DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on March 26, 2026.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 15 and 18 have been amended,
Claims 9 was previously presented,
Claims 4, 17, 20, 23-25, 27, 29, 39, 44 and 46 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration,
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 19, 21-22, 26, 28, 30-38, 40-43, 45, 47-52 have been cancelled.
Claims 52 and 53 have been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1, 9, 15, 18, 52 and 53 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
New claims 52-53 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
For instance, applicant introduced a new dependent claim 52 (second instance); however, it is noted that there was already a dependent claim 52 (first instance) that was previously presented and cancelled (throughout prosecution). Therefore, new dependent claims 52 and 53 should have been renumbered as claims 53 and 54 (respectively); emphasis added.
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 52-53 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 52, ln. 2-4, the phrases, “...substantially...” and “…substantially all…” which is/are a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term(s) "substantially" and “substantially all” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, the phrase “substantially all” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. For instance, is the applicant establishing that the first flap is covering 100% of the second flap OR some other percentage (i.e. 90%, 75%, 50% and so on) – when referring to “substantially all”? In other words, it unclear as to what precent of coverage of the second flap by the first is required to meet the limitation of “substantially all”? Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
In claim 53, ln. 2, the phrase “…the opposing side wall…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “an opposing side wall” per se in claim 1 (which claim 52 depends from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claim 53, due to its dependency from claim 52, it too has these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 18 and 52 and 53 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emmett et al. (US 20110017762 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Emmett).
Regarding claim 1, Emmett discloses a package embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-9; for an aerosol provision system component or article), the package comprising:
a container (1) with an access; and
an inner pack (i.e. in the form of an inner liner (18)) located within the container such that the inner pack can be accessed via the access (as shown in Emmett Figs. 1-9),
the inner pack comprising a sheet material that is arranged to form the inner pack, wherein the inner pack comprises a first end wall proximate to the access and a second end wall distal to the access longitudinally distant from the first end wall, the first end wall comprising a first flap and a second flap which extend from opposing sides of the first end wall and are attached to each other and configured to seal the inner pack, and
wherein the sheet material comprises a portion, the portion comprising the whole of the first flap of the first end wall (see Emmett annotated Figs. 1 and 2 below), that is at least partially separable from a remainder of the sheet material to unseal the inner pack and allow access to the inside of the inner pack,
wherein the inner pack further comprises a first line of weakening (21; as shown in Emmett Fig. 5) configured to aid separation of the portion of the sheet material from the remainder of the sheet material to allow access to the inner pack (see Emmett Figs. 2 and 6),
wherein the inner pack comprises a plurality of side walls extending between the first end wall and the second end wall, and wherein the first line of weakening extends at least partially around at least one of the plurality of side walls to define the portion that is separable from the remainder of the sheet material of the inner pack (see Emmett Figs. 1-9), and
wherein the plurality of side walls comprises a first side wall, and the first line of weakening extends at least partially across the first side wall of the inner pack, wherein the first line of weakening is configured such that the portion that is separable from the remainder of the sheet material comprises the first flap and a section of the first side wall, wherein the first side wall is joined to the first end wall along a first edge, and the first line of weakening extends partially along the first edge from an extremity of the first flap (Emmett [0096-0120]).
PNG
media_image1.png
934
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Emmett further discloses wherein the first end wall further comprises third and fourth flaps, and wherein the first line of weakening is configured such that the portion that is separable from the remainder of the sheet material further comprises at least a part of the third and fourth flaps, wherein the third and fourth flaps are joined to third and fourth side walls along third and fourth edges, respectively, and wherein the first line of weakening extends from the first edge at least partially along the third and fourth edges (see Emmett Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 52, Emmett further discloses wherein the first flap is larger than the second flap such that the first flap is configured to extend substantially over the first end wall of the inner pack towards to the opposing side of the first end wall such that first flap overlaps substantially all of the second flap (see annotated Emmett Figs. 1 above and 5 below).
Regarding claim 53, Emmett further discloses wherein the distance between the first flap and the opposing side wall is smaller than the distance between the second flap and its opposing side of the first end wall (see annotated Emmett Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
370
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmett (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Philip Morris Products S.A. (EP 3464120 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Philip Morris).
Regarding claim 9, Emmett as above teaches all the structural limitation as set forth in claims 1, except for wherein a first part of the first flap is sealed to the second flap by a resealable adhesive.
Philip Morris is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Emmett, which is a [cigarette] package having a container and an inner pack. Philip Morris teaches a package (for an aerosol provision system component or article), the package comprising: a container (10) with an access; and an inner pack (i.e. in the form of a bundle (40)) located within the container such that the inner pack can be accessed via the access, the inner pack comprising a sheet material that is arranged to form the inner pack, wherein the inner pack comprises a first end wall proximate to the access and a second end wall distal to the access longitudinally distant from the first end wall, the first end wall comprising a first flap (i.e. inner liner top front flap (42)) and a second flap (i.e. inner liner top rear flap (44)) which extend from opposing sides of the first end wall and are attached to each other and configured to seal the inner pack, wherein the sheet material comprises a portion, the portion comprising the first flap of the first end wall, that is at least partially separable from a remainder of the sheet material to unseal the inner pack and allow access to the inside of the inner pack; wherein the first flap has a first part (i.e. the top horizontal surface that makes up the first flap) and a second part (80; i.e. the vertical surface that makes up the first flap); and wherein the first part of the first flap is sealed to the second flap by a resealable adhesive (64; Philip Morris [0044-0050] and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first part of the first flap (of Emmett) with a similar resealable adhesive (as taught by Philip Morris) to ensure that the first flap properly sealed against the second flap (of Emmett). In addition, by providing the resealable adhesive on the first part of the first flap, a user is able to get a visual indicator of whether or not the first flap has been tampered with or previously opened.
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. See MPEP §2144.07
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmett (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Rugenstein et al. (US 4460088 A – art of record; hereinafter Rugenstein).
Regarding claim 15, Emmett as above teaches all the structural limitation as set forth in claims 1 and 10-12, respectively, except for wherein the first line of weakening extending across the first side wall is substantially U-shaped, and wherein the first line of weakening extending through the first side wall comprises a lower portion and two side portions, the side portions having a draft angle of between 10 degrees and 40 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of the inner pack.
Rugenstein is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Emmett, which is a [cigarette] package, specifically an inner pack. Rugenstein teaches an inner pack embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-3), the inner pack comprising a sheet material (i.e. in the form of a blank (11)) that is arranged to form the inner pack, wherein the inner pack comprises a first end wall proximate to the access and a second end wall distal to the access longitudinally distant from the first end wall, the first end wall comprising a first flap (i.e. the combination of end flap (12) AND tear-open flap (26)) and a second flap (i.e. end flap (13)) which extend from opposing sides of the first end wall and are attached to each other and configured to seal the inner pack, wherein the sheet material comprises a portion (i.e. tear-open flap (26)), the portion comprising the first flap of the first end wall, that is at least partially separable from a remainder of the sheet material to unseal the inner pack and allow access to the inside of the inner pack; the inner pack further comprises a first line of weakening (29-30 and 32-34; as shown in Rugenstein Fig. 3) configured to aid separation of the portion of the sheet material from the remainder of the sheet material to allow access to the inner pack; the inner pack further comprises a first line of weakening (21; as shown in Emmett Fig. 5) configured to aid separation of the portion of the sheet material from the remainder of the sheet material to allow access to the inner pack; wherein the plurality of side walls comprises a first side wall, and the first line of weakening extends at least partially across the first side wall of the inner pack, wherein the first line of weakening is configured such that the portion that is separable from the remainder of the sheet material comprises the first flap and a section of the first side wall, wherein the first side wall is joined to the first end wall along a first edge, and the first line of weakening extends partially along the first edge from an extremity of the first flap; and wherein the first line of weakening extending across the first side wall is substantially U-shaped, and wherein the first line of weakening extending through the first side wall comprises a lower portion and two side portions (29-30 and 33-34), the [two] side portions having a draft angle of between 10 degrees and 40 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of the inner pack (Rugenstein Col. 2 ln. 62 – Col. 3 ln. 66).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the first line of weakening (of Emmett) by adjusting the draft angles of the [two] side portions of between 10 to 40 degrees to yield a substantially U-shaped (as taught by Rugenstein) so that the access opening of the inner pack corresponds or matches with the shape of the access of the container.
Since, it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) or §2144.05(II)(A)
Lastly, it is noted that nowhere in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the claimed dimension(s) or range(s); emphasis added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 26, 2026 with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues that the applied art (specifically Emmett) fails to teach “the first flap and the second flap of the end wall are attached to each other so as to seal the inner pack….On the contrary, Emmett merely discloses that the inner liner (18) is glued to itself…” (see Remarks pg. 9-10).
Examiner’s response: Examiner’s respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion, please refer to annotated Fig. 5 above. In that annotation, the first flap overlaps the second (towards the center), that is the location where the two flap are in contact with each (i.e. attached) and forms the seal of the inner pack as claimed; emphasis added.
Examiner further notes that the inner liner (of Emmett; is what examiner equates to the claimed inner pack), this inner liner (of Emmett) is made from a single sheet of material (much like the claimed inner pack) and wraps around the plurality of smoking articles. The rear end of the single sheet of material is where the second flap will be AND the front end of the single sheet of material is where the first flap will be. The two respective ends overlap with each other at the top (as shown the cross-sectional view – i.e. Fig. 5). As applicant noted that the inner liner (of Emmett) is glued to itself. One of ordinary skill in the art will conclude that the logical place or arrangement of the glued portion or section will be where the two ends of the inner liner/pack overlap one another; emphasis added.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant further argues that the applied art (specifically Emmett) fails to teach “…a first line of weakening….the first line of weakening extends partially along the first edge from an extremity of the first flap…” (see Remarks pg. 10)
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion, please refer to annotated Figs. 1-2 above. In those annotations, once the first flap (of Emmett) is removed, it yields a similar access opening (as the claimed invention); therefore, Emmett discloses/teaches a first line of weakening that is nearly identical in terms of structure and/or arrangement as claimed; emphasis added
Applicant’s argument: applicant further argues that since Emmett does not teach all the claimed features of the claim 1; therefore, the respective 103 rejections of claim 9 and 15 are improper and should be withdrawn (see Remarks pg. 11-12).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion. Examiner explained above as to how Emmett still discloses or teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1 and therefore maintains the 103 rejections of claims 9 and 15 (respectively).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights