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 § 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, 5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagawa (US 5,989,482) in view of Akiyama et al. (US 2002/0182351)
As to claim 1: Sagawa discloses the claimed method of manufacturing a double container comprising a container body (Sagawa at column 2, lines 27-30; FIGs. 3-4), wherein:
the method comprises a biaxial stretch blow molding step, a preform is biaxially stretched by blowing air thereinto with the preform being heated and softened in the biaxial stretch blow molding step, the preform configured by covering an inner preform with an outer preform (Sagawa at FIG. 3).
Sagawa fails to disclose the claimed the container body has an outer shell and an inner bag; the inner bag is contractable; and the inner bag comprises an inner layer, a gas barrier layer, and an outer layer, in order from an inside of the container body.
However, Akiyama teaches a preform that is biaxially stretched and blow molded into a synthetic resin bottle, and particularly to the type of preform that has been molded by a blow molding means (Akiyama at [0001]); a laminated wall structure comprising an outer and inner layer of a PET resin and the middle layer being a gas barrier resin the outer layer forming a bag capable of deformation (Akiyama at [0111], [0118], Fig. 7) and an inner bag.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the inner bag comprising an inner layer, gas barrier layer, and an outer layer as such is known in the art of processes for forming containers given the discussion of Akiyama above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 5: Sagawa and Akiyama disclose the method of claim 1. Sagawa further discloses the claimed wherein the inner preform and the outer preform has a bottomed tubular shape (Sagawa at FIG. 10A).
As to claim 7: Sagawa and Akiyama disclose the method of claim 1. Sagawa further discloses the claimed wherein: the biaxial stretch blow molding step comprises a longitudinal stretching step; in the longitudinal stretching step, the preform is stretched longitudinally by pressing a supporting rod against an inner bottom surface of the inner preform and extending the supporting rod (FIG. 3 – State e, fixing pin 27).
As to claim 9: Sagawa and Akiyama disclose the method of claim 1. Sagawa further discloses the claimed wherein the inner preform is formed by direct blow molding with a parison (FIG. 3 – State e, parison 16).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagawa and Akiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taruno et al. (US 2017/0029157; of record).
As to claim 2: Sagawa and Akiyama disclose the method of claim 1. Sagawa and Akiyama fail to disclose the claimed wherein: a thickness of the inner bag at a center in a height direction of the container body is 80 to 200 µm; and a value of (a thickness of the gas barrier layer/a thickness of the inner bag) is 0.2 to 0.6.
However, Taruno teaches a container having an outer layer 11, an inner layer 13, and where an outer shell 12 is composed of the outer layer 11 and an inner bag 14 is composed of the inner layer 13 (Taruno at [0091]); and wherein a thickness of the inner bag at a center in a height direction of the container body is 80 to 200 µm; and a value of (a thickness of the gas barrier layer/a thickness of the inner bag) is 0.2 to 0.6 (Taruno at [0096], [0097], [0098]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the inner bag thickness being within a certain range and a value of (a thickness of the gas barrier layer/a thickness of the inner bag) being 0.2 to 0.6 as such is known in the art of forming containers given the discussion of Taruno above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagawa and Akiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinichi (JP 2020070082; citations taken from the translated version provided herewith).
As to claims 3-4: Sagawa and Akiyama disclose the method of claim 1. Sagawa and Akiyama fail to disclose the claimed wherein: the bottom part of the container body is provided with an outside air introduction hole that introduces an outside air into an intermediate space between the outer shell and the inner bag as the inner bag contracts; and a protrusion that protrudes from the outer shell toward the inner bag is provided as a spacer.
However, Shinichi teaches a method for manufacturing a container, where the bottom part of the container body is provided with an outside air introduction hole that introduces an outside air into an intermediate space between the outer shell and the inner bag as the inner bag contracts; and a protrusion that protrudes from the outer shell toward the inner bag is provided as a spacer (Shinichi at [0045], [0061]-[0064], FIG. 9, FIG. 10, FIG. 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the air introduction hole in the bottom part of the container body to introduce air as such is known in the art of forming containers given the discussion of Shinichi above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar methods/products in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: consistent with the allowable subject matter of parent application (18/248,114), the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the claimed protrusion amount of the pinch-off part from the bottom part is defined as T3,T3/T2 is 0.5 or less. Moreover, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the claimed the preform is stretched longitudinally by pressing a convex part at a tip of a supporting rod against an inner bottom surface of the inner preform such that the convex part fits into a concave part provided in the inner bottom surface of the inner preform, and extending the supporting rod while retracting a bottom support mold such that an annular convex part provided at a bottom part of the outer preform is accommodated in a concave part provided in the bottom support mold that supports a bottom part of the preform
Claims 10-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a primary reason for indicating claim 10 as allowable, is that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed among the plurality of heaters, a heater closest to the outside air introduction hole formation part is defined as a closest heater; among the plurality of heaters, heaters other than the closest heater are defined as other heaters; V is defined as a value of an output of the closest heater divided by a square of a distance from the closest heater to the outside air introduction hole formation part; Wa is defined as a maximum value among values obtained by dividing each output of the other heaters by a square of a distance from each of the other heaters to the preform; and V/Wa is 0.60 or less.
Emmer et al. (US 5,920,677), Scaglotti et al. (US 6,361,301), and Evard (US 2008/0102148), each disclose a plurality of heaters partially surrounding a preform; though, none of the references teach or suggest the claimed among the plurality of heaters, a heater closest to the outside air introduction hole formation part is defined as a closest heater; among the plurality of heaters, heaters other than the closest heater are defined as other heaters; V is defined as a value of an output of the closest heater divided by a square of a distance from the closest heater to the outside air introduction hole formation part; Wa is defined as a maximum value among values obtained by dividing each output of the other heaters by a square of a distance from each of the other heaters to the preform; and V/Wa is 0.60 or less. Accordingly, claim 10 is allowable as are claims 11-16 due to their dependency on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
