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.
Claims1, 2, 6, 8-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCannel (US 6,173,901) in view of Sullivan (US 5,217,164).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, McCannel (figs. 5a-5b) discloses a packaging 100 comprising:
(a) a top portion 114; and
(b) a bottom portion 112 connected to and separable from the top portion by a fold region; wherein the fold region (region of perforation 116) includes scoring, perforation, or combination thereof to facilitate separation of the top portion and the bottom portion,
wherein the fold region includes an upper score line 116 extending through a front surface of the packaging, wherein the upper score line 116 is located proximate to a peripheral edge of the top portion 114 such that the upper score line 116 extends between adjacent edges of the top portion 114.
McCannel fails to disclose:
a lower score line extending through a back surface of the packaging, wherein the lower score line is located proximate to a peripheral edge of the bottom portion such that the lower score line extends between adjacent edges of the bottom portion, wherein the lower score line is substantially parallel to the upper score line 116 and wherein the top portion and the bottom portion are connected together in the fold region by the respective upper and lower score lines, wherein the lower score line offset from the upper score line; and
wherein the upper score line extends partially through a thickness of the packaging from a top surface and the lower score line extends partially through a thickness of the packaging from a bottom surface.
However, Sullivan teaches a sheet 42 provided with two parallel half-scored lines 6 wherein the score lines partially extend though a thickness of the sheet (figs. 7a AND 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the upper score line 116 of McCannel, a half-scored line, and have provided the bottom portion 112, a second half-scored line, parallel to the upper score line 116, wherein the score lines partially extend though a thickness of the packaging, as taught by Sullivan, for providing mechanical strength around the fold region.
Regarding the upper score line extending though a front surface of the packaging and the lower score line extending through a back surface of the packaging, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 2, McCannel further discloses the bottom portion 112 being one of a prepaid and loadable transaction card (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, the modified McCannel further discloses the upper score line 6 and the lower score line forming an overlap region therebetween (fig. 9 of Sullivan).
Regarding claim 9, the modified McCannel further discloses the overlap region includes an upper overlap region extending from the top portion overlapping a lower overlap region extending from the bottom portion (fig. 9 of Sullivan).
Regarding claim 14, the modified McCannel further discloses the upper score line and the lower score line extend along a width of the top portion and the bottom portion and are substantially parallel to each other (fig. 9 of Sullivan).
Regarding claim 15, Sullivan further teaches the lower score line includes tapered regions on one end of the lower score line that taper the lower score line to meet the upper score line (fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the lower score line of the modified McCannel, tapered regions on both ends, as further taught by Sullivan, for connecting the score lines to easily separate the portions. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 16, McCannel further discloses the top portion 114 including an upper rounded portion and the bottom portion 112 including a lower rounded portion that opposes the upper rounded portion (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 17, McCannel further discloses the upper rounded portion and the lower rounded portion are located in the fold region i.e., the region around line of weakness (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 18, McCannel further discloses the upper rounded portion and the lower rounded portion meet along a score line capable of creating a localized portion within the fold region, wherein a width of the localized portion is less than the width of the top portion and the bottom portion (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 19, McCannel further discloses the upper score line 116 being substantially linear and free of any tapered regions (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 20, McCannel further discloses the packaging is configured to snap apart within the fold region to separate the top portion and the bottom portion from each other snap apart separation is substantially similar to snapping of a plastic snap card (fig. 5a).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCannel (US 6,173,901) in view of Sullivan (US 5,217,164) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pascua (US 10,565,486).
Regarding claims 3-4, McCannel further discloses the packaging is a snap-type packaging (fig. 5a) but the modified McCannel fails to disclose packaging being made of TESLIN, a biodegradable and recyclable material or a paper board material (col. 5, lines 51-61).
However, Pascua teaches a packaging being made from a paperboard material and (figs 1-2, 9E-9F and col. 5, lines 51-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the packaging of the modified McCannel, of paperboard, since 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 10-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCannel (US 6,173,901) in view of Sullivan (US 5,217,164) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of McNown (US 5,447,270).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 21, the modified McCannel discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above but fails to disclose:
the fold region further including a laminate strip disposed on the packaging;
wherein the laminate strip is disposed on front surface, back surface, or over the upper score line and the lower score line; and
wherein the laminate strip extends an entire width of the top portion and the bottom portion, and the laminate strip is disposed on the back of the packaging over the lower score line;
and wherein the laminate strip is disposed over the upper score line and the lower score line.
However, NcNown teaches a substrate including a laminate strip 4 disposed across upper and lower score line 6 (fig. 1b).
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 McCannel, a laminate strip disposed across the upper and lower score lines, for increased strength as taught by NcNown in col. 3, lines 44-46.
Regarding the laminate strip 4 being disposed on the back surface of the packaging, it is noted that the laminate strip performs the same function whether located on the back or front surface. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 13, the modified McCannel discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the laminate strip having a width as measured substantially perpendicular to the upper score line and the lower score line of about 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the width of the laminate strip about 25mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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 in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, 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 in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the figs. 7a and 9 and their corresponding description of Sullivan discloses or suggests that the tear lines 6 and/or 8 extend through the back surface of the sheet. Contrary to applicant’s argument, the dashed lines of perforation 6 in fig. 9 show that the perforation only extends through the back surface. The section view of fig. 7A clearly shows how the double perforations of inner sleeve 26 extend partially through opposing surfaces and not though the thickness of the sleeve 26. Also, Sullivan clearly states that “all tear lines may be formed by what is known as double reverse cut scores” in col. 3, lines 23-24. Further, Sullivan in col. 6, lines 18-23, describes how “double reverse cut of a tear line” is done.
Regarding the wrong reference being mentioned, it is noted that was a typo and the motivation to combine the references i.e., providing mechanical strength around a fold by using “what is known as double reverse cut scores” is a knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, applicant argues that such combination would result in tearing of the card portion along the indicia 120 on the card portion. However, it is noted that the added perforation would not get close to the indicia or pin 120 of McCannel (see fig. 5b).
Applicant’s argument that providing the biodegradable material score line of Sullivan on the plastic card holder of McCannel will not provide the flexibility needed in the card holder, is not persuasive because a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a score, when applied to plastic material would similarly impart the intended flexibility.
Regarding applicant’s argument about the placement of the perforations, it is noted that the relative placement of the upper and lower perforations merely constitutes a reversal of parts, and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the perforations in either order since both provide the same predictable function of controlled tearing. It would have been obvious to place the perforation on the back of the card to improve appearance while still retaining the known function of a perforation.
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 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