size”),
foaming the tube-shaped molten polymer blend within the interior of the film sheet to provide a reduced-density tube while the diameter of the multi-layer tube is adjusted so that the reduced-density tube has the predetermined diameter (via 312 and/or Fig. 11; via the shown formed tubular product), and
forming the reduced-density tube into the multi-layer sidewall, see for example (Figs. 9-12; via the shown formed multi-layer).
Regarding claim 2: wherein the density-reducing additive is a chemical blowing agent (paragraph 0049; “a physical blowing agent may be introduced and mixed into molten resin 122…the physical blowing agent may be a gas”).
Regarding claim 3: wherein forming the tube-shaped molten polymer blend includes: mixing the base resin and the density-reducing additive together, heating the base layer mixture, and extruding the base-layer mixture around a mold to form the tube-shaped molten polymer blend, see for example (Fig. 7; via 105 “Heat”, “121 “Formulation”, 124 “Extrudate”, and the tube-shaped molten 123 “Extrusion Resin Mixture”).
Regarding claim 5: wherein foaming the tube-shaped molten polymer blend includes sealing a seam line of the film tube with the reduced-density tube, (paragraph 0119; “The sheet or strip may have a layer of adhesive, such as a pressure sensitive adhesive, applied to one or both faces”).
Regarding claim 6: wherein rolling the film sheet into the film tube includes feeding the film sheet into a sizing chamber around an annular die (Fig. 8; via die 312).
Regarding claim 7: wherein extruding the tube-shaped molten polymer blend into the interior of the film tube includes transferring the tube-shaped molten polymer blend into the annular die (via 312).
Regarding claim 8: wherein foaming the tube-shaped molten polymer blend includes cooling the tube-shaped molten polymer blend and decreasing pressure around the tube-shaped molten polymer blend to allow the density-reducing additive to expand within the interior of the film tube, see for example (Fig. 8; via “Cooling Can” 314).
Regarding claim 9: wherein an outer surface of the tub- shaped molten polymer blend bonds to an inner surface of the film tube during the step of foaming, (paragraph 0119; “The sheet or strip may have a layer of adhesive, such as a pressure sensitive adhesive, applied to one or both faces”).
Regarding claim 10: wherein the film sheet is pre- decorated prior to being applied to the base layer sleeve, see for example (paragraph 0119; “The sheet or strip may have a layer of adhesive, such as a pressure sensitive adhesive, applied to one or both faces”, capable of being and/or acting as “decorated” film).
Regarding claim 11: wherein rolling the film sheet into the film tube around the tube-shaped molten polymer blend is performed by drawing the film tube into a sizing chamber (Fig. 8; via die 312).
Regarding claim 12: wherein the predetermined diameter is a predetermined inner diameter and drawing the film tube into the sizing chamber includes forming the multi-layer tube with a predetermined outer diameter, see for example (Fig. 8; via diameter of 312).
Regarding claim 13: wherein foaming the tube-shaped molten polymer blend includes forming an outer surface of the multi-layer tube facing toward the outer mold with a first roughness and forming an inner surface of the multi-layer tube facing toward the inner mold with a second roughness greater than the first roughness (inherently having the blend being wrapped into a layer in one side, will result in different “roughness” in both opposite surfaces).
Regarding claim 14: wherein foaming the tube-shaped molten polymer blend includes extruding the multi-layer tube into a vacuum chamber and applying vacuum pressure to the multi-layer tube (paragraph 0193; “the method of forming a vessel may include the step of applying pressure to the floor blank”).
Regarding claim 15: wherein foaming the tube-shaped molten polymer blend includes decreasing a density of the tube-shaped molten polymer blend to a first density, and wherein the film tube has a second density greater than the first density, see for example (paragraph 0134; “carbon dioxide with R134a was injected into the resin blend to expand the resin and reduce density”).
Regarding claim 16: wherein the multi-layer sidewall has an overall thickness greater than or equal to 0.016 inches, see for example (paragraph 0140; “With an average wall thickness of 0.064 inches” and/or paragraph 0151; “a wall thickness of 0.089 inches” and/or paragraph 0183; “a wall thickness of 0.074 niches”).
Regarding claim 17: wherein the inner foamed layer of the multi-layer sidewall has a thickness greater than or equal to 0.016 inches, see for example (paragraph 0140; “With an average wall thickness of 0.064 inches” and/or paragraph 0151; “a wall thickness of 0.089 inches” and/or paragraph 0183; “a wall thickness of 0.074 niches”).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leser et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0318807).
Regarding claim 4: Leser may not suggest that the film sheet is wrapped around the tube-shaped molten polymer blend prior to cooling the tube-shaped molten polymer blend. However, Leser do show the cooling step (Fig. 8; via 314) and the wrapping step (paragraph 0119; “The sheet or strip may have a layer of adhesive, such as a pressure sensitive adhesive, applied to one or both faces”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Leser method by having the wrapping step prior to the cooling step, since it has been held that rearranging parts/steps of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights