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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatada et al. (JP2017057012) in view of Hallgren et al. (WO2015036930), Fontenot et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6368609) and Spreckelsen et al. (GB2444048).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatada et al. discloses a container for the packaging of compositions comprising water-in-oil (W/O) emulsions and/ or oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions, (paragraph 1 and 8) which container comprises a tube-formed body (paragraph 1) made from a paperboard (paragraph 6 and 8). Hatada et al. does not comprise a fiber based substrate comprising a first ply forming a back ply, a second ply forming a top ply and a third ply forming at least one middle ply, wherein the fiber based substrate comprises softwood CTMP, and wherein each ply comprises a pulp and wherein the fiber base substrate comprises at least two plies bonded to each other without any adhesive between the at least two plies and the tube formed body comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is sealed and the second end is connected to a plastic shoulder having a dispersion hold wherein said should is connected to the tube-formed body by thermal sealing. However, Hallgren et al. teaches a fiber based substrate comprising a first ply forming a back ply, a second ply forming a top ply and a third ply forming at least one middle ply and Fontenot et al. teaches wherein the fiber based substrate comprises softwood CTMP (Column 4, lines 25-30) wherein the fiber base substrate comprises at least two plies bonded to each other without any adhesive between the at least two plies (Column 7, lines 49-64) and wherein each ply comprises a pulp (Column 4, lines 55-61). Also, Spreckelsen et al. discloses and the tube formed body comprising a first end and a second end (Figure 1), wherein the first end is sealed (Figure 1) and the second end is connected to a plastic shoulder 10 (Figure 3; paragraph 29) having a dispersion hole (Figure 3, when cap open) wherein said should is connected to the tube-formed body by thermal sealing (Figure 3; paragraph 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Hallgren et al., Fontenot et al. and Spreckelsen et al., in order to improve strength of the package and attach the plies together while allowing for easy dispensing.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Hatada et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the fiber based substrate exhibits a Z-tensile strength of at least 350 kPa and a Scott Bond of at least 180 J/m2; the ratio between Scott Bond and Z-tensile strength is between 0.5-1; the fiber based substrate exhibits a bulk of at least 1 cm3/g. However, Hallgren et al. teaches the fiber based substrate exhibits a Z-tensile strength of at least 350 kPa and a Scott Bond of at least 180 J/m2 (page 7, last paragraph); the ratio between Scott Bond and Z-tensile strength is between 0.5-1 (page 6, last paragraph-page 7, first two paragraphs); the fiber based substrate exhibits a bulk of at least 1 cm3/g (page 6, last paragraph-page 7, first two paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Hallgren et al., in order to provide the strength to contain the contents.
Regarding Claim 5, Hatada et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the third ply comprises CTMP. However, Fontenot et al. teaches the third ply comprises softwood CTMP (Column 4, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Fontenot et al., in order to provide the strength to contain the contents.
Regarding Claim 7, Hatada et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the fiber based substrate has been made by first forming a top ply on a wire using a first headbox, whereupon middle and back plies are formed successively on the top ply using a second and a third headbox. However, Hallgren et al. teaches the fiber based substrate has been made by first forming a top ply on a wire using a first headbox, whereupon middle and back plies are formed successively on the top ply using a second and a third headbox (page 10, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Hallgren et al., in order to easily form the container.
Regarding Claim 8, Hatada et al. discloses the paperboard further comprises at least one barrier layer applied on a first surface of said fiber based substrate (paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 9, Hatada et al. discloses the at least one barrier layer comprises a first innermost barrier layer comprising polyolefin applied on the first surface of the fiber based substrate, a second barrier layer comprising a metal foil and/or ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) and a third, outermost barrier layer comprising polyolefin, which third barrier layer forms an inner surface of the container adapted to be in contact with the content of the container (paragraph 68).
Claim(s) 10, 12-15 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatada et al. (JP2017057012) in view of Hallgren et al. (WO2015036930), Fontenot et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6368609), Svending et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170284030) and Spreckelsen et al. (GB2444048).
Regarding Claim 10, Hatada et al. discloses a tube-formed container for the packaging of compositions comprising water water-in-oil (W/O) emulsions and/ or oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions (paragraphs 1 and 8). Hatada et al. does not comprise a fiber based substrate comprising a first ply forming a back ply, a second ply forming a top ply and a third ply forming at least one middle ply, wherein the fiber based substrate comprises softwood CTMP wherein the fiber base substrate comprises at least two plies bonded to each other without any adhesive between the at least two plies by using a wet on wet forming technique between the at least two plies and the tube formed body comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is sealed and the second end is connected to a plastic shoulder having a dispersion hold wherein said should is connected to the tube-formed body by thermal sealing. However, Hallgren et al. teaches a fiber based substrate comprising a first ply forming a back ply, a second ply forming a top ply and a third ply forming at least one middle ply, Fontenot et al. teaches wherein the fiber based substrate comprises softwood CTMP (Column 4, lines 25-30), wherein the fiber base substrate comprises at least two plies bonded to each other without any adhesive between the at least two plies (Column 7, lines 49-64) and Svending et al. teaches a wet on wet forming technique between the at least two plies (Paragraph 99). Also, Spreckelsen et al. discloses and the tube formed body comprising a first end and a second end (Figure 1), wherein the first end is sealed (Figure 1) and the second end is connected to a plastic shoulder 10 (Figure 3; paragraph 29) having a dispersion hole (Figure 3, when cap open) wherein said should is connected to the tube-formed body by thermal sealing (Figure 3; paragraph 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Hallgren et al., Fontenot et al., Svending et al. and Spreckelson et al., in order to improve strength of the package and attach the plies together while allowing for easy dispensing.
Regarding Claims 12-14, Hatada et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the fiber based substrate exhibits a Z-tensile strength of at least 350 kPa and a Scott Bond of at least 180 J/m2; the ratio between Scott Bond and Z-tensile strength is between 0.5-1; the fiber based substrate exhibits a bulk of at least 1 cm3/g. However, Hallgren et al. teaches the fiber based substrate exhibits a Z-tensile strength of at least 350 kPa and a Scott Bond of at least 180 J/m2 (page 7, last paragraph); the ratio between Scott Bond and Z-tensile strength is between 0.5-1 (page 6, last paragraph-page 7, first two paragraphs); the fiber based substrate exhibits a bulk of at least 1 cm3/g (page 6, last paragraph-page 7, first two paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Hallgren et al., in order to provide the strength to contain the contents.
Regarding Claim 15, Hatada et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the third ply comprises CTMP. However, Fontenot et al. teaches the third ply comprises CTMP (Column 4, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Fontenot et al., in order to provide the strength to contain the contents.
Regarding Claim 17, Hatada et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the fiber based substrate has been made by first forming a top ply on a wire using a first headbox, whereupon middle and back plies are formed successively on the top ply using a second and a third headbox. However, Hallgren et al. teaches the fiber based substrate has been made by first forming a top ply on a wire using a first headbox, whereupon middle and back plies are formed successively on the top ply using a second and a third headbox (page 10, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Hallgren et al., in order to easily form the container.
Regarding Claim 18, Hatada et al. discloses the paperboard further comprises at least one barrier layer applied on a first surface of said fiber based substrate (paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 19, Hatada et al. discloses the at least one barrier layer comprises a first innermost barrier layer comprising polyolefin applied on the first surface of the fiber based substrate, a second barrier layer comprising a metal foil and/or ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) and a third, outermost barrier layer comprising polyolefin, which third barrier layer forms an inner surface of the container adapted to be in contact with the content of the container (paragraph 68).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Fontenot et al. teaches the polyolefin of the third, outermost barrier layer comprises polyethylene (column 5, lines 19-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hatada et al. to include the above, as taught by Fontenot et al., in order to help with a layer barrier.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hallgren does not disclose softwood CTMP. However, Fontenot et al. teaches softwood CTMP (Column 4, lines 25-30) and while Hallgren prefers hardwood CTMP due to cost they do mention that softwood CTMP is a better option and would be obvious to combine with Fontenot et al. Fontenot et al. also teaches polyethylene (column 5, lines 19-20) to help with a layer barrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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 JENNESS can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights