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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the inner bag and air slit openings must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification lacks descriptions of drawing elements 4 and 5 of Fig. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the open halves". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the length". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the base region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the welded base seam". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axial direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wall of the blow mold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pinch seam". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the base of the container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the seam of the outer container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gap". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “minute” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minute” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore it is not clear how large or small an air slit opening can be and be qualified and/or disqualified as “minute”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the wall of the outer container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "rough surface". The term “rough” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rough” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 mix the language “consisting of” and “comprising” which leads to an indefiniteness issue with claim 7. Claim 7 says the “inner bag consists of at least two layers” however claim 1 indicates the inner bag has “a welded base seam.” Thus it’s unclear what is required of the inner bag.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outer layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Us Patent No. 5,316,135 (Kneer et al. ‘135 hereinafter) in view of US Patent No. 3,592,885 (Goins et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-4c, Kneer et al. discloses: container, which consists of a stiff outer container (5, column 5, lines 55-58) and a deformable inner bag (4) of thermoplastic plastic materials which do not form a weld connection with one another (column 5, lines 20-23), the container comprising: a preform consisting of at least two tubes (4, 5) coextruded and arranged between the open halves of a blow mold (column 5, lines 10-23), wherein the blow mold is closed when the preform has the length necessary for the production of the container (column 5, lines 12-17), and wherein excess material from the base region of the container to be produced is squeezed out and a pinch seam is formed from fused material of the outer container, wherein the welded base seam of the inner bag is clamped and held in the axial direction (column 5, lines 59-63) and the preform is inflated by a pressure medium into engagement with the wall of the blow mold and removed after opening the blow mold (columns 5-6, lines 54-1), and due to the opening of the blow mold, minute air slit openings are formed in the seam of the outer container, through which ambient air enters into the gap between the inner bag and the outer container for pressure balancing purposes (column 5, lines 55-58).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
441
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kneer et al. ‘135 fails to disclose wherein the pinch seam at the base of the container has a non-linear shape and is longer than with a linear shape.
However, with reference to Figs. 5, 7, and 9, Goins et al. discloses a container formed by an extrusion into a blow mold (column 2, lines 31-39) wherein a base includes a pinch seam having one of several non-linear shapes (column 3, lines 24-40), the non-linear shapes being longer than a linear shape (i.e. along the same endpoints as best understood).
PNG
media_image3.png
385
291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
221
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the shape of the pinch seam of Kneer et al. ‘135 to have a non-linear shape as taught by Goins et al. since it is taught that “in forming the corrugated seal, the mechanical working of the plastic tends to raise the temperature enough to achieve a better seal than otherwise possible” and “the corrugated seam provides superior impact resistance, partly because of the better distribution of stresses occurring in that area when the bottle is dropped or struck” (Goins et al. column 3, lines 24-40).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the pinch seam has a toothed shape (at 34), at least over a portion of the length of the pinch seam (see Fig. 7 above).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the pinch seam (36) has a wave shape, at least over a portion of the length of the pinch seam (see Fig. 9 above).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the pinch seam has a stepped shape (note that the shape of the seam 34 in Fig. 7 above can appear as steps from some viewpoints), at least over a portion of the length of the pinch seam.
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the pinch seam has the non-linear shape over the entire length of the pinch seam (see figs. 7 and 9 above).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the container has no subsequently formed pressure balancing openings in the wall of the outer container (openings along seam at 14 and holes at 27 are considered located in the shoulder, and not the wall of the outer container at 9).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2018/0334310 (Kneer et al. ‘310 hereinafter).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. disclose the claimed invention except wherein the inner bag has a rough surface on an outer side of the inner bag.
However, Kneer et al. ’310 discloses a container with an inner bag wherein an outer surface of the inner bag includes a surface texture which reduces adhesion forces between the outer surface and an inner surface of the container (paragraph 0015-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the outer surface of the bag of Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. to have included a textured surface as taught by Kneer et al. ‘310 to reduce adhesion and promote separation of the bag from the container for dispensing.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. and Kneer et al. ‘310 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,308,389 (Taruno hereinafter).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Kneer et al. ‘135 in view of Goins et al. and Kneer et al. ‘310 disclose the claimed invention except wherein the inner bag consists of at least two layers and that the outer layer consists of a mixture of EVOH with an elastic plastic material.
However, Taruno discloses a delaminatable container wherein an inner bag outer layer (13e) includes EVOH mixed with a softening agent (column 11, lines 49-55) such as linear low density polyethylene (column 9, lines 62-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the outer layer of EVOH mixed with a softening agent such as linear low density polyethylene (known plastic with elastic properties), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, page 3, lines 12-23, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733