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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-20, the independent claims all require an expandable ember with a neck, body, and base portion with different relationships in their width.
It is unclear if the comparison of the width is in the expanded or non-expanded form of the expandable member. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Makowski, USP 3,137,748.
Regarding claim 1, Makowski teaches an expandable member (item P, Figure 2) for use in moulding a receptacle in a cavity of a mould (see figures), the expandable member comprising:
a neck portion defining an opening of the expandable member (Item 39 figure 2), the neck portion having a first width (see figures);
a main body portion proximal to the neck portion (items 35-31 of P in Figure 2), the main body portion having a second width different to the first width (see figure 2); and
a base portion located at an opposite end of the main body portion to the neck portion (area 27-29 figure 2), the base portion having a third width greater than the second width (see figure 2).
It is noted that the claims only require an expandable member for molding a receptable, there is no requirement that the expandable member can not be the receptacle after formation such as a preform as taught by Makowski.
Regarding claim 2, Makowski further teaches that the second width is greater than the first width (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Makowski further teaches wherein the base portion is rounded (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Makowski further teaches wherein the main body portion comprises a wall having a wall thickness that varies along a length of the wall (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Makowski further teaches that the thickness of the wall varies gradually along the length of the wall (See figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Makowski further teaches wherein the main body portion comprises a shoulder portion proximal to the neck portion (item 37, figure 2) and a lower portion distal from the neck portion (items 29, figure 2), the shoulder portion having a first wall thickness, and the lower portion having a second wall thickness greater than the first wall thickness (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Makowski further teaches another embodiment where the thickness of the preform is reduced from a top section of the mold into the bottom section of the mold (see figures 8 and 11)
Regarding claim 11, Makowski further teaches wherein a wall thickness of the base portion varies, and a minimal wall thickness of the base portion is located intermediate a distalmost most portion of the base portion from the opening and a transition region between the main body portion and the base portion (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nonomura et al, USP 6,454,906.
Regarding claim 1, Nonomura teaches an expandable member (item 81) for use in moulding a receptacle in a cavity of a mould (see figure 4), the expandable member comprising:
a neck portion defining an opening of the expandable member (top of 81 in figures 3 and 4), the neck portion having a first width (see figures);
a main body portion proximal to the neck portion (item 85, see figure 3), the main body portion having a second width different to the first width (see figures); and
a base portion located at an opposite end of the main body portion to the neck portion, the base portion having a third width greater than the second width (see figure 2B at bottom for 81 and 82’).
Regarding claim 2, Nonomura further teaches that the second width is greater than the first width (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Nonomura further teaches wherein the base portion is rounded (see figure 2B.
Regarding claim 5, Nonomura further teaches wherein the main body portion comprises a wall having a wall thickness that varies along a length of the wall (described as the member being twisted in columns 3-4 and shown in figures).
Regarding claim 6, Nonomura further teaches that the thickness of the wall
varies gradually along the length of the wall (variations due to the twists are show in figure 2a and b).
Regarding claim 9., Nonomura further teaches wherein the neck portion comprises a further wall portion having a further wall thickness greater than a maximal wall thickness of the wall of the main body portion (item 9b).
Regarding claim 12, Nonomura teaches a receptacle moulding system comprising (see abstract):
a receptacle mould (item 1 see figures) comprising a mould cavity for receiving a component (item 4 see figures), wherein
the component is a fibre suspension or a partially formed receptacle (column 3 lines 30-46); and
the expandable member comprising a neck portion defining an opening of the expandable member (top of 81 in figures 3 and 4), the neck portion having a first width (see figures);
a main body portion proximal to the neck portion (item 85, see figure 3), the main body portion having a second width different to the first width (see figures); and
a base portion located at an opposite end of the main body portion to the neck portion, the base portion having a third width greater than the second width (see figure 2B at bottom for 81 and 82’);
wherein the expandable member is expandable in the mould cavity so as to urge the component against an inner surface of the mould cavity during a process to form the receptacle from the component (see figures 1a-1c and claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Nonomura further teaches wherein the receptacle moulding system comprises an expansion fluid source fluidically connectable to the expandable member, such that expansion fluid can be selectively supplied to an interior of the expandable member when the expandable member is inserted into the mould cavity (see abstract and figures for pressurizing fluid).
Regarding claim 14, Nonomura further teaches wherein the receptacle moulding system comprises a heat source for supplying heat to the component when the component is held within the mould cavity (column 6 line 40).
Regarding claim 15, Nonomura further teaches wherein the receptacle moulding system is at least one of a fibre receptacle moulding system and a paper pulp receptacle moulding system (column 2 lines 11-23).
Regarding claim 16, Nonomura further teaches a method of moulding a receptacle (see abstract), the method comprising:
providing a component in a mould cavity of a mould, wherein the component is a fibre suspension or a partially formed receptacle (see claim 1 and column 3);
providing an expandable member in the mould cavity (see figures 1a-1c), the expandable member comprising a neck portion defining an opening of the expandable member (top of 81 in figures 3 and 4), the neck portion having a first width (see figures);
a main body portion proximal to the neck portion (item 85, see figure 3), the main body portion having a second width different to the first width (see figures); and
a base portion located at an opposite end of the main body portion to the neck portion, the base portion having a third width greater than the second width (see figure 2B at bottom for 81 and 82’);
and expanding the expandable member so as to urge the component against an inner surface of the mould cavity during a process to form the receptacle from the component (see figures 1a-ac).
Regarding claim 17, Nonomura further teaches applying heat to the component the mould cavity (column 6 line 40).
Regarding claim 18, Nonomura further teaches wherein the method is a method of moulding at least one of a fibre receptacle and a paper pulp receptacle (column 2 lines 11-23).
Regarding claim 19, Nonomura teaches a product made by the process of claim 16 above. It is further noted that product by process claims are examiner based on their physical structure, absent a showing that the method fo making makes a materially different final product.
Regarding claim 20, Nonomura further teaches wherein the receptacle is at least one of a fibre receptacle and a paper pulp receptacle (see abstract).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonomura et al, USP 6,454,906.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Nonomura further teaches that the width of the expandable member is modified by both twisting prior to entering and exiting the mold and can have section applied to further reduce the size (see abstract and columns 2-3). While there are no values presented to be able to calculate the modification to the width at the different parts, there is a direct teaching of the width being variable and able to be modified by the operator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the member so that the third width is no more than 1.2 times the second width as this would be routine optimization of a known element that is the result of the amount of suction and twisting occurs before movement of the member into and out of the mold.
Absent a showing of evidence to provide that the sizing variations provide for an unexpected result, it is understood that optimizing a known variable in a known manner would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makowski, USP 3,137,748
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Makowski further teaches that the width of the expandable member is varied as shown in Figure 2. While there are no values presented to be able to calculate the modification to the width at the different parts, there is a direct teaching of the width being variable and able to be modified by the operator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the member so that the third width is no more than 1.2 times the second width as this would be routine optimization of a known element that is the result of the amount of suction and twisting occurs before movement of the member into and out of the mold.
Absent a showing of evidence to provide that the sizing variations provide for an unexpected result, it is understood that optimizing a known variable in a known manner would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights