DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-9, 13 and 14 have been amended. Claims 12 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-15 and 17-30 remain pending in the application, with claims 20-30 withdrawn from consideration.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the blanks each forming a package comprising a housing, wherein the housing comprises:” should be --the blanks each configured to form a package comprising a housing, wherein the blanks each comprise:--,
In line 3, “a base configured to comprise” should be --a base comprising--,
In lines 5-6, “the two side portions” should be --the first and second side portions--,
In lines 6-7, “each side portion is configured to comprise” should be --each of the first and second side portions comprises--,
In line 9, “each side panel is configured to be connected to the adjacent major wall” should be --each of the two opposed side panels are connected to the adjacent one of the two opposed major walls”,
In line 10, “each side portion” should be --each of the first and second side portions--,
In line 11, “the transverse closure” should be --the transverse closure when packages are formed form the blanks--,
In lines 11-12, “the corner portions” should be --the two opposed corner portions--, and
In line 13, “the roll of paper-based material comprises a continuous web of connected blanks” should be --the blanks on the roll of paper-based material comprise a continuous web of connected blanks--.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 3-4, “one of the major walls or one of the longitudinal side walls” should be --one of the two opposed major walls or one of the two longitudinal side walls--.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “the side portions” should be --the first or second side portions--.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9, “the major walls” should be --the two opposed major walls--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the paper-based material has a thickness of about 0.5 points to about 15 points” in line 14. However, the specification only provides support for a thickness of about 0.5 points to 24 points, 0.5 points to 12 points, 12 points to 24 points, 6 points to 18 points, and 9 points to 15 points. Accordingly, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement as the specification fails to support that a thickness of about 0.5 points to about 15 points was contemplated at the time the application was filed.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the paper-based material has a thickness from about 5 points to about 15 points. However, the specification only provides support for a thickness of 0.5 points to 24 points, 0.5 points to 12 points, 12 points to 24 points, 6 points to 18 points, and 9 points to 15 points. Accordingly, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement as the specification fails to support that a thickness of about 5 points to about 15 points was contemplated at the time the application was filed.
Claims 2-11, 13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected as being dependent from independent claim 1.
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 blanks”. However, the claim recites the limitation “the blanks each forming a package comprising a housing, wherein the housing comprises…” and further defines the structure of the housing. Accordingly, the language of the preamble 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 blanks.
For the purpose of examination, the claim will be considered to be directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. See languge of the claims below. Any claimed package structure will only be considered as it relates to the blanks.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “and further configured to form a transverse closure when packages are formed from the blanks” in lines 7-8. However, the claim fails to make clear what structure of the blank is configured to form the transverse closure when the packages are formed from the blanks.
For the purpose of examination, the two opposed side panels and the two opposed corner portions will be considered to be configured to form a transverse closure when packages are formed from the blanks.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “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 packaged being cut from the continuous web of connected blanks. However, the claims are directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claims are not directed toward a method of forming a package from a blank or toward an intermediate or final package structure. Accordingly, the limitation fails to make clear the relationship between the method/product limitation and the roll of paper-based material comprising blanks (i.e., what structure is being imparted on the roll of paper-based material comprising the blanks by the method/product limitation or what structure of the roll of paper-based material comprising blanks enables the claimed method/product limitation).
For the purpose of examination, the roll of paper-based material will be considered to be configured such that each blank is capable of being partially formed into packages, filled and sealed prior to being cut from the continuous web of connected blanks. It is noted that examiners consideration of the claim language does not remedy the issue defined above.
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 blanks and thus, the structure recited in each of the dependent claims must be defined with respect to the blanks only, not the formed package.
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 blanks (9) (FIG. 1, 4, 5, 11), the blanks each configured such that they are capable of forming a package comprising a housing, wherein the blanks comprising:
a base comprising two opposed major walls, and two longitudinal side walls opposed to each other (FIG. 5); and
a first side portion and a second side portion integrally formed with the base, wherein each of 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. 5), and wherein the two opposed side panels and the two opposed corner portions are configured such that they are capable of forming a transverse closure when the packages are formed form the blanks (Fig. 1, 4, 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 configured such that they are capable of being jointed and sealed by an interlocking mechanism to form the transverse closure when the packages are formed form the blanks and wherein the corner portions are configured such that they are capable of being tapered when the packages are formed form the blanks (FIG. 1, 4, 5),
wherein the blanks on the roll of paper-based material comprise a continuous web of connected blanks and the paper-based material has a thickness, and
wherein each of the blanks are configured such that they are capable of being partially formed into packages, filled and sealed prior to 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 structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package. Accordingly, the formed package structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package structure described in the claim. In this case, the blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meet the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the blanks on the roll.
Regarding the method limitations recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claim is not directed toward a method of forming a package from a blank. Accordingly, the method limitations are only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of performing the claimed method. In this case, the blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to perform the claimed method. Thus, the structure of the blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meet the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the 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 structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package. Accordingly, the formed package structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package structure described in the claim. In this case, the blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meet the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the 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 structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package. Accordingly, the formed package structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package structure described in the claim. In this case, the blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meet the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the 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 structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package. Accordingly, the formed package structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package structure described in the claim. In this case, the blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meet the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the 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 (Johansson: paragraphs 60-77,108-112, 126-127 and FIG. 1-5, 11, 12).
Regarding the package structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package. Accordingly, the formed package structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package structure described in the claim. In this case, the blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meet the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the 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 structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package. Accordingly, the formed package structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package structure described in the claim. In this case, the blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meet the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the 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 structure recited in the claim, the claim is directed toward a roll of paper-based material comprising blanks. The claim is not directed toward the structure of the formed package. Accordingly, the formed package structure is only considered to the degree that the blanks comprise the structure necessary to be capable of creating the formed package structure described in the claim. In this case, the blanks on the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson comprise the structure necessary to form the package structure described in the claim. Thus, the structure of the blanks and the roll of paper-based material disclosed by Johansson meet the language of the claim with respect to the claimed structure of the 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) accordingly 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 (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 April 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Calvert (US 5,660,898), Chung et al. (US 5,011,722 A), Focke et al. (US 4,898,569 A), Rusnock (US 4,634,007 A) and Persson et al. (US 2015/0080200 A1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights