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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 were amended, claim 3-6, 9, 16 was canceled. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-15, 17-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues (US 10968034 B2) in view of Ghini Reference 1 (US 20120211380 A1) and Ghini Reference 2 (US 20110302886 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) comprising a base (18 figure 1 below), a lid (20 figure 1 below) mounted to the base (18 figure 1 below) for rotation between open (figure 2 below) and closed positions (figure 1 below), and a wrapped bundle (10 figure 1 below) received in the base (18 figure 1 below), the wrapped bundle (10 figure 1 below) comprising tobacco industry products (35 figure 2 below) wrapped in a barrier material (30 figure 2 below), the barrier material (30 figure 2 below) comprising an extraction region (40 figure 2 below) in the barrier material, the bundle comprising a label (45 figure 2 below) that is attached to said barrier material (30 figure 1 below) to cover the extraction region (40 figure 2 below), wherein the label (45 figure 2 below) has a peripheral portion (51a figure 2 below) that extends beyond the extraction region (40 figure 2 below) and is peelable (figure 2 below) in use away from the barrier material (30 figure 2 below) to open the extraction region (40 figure 2 below) to provide access to the tobacco industry products (35 figure 2 below), wherein the barrier material is folded so that it comprises overlapping regions (figure 2), wherein the wrapped bundle forms a parallelpiped having a front face and a rear face separated by side faces, wherein the overlapping regions lie substantially along the side faces of the wrapped bundle, wherein the barrier material comprises a paper having a paper weight greater than 85 gsm (col 2 lines 23-26), and wherein the barrier layer is directly adjacent to the tobacco industry products such that no other structure of material is provided between the tobacco industry products (see remarks below, col 6 lines 30 to 33 inherently teaches of embodiments without a frame).
Rodrigues failed to disclose wherein the overlapping regions being completely unsealed and free of any adhesive there between. In a similar field of endeavor, namely tobacco product packaging, Ghini Ref 1 taught of overlapping barrier material (“inner package”) that “may not be stabilized, e.g., because it is eventually to be inserted inside an outer package” (page 1 [0015]). Further, Ghini Ref 2 discloses the aversion to glue, as it is “thought to negatively affect the organoleptic characteristics of the cigarettes if placed too close to them” (page 4 [0068]). So essentially, because of placement in an outer package, no form of sealing is necessary as the outer package helps keep the inner package sealed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tobacco product storage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not seal the overlapping regions as taught by Ghini Reference 1 and 2 in the invention of Rodrigues since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well-known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Rodrigues teaches a tobacco product package and adding unsealed overlapping regions as taught by Ghini Refence 1 and 2 would maintain the same functionality of Rodrigues (keep the edges shut), making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Examiner Note: On Page 1 [0003] of Cavazza (US 20120174534 A1) it is stated “In a conventional packet of cigarettes, the group of cigarettes is wrapped internally in a rectangular sheet of foil inner wrapping material with no glue, and is packed externally in a rectangular sheet of outer packing material that is stabilized using glue.”. On page 1 [0003] of Polloni (US 20200247605 A1) it is stated “In a traditional cigarette package, the group of cigarettes is internally wound in an rectangular inner wrapper made of metallized paper and without glue, and it is also externally wound in a rectangular outer wrapper, which is stabilized by means of gluing.”
PNG
media_image1.png
476
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the label (45 figure 2 above) forms a separate covering adhered to the surface of the barrier material (30 figure 2 above) (col 4 lines 15-21).
With respect to claim 7, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the peripheral portion (51a figure 2 above) of the label is adhered to the barrier material (40 figure 2 above) by re-stick adhesive (col 8 lines 20-23) (col 4 lines 23-26).
With respect to claim 8, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the label (45 figure 2 above) is attached to the lid (20 figure 2 above) so that in use the peripheral portion (51a figure 2 above) of the label is peeled away from the barrier material (30 figure 2 above) at the same time the lid is rotated into the open position (figure 2 above).
With respect to claim 10, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the paper has a paper weight greater than 100gsm. (col 2 lines 17-19).
With respect to claim 11, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the paper has a paper weight greater than 150gsm. (col 2 lines 17-19).
With respect to claim 12, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the paper has a paper weight greater than 160gsm. (col 2 lines 17-19).
With respect to claim 13, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the paper has a paper weight less than 180gsm. (col 2 lines 17-19).
With respect to claim 14, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the paper has a paper weight less than 200gsm. (col 2 lines 17-19).
With respect to claim 15, Rodrigues discloses a pack (15 figure 1 below) according to claim 1, wherein the paper has a paper weight less than 220gsm. (col 2 lines 17-19).
With respect to claim 17, Rodrigues discloses a reel of barrier material comprising a plurality of blanks (col 1 lines 65-67) for use in forming the pack of tobacco industry products of claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, Rodrigues discloses a reel of barrier material according to claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of blanks (col 1 lines 65-67) comprises a line of weakness that defines the extraction region (40 figure 2 above) of the wrapped bundle (col 3 lines 44-46).
With respect to claim 20, Rodrigues discloses as method of forming the pack of claim 1, the method comprising wrapping the tobacco industry products (35 figure 2 above) in the barrier material (30 figure 2 above) (col 6 lines 38-40).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues (US 10968034 B2) in view of Sigrist (US 5819924 A), Ghini Reference 1 (US 20120211380 A1) and Ghini Reference 2 (US 20110302886 A1).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 17, above, in view of Sigrist. Rodrigues failed to disclose wherein each of the plurality of blanks comprises predetermined fold lines. In a similar field of endeavor, namely tobacco product packaging, Sigrist teaches of barrier material with designated dotted fold lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tobacco product packaging before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include designated fold lines as taught by Sigrist in the reel of barrier material of Rodrigues since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well-known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Rodrigues teaches of a reel of barrier material and adding designated fold lines as taught by Sigrist would maintain the same functionality of Rodrigues, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the Rodrigues does not explicitly disclose that the inner package is made of paper. The applicant cites col 3 lines 25 to 30 that states the inner package "may be made of any suitable materials for example polymeric material, metal foils, or other materials...". Firstly, paper is considered a polymeric material. Further, the statement "may be" indicates a material optionality, not a necessity. Secondly, Rodrigues discloses "a container" which comprises a housing and an inner package (abstract, specifically, "the container also comprises an inner package"). On col 2 lines 15-26, Rodrigues discloses a material option of cardboard for the container (which includes the inner package). The material limitation presented on column 2 lines 15-26 applies to the inner package. If Rodrigues did not wish for this optionality, Rodrigues would’ve excluded the material optionality to apply only to the housing.
Applicant believes Rodrigues discloses that an inner frame is present. However, in the recitation provided (col 6 lines 30-33) “In some embodiments, the container can also comprise an optional inner frame disposed within the box. The inner frame can be disposed inside the front wall of the box.” An optionality is present. Rodrigues does not declare the frame as a necessity to the invention. Rodrigues teaches that a frame provides an advantage but is not necessary. In fact this statement alone teaches that there is no frame in some embodiments.
With respect to the other arguments pertaining to the unsealed region, a new argument has been made. Examiner would like to bring to the attention that Rodrigues alone does not teach of a sealing means for the overlapping regions of the inner package.
Examiner Note: On Page 1 [0003] of Cavazza (US 20120174534 A1) it is stated “In a conventional packet of cigarettes, the group of cigarettes is wrapped internally in a rectangular sheet of foil inner wrapping material with no glue, and is packed externally in a rectangular sheet of outer packing material that is stabilized using glue.”. On page 1 [0003] of Polloni (US 20200247605 A1) it is stated “In a traditional cigarette package, the group of cigarettes is internally wound in an rectangular inner wrapper made of metallized paper and without glue, and it is also externally wound in a rectangular outer wrapper, which is stabilized by means of gluing.”
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5819924 A, US 20070196611 A1, US 20100163563 A1, US 20120211380 A1, US 20140110286 A1, US 20170021994 A1, US 20190225410 A1, US 20190270577 A1, US 20200039733 A1, US 20200115145 A1, US 20200247605 A1, and US 20200290794 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735