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
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, 10, 12, 14 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafker (US 10,865,037) in view of Moore (US 2,120,898).
Regarding claim 1, Hafker (figs. 1-6 and fig. 16) discloses a box-in-box package comprising:
a rigid outer box 13 having a hinged lid configured to provide access to an inner volume of the rigid outer box, the rigid outer box 13 made from an outer box blank, the outer box blank including,
a first front wall 17,
a first back wall 19,
a first top wall 24,
a first bottom wall 18, and
a first plurality of side walls 20, the first plurality of side walls including at least a first side wall 20 having an angle relative to a first respective fold line of 50 degrees, and at least a second side wall having an angle relative to the first respective fold line of 140 degrees; and
a rigid inner box 12 made from an inner box blank, the inner box blank made from a discontinuous second paperboard, and
the inner box blank including, a second front wall 46, 47 ,a second back wall 39,a second top wall 37,a second bottom wall 48,a second plurality of side walls 51, 52, 53, 55 the second plurality of side walls including, at least two first side walls 53, 55 having angles relative to second and third respective fold lines of 45 degrees, and at least two second side walls 53, 55 having angles relative to the second and third respective fold lines of 135 degrees, and a single opening 35 extending across the second top wall 37 and part way down the second front wall 46, the single opening 35 configured to provide access to unwrapped consumer goods in an inner volume of the rigid inner box, the single opening in the rigid inner box including, a cut-out in the second paperboard, the single opening being free from a re-sealable label and wrapper (col. 3, lines 16-20).
Hafker fails to disclose:
the outer box blank made from a first foil lined paperboard, the first foil lined paperboard including, a foil layer adhered to a paper layer and a paperboard layer, an outer surface of the paper layer adhered to an inner surface of the foil layer by a first adhesive layer, and an inner surface of the paperboard layer adhered to an outer surface of the foil layer by a second adhesive layer; and
the inner box blank made from a second foil lined paperboard, the second foil lined paperboard having a same composition as the first foil lined paperboard.
However, Moore teaches a blank 30 comprising a layer of foil 31 interposed between layers of paper 32, the layers being secured together by adhesive 33 (fig. 10 and page 3, lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the blanks of the inner and outer boxes of Fortini, of layers and paper and foil, to provide a structure comprising layers of materials of different qualities or characteristics mutually supplementing each other, as taught by Moore in page 3, lines 13-18, to provide moisture resistance and strength.
Further, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafker (US 10,865,037) in view of Moore (US 2,120,898) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cailleaux (US 2018/0265373).
Regarding claims 3-6 the modified Hafker fails to disclose:
a polypropylene film on an outer surface the paperboard layer; or a metallized polyester layer on an outer surface of the foil lined paperboard.
However, Cailleaux teaches an overlayer of a cigarettes packaging being made of polypropylene or polyester layers (paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the modified device of Hafker an outer layer of the claimed materials, for providing abrasion resistance as taught by Cailleaux in paragraph 0038.
Also, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafker (US 10,865,037) in view of Moore (US 2,120,898) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Huffman (US 6,688,515).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hafker fails to disclose the foiled lined paperboard comprising solid bleached sulfate (SBS) board stock.
However, Huffman teaches a moisture control packaging material having a paperboard made of solid bleached sulfate (col. 4, lines 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the paperboard of the modified Hafker, of SBS, for providing a rigid container that doesn’t deform if stacked with other containers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafker (US 10,865,037) in view of Moore (US 2,120,898) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Babinsky (US 8,389,079).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Hafker discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the first and second adhesive layers comprising sodium silicate.
However, Babinski teaches an adhesive layer 28 including sodium silicate (col. 6, lines 58-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have included sodium silicate to the adhesive layer of the modified Hafker, for aiding in binding and curing of the binder by rapidly increasing viscosity of the binder during the drying processes as taught by Babinski in col. 6, lines 58-64.
Regarding claim 10, Hafker further discloses the inner box 12 being formed from an inner box blank which includes a front panel corresponding to the second front wall 46, 47 , a top panel corresponding to the second top wall 37, a back panel corresponding to the second back wall 39, and a bottom panel corresponding to the second bottom wall 48 (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Hafker further discloses the front panel includes a top front panel 46 and a bottom front panel 47 (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Hafker further discloses the inner box 12 is formed from an inner box blank which includes a top front panel 46 corresponding to an upper portion of the second front wall separated from a top panel corresponding to the second top wall 37 by a first transverse fold line, a back panel corresponding to the second back wall 39 separated from the top panel by a second transverse fold line, a bottom panel corresponding to the second bottom wall 48 separated from the back panel by a third transverse fold line, and a bottom front panel corresponding to a lower portion of the second front wall 47 separated from the bottom panel by a fourth transverse fold line (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 23, Hafker further discloses the first plurality of side walls further includes at least a third side wall having an angle relative to a fourth respective fold line of about -45 degrees (figs 1 and 16).
Regarding claim 24, Hafker further discloses the first plurality of side walls further includes at least a fourth side wall having an angle relative to a fifth respective fold line of about -135 degrees (figs. 1 and 16).
Regarding claim 25, Hafker further discloses the first plurality of side walls further includes at least a third side wall having an angle relative to a fourth respective fold line of about -135 degrees (figs. 1 and 16).
Regarding claim 26, Hafker further discloses the first plurality of side walls further includes at least a third side wall having an angle relative to a fourth respective fold line of about -39 degrees (figs. 1 and 16).
Regarding claim 27, Hafker further discloses the first plurality of side walls further includes at least a third side wall having an angle relative to a fourth respective fold line of about -129 degrees (figs 1 and 16).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafker (US 10,865,037) in view of Moore (US 2,120,898) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bertuzzi (US 2011/0062037).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Hafker further discloses the rigid inner box contains cigarettes in direct contact with a paper layer of the rigid inner box but fails to disclose a portion of the paper layer of the rigid outer box being in direct contact with ends of cigarettes located in the single opening in the rigid inner box.
However, Bertuzzi teaches a portion of an inner layer of the rigid outer box being in direct contact with tobacco articles located in the single opening in a rigid inner box (fig. 5 and paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made a portion of outer box of the modified Hafker, in direct contact with the contents, as taught by Bertuzzi, for cutting manufacturing cost by eliminating the flexible cover. Also, it is noted that omission of an element (i.e., the flexible cover) and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP 2144.04 II A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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 at 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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights