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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-11, 13-15 and 17-19 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 is directed toward “A roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks”. However, the claim recites the limitation “each of the plurality of blanks being configured to form a package comprising a housing, the housing comprising…” and further defines the structure of the housing, including, for example, “the first and second side portions are jointed and sealed by an interlocking mechanism to each form a transverse closure”.
The language of the preamble and the language of the body of claim 1 creates confusion and renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether the claims are intended to be directed toward the structure of the package and housing or the structure of the roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks.
Defining the plurality of blanks by defining the housing the blanks are intended to form is confusing and indefinite when the claims fail to make clear what structure of the blanks forms the claimed housing structure or alternatively, how the claimed housing structure specifically relates to the structure of the blanks. The roll of paper-based material comprising the plurality of blanks does not have a transverse closure or first and second side portions that are jointed and sealed to form the transverse closure. Accordingly, the limitations to the transverse closure and the first and second side portions that are jointed and sealed are confusing and render the claim indefinite as the transverse closure and the first and second side portions that are jointed and sealed are exclusive to the formed package and housing.
For the purpose of examination, the claim will be considered to be directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks. Any claimed package and housing structure will only be considered as it relates to the blanks.
Claims 2-9 and 13 recite structure exclusive to the formed package and thus, are rendered indefinite for the same reasons provided above with respect to claim 1. The claims are directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks and thus, the structure recited in each of the dependent claims must be defined with respect to the blanks.
Claims 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected as being dependent from, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (US 2017/0174387 A1, hereinafter Johansson) in view of Phillips, JR. (US 3,405,859 A, hereinafter Phillips).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Johansson teaches a roll (3) of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks (9) (FIG. 1, 4, 5, 11), each of the plurality of blanks being configured to form a package comprising a housing, the housing comprising:
a base comprising two opposed major walls, and two longitudinal side walls opposed to each other (FIG. 1, 5); and
a first side portion and a second side portion integrally formed with the base, wherein the first and second side portions are respectively connected to the base, wherein each of the first and second side portions comprise two opposed side panels and two opposed corner portions (FIG. 1, 5),
wherein each of the two opposed side panels are connected to the adjacent one of the two opposed major walls along a transverse line, wherein the two opposed side panels of each of the first and second side portions are jointed and sealed by an interlocking mechanism to form a transverse closure, and wherein the two opposed corner portions are configured such that they are capable of being tapered (FIG. 1, 4, 5),
wherein the plurality of blanks comprise a continuous web of connected blanks and the paper-based material has a thickness, and
wherein when the blanks from the roll of paper-based material are formed into packages, the packages are configured to be partially formed, filled and sealed prior to the packages being cut from the continuous web of connected blanks (FIG. 1) (paragraphs 60-77,108-112, 126-127 and FIG. 1-5, 11, 12).
Regarding the package and housing structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package and housing. Accordingly, the formed package and housing structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package and housing structure described in the claim. In this case, the plurality of blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package and housing structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the plurality of blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meets the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the plurality of blanks on the roll.
Johansson teaches the roll of paper-based material being made from a paperboard material but fails to teach the paperboard material having a thickness of about 0.5 points to about 15 points or about 5 points to 15 points. Phillips teaches a package formed from a blank of a paperboard material and further teaches that paperboard materials are well known in the art to have a thickness of 7 points to 12 points (column 1 lines 56-61, column 3 lines 29-33).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Johansson by using a paperboard material having a thickness from about .5 points to about 15 points or from about 5 points to 15 points, as taught by Phillips, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known thickness of a paperboard material and accordingly, choosing a particular thickness of paperboard from a range of well-known thicknesses associated with paperboard specifically would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches the roll of claim 1 above, wherein the blanks are configured such that they are capable of forming the housing to be self-standing on a horizontal surface and to remain unchanged in shape, wherein the horizontal surface is against one of the major walls or one of the longitudinal side walls (Johansson: paragraphs 60-77,108-112, 126-127 and FIG. 1-5, 11, 12).
Regarding the package and housing structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package and housing. Accordingly, the formed package and housing structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package and housing structure described in the claim. In this case, the plurality of blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package and housing structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the plurality of blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meets the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the plurality of blanks on the roll.
Regarding claim 3, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches the roll of claim 2 above, wherein the blanks are configured such that they are capable of forming the housing to withstand a weight regardless of the content in the housing (Johansson: paragraphs 60-77,108-112, 126-127 and FIG. 1-5, 11, 12).
Regarding the package and housing structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package and housing. Accordingly, the formed package and housing structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package and housing structure described in the claim. In this case, the plurality of blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package and housing structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the plurality of blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meets the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the plurality of blanks on the roll.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches the roll of claim 1 above, wherein the blanks are configured such that at least one of the first side portion and the second side portion are capable of being substantially compacted in the formed package, and wherein the compacted side portion forms a transverse side wall that is substantially flat and generally perpendicular to the two major walls in the formed package (Johansson: paragraphs 60-77,108-112, 126-127 and FIG. 1-5, 11, 12).
Regarding the package and housing structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package and housing. Accordingly, the formed package and housing structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package and housing structure described in the claim. In this case, the plurality of blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package and housing structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the plurality of blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meets the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the plurality of blanks on the roll.
Regarding claims 6-8, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches the roll of claim 5 above, wherein the blanks are configured such that at least one of the closures in the formed package is capable of being configured to protrude from the corresponding transverse side wall or is capable of being configured to be positioned and adhered flat to conform to the transverse side wall to form a flat closure (Johansson: paragraphs 60-77,108-112, 126-127 and FIG. 1-5, 11, 12).
Regarding the package and housing structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package and housing. Accordingly, the formed package and housing structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package and housing structure described in the claim. In this case, the plurality of blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package and housing structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the plurality of blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meets the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the plurality of blanks on the roll.
Regarding claim 9, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches the roll of claim 1 above, wherein the blanks are configured such that they are capable of forming a package having at least one fin seal or lap seal on at least one of the major walls along the longitudinal direction (Johansson: paragraphs 60-77,108-112, 126-127 and FIG. 1-5, 11, 12).
Regarding the package and housing structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package and housing. Accordingly, the formed package and housing structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package and housing structure described in the claim. In this case, the plurality of blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package and housing structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the plurality of blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meets the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the plurality of blanks on the roll.
Regarding claim 10, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches the roll of claim 1 above, wherein the interlocking mechanism comprises a sealable layer (Johansson: paragraphs 18, 29).
Regarding claim 11, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches the roll of claim 1 above, wherein the continuous web of connected blanks comprises a plurality of preparations selected from the group consisting of cut-offs, perforations, scores, folding lines, and combinations thereof (Johansson: paragraphs 64-77).
Regarding claim 13, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches the roll of claim 1 above, wherein the blanks are configured such that they are capable of forming a package configured to comprise a food product disposed and enclosed in the housing (Johansson: paragraphs 60, 61, 110).
Regarding the package and housing structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising a plurality of blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package and housing. Accordingly, the formed package and housing structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package and housing structure described in the claim. In this case, the plurality of blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package and housing structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the plurality of blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meets the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the plurality of blanks on the roll.
Claims 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson in view of Phillips, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beard (US 2003/0102239 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Johansson as modified by Phillips teaches a plurality of packages formed from the roll (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, but fails to teach a multi-unit package comprising the plurality of packages, wherein each two adjacent packages are connected via a connection between one of the transverse closures of one package to one of the transverse closures of the other package.
Beard teaches a plurality of analogous packages formed from a roll of material and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide a multi-unit package comprising the plurality of packages, wherein each two adjacent packages are connected via a connection between a transverse closures of one package to a transverse closures of the other package so as to define an elongated flexible strand of individually sealed packages (paragraphs 4-14, 23-34 and Fig. 1-6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Johansson by configuring each of the plurality of formed packages to be connected via a connection between a transverse closure of one package and a transverse closure of an adjacent package, as taught by Beard, in order to form a multi-unit elongated flexible strand of individually sealed packages.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Johansson as modified by Phillips and Beard teaches the multi-unit package of claim 15 above, wherein the connection is elongated along the longitudinal direction, wherein the packages are stacked over each other, and wherein the elongated connections are folded without breaking to form a stacked configuration (Beard: paragraphs 1-14, 23-34 and Fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 19, Johansson as modified by Phillips and Beard teaches the multi-unit package of claim 18 above, wherein the multi-unit package further comprises an adhesive (28) between every two adjacent packages to maintain the stacked configuration (Beard: paragraphs 28, 29 and Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Johansson teaches a roll of material, and blanks that are added to the material as the package is formed, is not persuasive.
Johansson expressly discloses that “the crease lines 9 are provided during manufacturing of the packaging material” and that “the filling machine 1 receives packaging material 2 already provided with the crease lines 9” (paragraphs 64-65).
Accordingly, Johansson does teach a roll of blanks.
Applicant’s argument that Johansson provides no teaching regarding the thickness of the packaging material and Phillips is made from an individual blank that is not part of a continuous web, is not persuasive.
Johansson expressly discloses the packaging material being a paperboard material, as does Phillips. Paperboard is well known, as are thicknesses of paperboard. Accordingly, choosing a particular thickness of paperboard from a range of well-known thicknesses associated with paperboard specifically would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results. The prior art cited below further supports paperboard thicknesses as well as paperboard blanks being wound on a roll.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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 Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
