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 .
Status of Claims
Currently Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-25 are pending and claims 11, 15, and 19-25 have been withdrawn
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/28/2025.
Claims 11 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/28/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of the species between Species A-G which correspond to figures 3a-3g in the reply filed on 04/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all the straws are a paper tube with a beveled tip with a cutting edge. This is not found persuasive because each species discloses a different straw configured with the impregnated region, with noted claims drawn towards different embodiments with different impregnation regions. Applicant argues that they form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1, the examiner disagrees as a paper straw with a tube and beveled tip with impregnation by an agent in itself is not an inventive concept (see below applied prior art) and the differences between the species is such that they are distinct and require restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-4, 13-14, and 16- 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. 2019/0313819) in view of Parker (U.S. 2020/0063349)
With respect to claim 1, Li discloses a paper drinking straw comprising a paper tube (title) with a first end (fist end in figure 1 at 20) and a second end (the flat end of 100) and comprising a total length (figure 1), wherein at least one impregnated region of the paper tube is impregnated with an impregnation agent (where the layer between the outer surface and the second waterproof membrane is a printing layer, paragraphs 0009-0010; this can also be taken as the outer water proof membrane which is noted being different then the inner water proof membrane) and at least one region of the paper tube is not impregnated with the impregnation agent (as there is no interior printing layer, see figure 1, or that the outer waterproof layer is noted different form the inner waterproofing layer; paragraph 0033 as one layer is made of wax),
wherein the first end of the paper tube comprises a beveled tip (figure 3, end at 20) and wherein the second end of the paper tube comprises a straight end (figure 3 end at 30), wherein a cutting edge of the beveled tip is impregnated with the impregnation agent (as shown in figure 4b, the end tip having the noted impregnated agent, being the waterproof membrane). Li fails to disclose the impregnation agent penetrates into pores and spaces between fibers of the paper.
Parker discloses, paragraph 0006, that the water-proofing agent can be coated and/or impregnated with the fiber layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the impregnation of water-proof agent to the straw as disclosed by parker into the system of LI, as such method of waterproofing the straw would be a simple substitution as Parker discloses both coating and impregnation are known methods.
With respect to claim 3, Li discloses the at least one impregnated region comprises a first impregnated region starting from the second end of the paper tube and extending towards the first end of the paper tube and being impregnated with the impregnation agent (taking a first region extending from the second end of the paper tube, being a region of 70 or 80), wherein the first impregnated region extends for less than about 90% of a total length of the paper tube (taking the region of 70 or 80 at less than 90% to be the first impregnated region).
With respect to claim 4, Li (Previously presented) The paper drinking straw of claim 3, wherein: (a) the at least one impregnated region comprises a second impregnated region starting at a distance from the second end of the paper tube and extending as an annular ring towards the first end of the paper tube and being impregnated with the impregnation agent (taking an annular ring of the area 70 or 80 as that of a second impregnation region, being a region starting from the second end of the straw and being annular), (b) the annular ring has a width of 10% to 25% of a total length of the paper tube (taking the second region to be 10 to 25% in length), and (c) the distance is 20% to 50% of the total length of the paper tube (taking the second region to be 20% of the total length).
With respect to claim 13, Li as modified discloses the beveled tip is at least partially impregnated with the impregnation agent (as the tip has both the layer 80 thereon on its outer surface).
With respect to claim 14, Li as modified discloses at least an inner surface, an outer surface or a cutting edge of the beveled tip are impregnated with the impregnation agent (as the outer surface includes the layer 80).
With respect to claim 16, Li discloses the beveled tip is at least partially impregnated with the impregnation agent only after providing the beveled tip (as the tip is covered on its outside by 80, it is at least partially impregnated there with it).
With respect to claim 17, Li discloses a beverage container for receiving liquid product (paragraph 0002, as the straw is designed to work with containers or cups), wherein the beverage container comprises a penetration opening for introducing the paper drinking straw of claim 1 (paragraph 0016, the penetration opening being where the piercing segment pierces a package filled with a beverage)), and the paper drinking straw (see rejection of claim 1, as Li discloses a straw for such drink containers, and such drink containers are well known to have an opening (usually foil) in which the tip 20 then pierces).
With respect to claim 18, Li discloses the beverage container is designed as a beverage carton (being a beverage carton made of paper), a foil bag, or as a stand-up pouch.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (U.S. 2020/0063349) in view of Li.
With respect to claim 1, Parker discloses a paper drinking straw comprising a paper tube (figure 53, paragraph 0563 discloses being paper products) with a first end (figure 53, a first end) and a second end (figure 53, disclosing a second end) and comprising a total length (from the first to second end), wherein at least one impregnated region of the paper tube is impregnated with an impregnation agent (paragraph 0006 where the hollow tube is at least partially coated and/or impregnated with a water-proofing agent) and at least one region of the paper tube is not impregnated with the impregnation agent (at least partially includes that a partial part is not impregnated, noting that a part of the body cannot then be impregnated, paragraph 0689 discloses the impregnation being done by brushing, soaking or immersing the one or more surfaces, taking the inside as being coated and the inner surface as not being impregnated),
wherein the second end of the paper tube comprises a straight end (figure 53), but fails to disclose the first end of the paper tube comprises a beveled tip and a cutting edge of the beveled tip is impregnated with the impregnation agent.
Li discloses, wherein the first end of the paper tube comprises a beveled tip (figure 3, end at 20) and wherein the second end of the paper tube comprises a straight end (figure 3 end at 30), wherein a cutting edge of the beveled tip is impregnated with the impregnation agent (as shown in figure 4b, the end tip having the noted impregnated agent, being the waterproof membrane). As such a beveled tip at one end allows for the straw to pierce a package and be used therewith, abstract and paragraph 0007.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the beveled tip at one end of the straw as disclosed by Li into the system of Parker, as this would allow for the straw to pierce a container and be used with such containers as desired. The noted combination would still have the entire area of it covered with the impregnating agent of the beveled tip, as that would be the area which would then make contact with fluid and require the waterproof coating, and wherein the impregnation agent penetrates into pores and spaces between fibers of the paper (paragraph 0689, being impregnation of the material into the paper straw).
With respect to claim 3, Parker discloses the at least one impregnated region comprises a first impregnated region starting from the second end of the paper tube and extending towards the first end of the paper tube and being impregnated with the impregnation agent (taking the outside of the straw as being impregnated, a first region is then taken from the second side towards the first side), wherein the first impregnated region extends for less than about 90% of a total length of the paper tube (as this is a taken region, it can be taken to be less than 90%, say for instance 70% or 50% of the coating can be takin as this first region). This rejection is taking the fact that if you have a whole surface impregnated you can take sections of the whole as the claimed region.
With respect to claim 4, Parker discloses
(a) the at least one impregnated region comprises a second impregnated region starting at a distance from the second end of the paper tube and extending as an annular ring towards the first end of the paper tube and being impregnated with the impregnation agent (as a portion of the impregnation can be taken then as a second region in the form of an annular ring),
(b) the annular ring has a width of 10% to 25% of a total length of the paper tube (as the second region, being a taken portion of the straw, can be taken to be between a width of 10 25%), and
(c) the distance is 20% to 50% of the total length of the paper tube (as a distance of 20% can be taken as the length of the ring, being a note region (portion) of the length being impregnated).
With respect to claim 5, Parker discloses the at least one impregnated region comprises a third impregnated region starting from the first end of the (taking the region then from the first end to be impregnated to be a third region) paper tube and extending towards the second end of the paper tube and being impregnated with the impregnation agent, wherein the third impregnated region extends for less than about 90% of the total length of the paper tube (as there can be then taken a region of say 10% at the first end that’s impregnated which can then be taken as a third region, where the three regions together form all the impregnation occurring on the straw).
With respect to claim 6, Parker discloses when starting from the second end of the paper tube 100% of the total length of the paper tube is not impregnated with the impregnation agent (as only at least partial area is disclosed be impregnated which includes less than 100% of the length being coated), and a cutting edge at the first end of the paper tube is impregnated with the impregnation agent (as the ends that are cut are impregnated, paragraph 0139 discloses that the fibers are cut).
With respect to claim 7, Parker discloses the impregnation agent comprises silicate, polymer, resin, wax, adhesive, latex, or a mixture thereof (paragraph 0694 discloses wax, resin, polymers, and silicate).
With respect to claim 9, Parker discloses the paper tube comprises a winded paper layer (as shown in figure 53, paragraph 0021 discloses the winding) and wherein the impregnation agent is only applied to exposed surface of the paper tube (as disclosed in paragraph 0006 the layer of the hollow tube is impregnated with the water-proofing agent, and is further applied to the surface of the tube member, paragraph 0695).
With respect to claim 10, Parker discloses the paper tube comprises at least one paper layer (being the layer of the straw itself, being a layer of paper that is then winded into a straw).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Parker.
With respect to claim 8, Li discloses the paper drinking straw as disclosed in claim 4, but fails to disclose the impregnation agent comprises sodium silicate, wherein the molar ratio of Si02:Na2O in sodium silicate is from about 3.3 to about 3.5.
Parker, paragraph 0694, discloses using sodium silicate as its acid resistant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill I the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the agent being sodium silicate as disclosed by Parker into the system of Lin to make the paper straw resistant to acid on the outer layer. Furthermore, the molar ratio of Si02:Na2O in sodium silicate is from about 3.3 to about 3.5 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill I the art. MPEP 2144.059II-A). Please note in the instance application the applicant has given no criticality to the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li does not disclose the cutting edge being selectively coated. Examiner disagrees, paragraph 0009 discloses the surface has having the waterproof membrane and further a coating between the two that has a color/label/combination, which can be seen in figure 2b, as going to the edge (cutting edge) of the straw itself. That layer, being layer 70 or 80, and is understood going down the length thereof and thus encompassing the cutting edge because it encompasses the straw between 50 and 80 over its outside, or 80 being the outside. The different region in Li is that the outer region is impregnated, and the inner region is not impregnated. Thus, the outer side of the cutting edge (where the noted bevel tip is), has the coating on its outer region and not the inner region because the inner regions waterproof coating is a wax (and not impregnating) and the outer layer is being take as impregnating into the pores as well as having 70 which is adding a color, understood being impregnating into the pores.
Applicant argues that Parker does not teach, disclose, or suggest any selection criteria as to where to place such impregnation, nor does it disclose preferred regions of coating or impregnation. This argument is made with respect to claim 1, where the cutting edge of the beveled tip is impregnated with the impregnation agent. Parker is only used to disclose that waterproofing agent is known to impregnant (and thus penetrates into the pores and spaces) which then the layer between the waterproofing and the straw would further also then be within the pores of the paper and thus impregnating the paper region.
Applicant further makes the argument that Li nor Parker teach the impregnated and non-impregnated region nor the cutting edge of the beveled tip as having the impregnation agent between the fibers and the paper. Examiner disagrees. Li discloses the impregnation as being what is essentially 70 or 80 (as the 80 is impregnating where 60 is a coating of wax), and 70/80 is along the outer side of the straw (which includes the cutting edge on its outside). Li does not disclose this on the inside of the straw, and thus that region of the straw does not have the impregnation like that of the outside (being void of 70 or 80 on the inside). Parker is merely being used to disclose that such treatments on paper straws are impregnation that is going into the pores, as Li fails to specially disclose such treatments going into the pores. Where if the waterproofing of Li goes into the pore of the straw, so does the layer 70/80 which is impregnating it with a design/color. The combination is teaching that such impregnation is known to go into the pores.
Li is being understood as having the printing layer 70 and outer water proofing layer 80. Printing layer 70 is being taken as the impregnation layer specifically and the waterproofing layer 80, as made obvious by Parker, is going into the pores and thus impregnating it. The inner waterproofing layer 60, is wax, which is not being taken or understood as impregnating but rather coating. The combination then has an outer layer (which covers the cutting edge) that has the impregnation occurring there, and a part of the straw (inside) that does not. The claims do not limit the straw to say, only an outer surface, for where the impregnation region and non-impregnation regions can be.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights