DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2023/0331441, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 19 February 2026 and 15 June 2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08 April 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 08 January 2026 (hereinafter “NFOA”) has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 17, and 19 have been amended. As such, claims 1-19 remain pending, claims 10-16 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-9 and 17-19 are under consideration on the merits.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to claims 3, 5, 8-9, and 17 previously set forth [NFOA, ¶8-9]. As such, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issues. However, it is respectfully noted that the amendments to claim 5 have introduced new indefiniteness issues, thereby necessitating the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
The amendments to claim 8, in conjunction with Applicant’s statement on p. 8 of the Remarks filed 08 April 2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) indicating that the claims have been amended to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), are acknowledged and have necessitated withdrawal of the interpretation of claim 8 under 112(f) [NFOA, ¶10-18]. The Examiner thanks Applicant for clarifying the foregoing via amendment and statement on the record.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejection of claims 1-9 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [NFOA, ¶19-27], and amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection of claims 1-9 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [NFOA, ¶28-54]. As such, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issues.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukada [NFOA, ¶57-70], and the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 17-19 under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West [NFOA, ¶71-84]. As such, the 102(a)(1) rejections have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth below, necessitated by the amendments to the claims and made in view of newly cited prior art identified as a result of additional search/consideration completed by the undersigned Examiner.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of the word “and” immediately preceding the last species in the list of alternatives (e.g., “…PE/EVOH/PE/paper/PE, and barrier OPP/paper/PP.”) renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, claim 5 recites “wherein the multilayer structure is, from an outer face toward an inner face:” followed by said list of alternative species, wherein “and” separates the last two species. As such, it is unclear if the multilayer structure includes all of the recited alternatives, if it is intended that the multilayer structure be one or more selected from the group of recited alternatives (typical Markush group claim language), or if Applicant intended to recite “or” rather than “and” such that the multilayer structure is required to be one of the recited alternatives. The claim is ambiguous, and thereby, the metes and bounds of its scope are unclear. See MPEP 2173, 2173.02, 2173.02(II), and MPEP 2173.05(h)(I).
For examination on the merits, claim 5 is interpreted in accordance with the following amendment, of which is respectfully suggested by the Examiner in order to resolve the indefiniteness issue identified above: “…PE/EVOH/PE/paper/PE, or barrier OPP/paper/PP.”
Appropriate action is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 3-6, 8-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt (US 3,295,725; “Brandt”) (newly cited), in view of Tsukada (JP H07-137753; “Tsukada”) (previously cited) and West et al. (US 2012/0241354; “West”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Brandt discloses a tube head comprising a neck portion (13), headpiece (12), and breast portion (14) [Figs. 1-3 and 6; col. 2 ln. 47-51; col. 3 ln. 74–col. 4 ln. 4; col. 5 ln. 35-59; col. 6 ln. 15-18] integrally formed (as a single piece) via injection molding of a thermoplastic material [Fig. 6; col. 5 ln. 35–col. 6 ln 18] – the headpiece (12) and breast portion (14) define a “shoulder” of the tube head.
The tube head also comprises a barrier member (30) encapsulated within the thermoplastic of the shoulder, said member (30) extending along the shoulder from below the neck portion (13) to the breast portion (14) [Figs. 2 and 6; col. 4 ln. 18-31; col. 5 ln. 35-38, 65-71; col. 6 ln. 30-40].
Brandt discloses that the tube head, inclusive of the totality of the foregoing, is suitably formed in an operation which is separate from an operation performed thereafter to attach the tube head to a tube body [col. 6 ln. 15-18] – that is, Brandt explicitly discloses the injection-molded tube head, inclusive of the encapsulated barrier member (30), constitutes a singular packaging part distinct from, and not yet connected/sealed to, a tube body.
To illustrate the basis of the rejection, and for convenience, the tube head depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 6 of Brandt, in accordance with the aforecited disclosure, are reproduced hereinbelow, captioned as Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
417
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Tube head of Brandt [Fig. 2], showing breast portion (14) of the shoulder, and barrier member (30) – in the form of a multilayer laminate – encapsulated within the injection-molded thermoplastic of the shoulder.
PNG
media_image2.png
726
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Tube head of Brandt [Fig. 6], showing the barrier member encapsulated within the injection-molded shoulder (arrow 12 designates the aforesaid headpiece of the shoulder), i.e., embedded within the thermoplastic material which has been injected around the barrier member, said thermoplastic material defining the inner and outer surfaces of the shoulder.
Brandt discloses that the barrier member (30) is suitably, inter alia a metallic foil, e.g., aluminum foil and may be embedded by itself in the shoulder [Figs. 2 and 6; col. 4 ln. 18-27]; or a multilayer laminate (i.e., laminated disc insert (29)) including a metallic foil (barrier member (30)) interposed between facing thermoplastic layers (31, 32) [Figs. 2 and 6; col. 4 ln. 28-31], the aforesaid insert (29) embodiment being that which is depicted in Figures 1 and 2 hereinabove (though not limited thereto, in accordance with the disclosure of Brandt).
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the tube head of Brandt set forth/cited above reads on A packaging part that is a tube head, wherein
the barrier member (30), alone or in the form of laminated insert (29), reads on a structural part, the structural part having ends; and
the shoulder portion (i.e., headpiece (12) and breast portion (14)) and neck portion (13) – integrally formed as a single piece via injection molding and encapsulating the barrier member (30) – read on the claimed at least one overmolded functional part based on resin, said at least one overmolded functional part encapsulating the ends of said structural part,
where it is noted that the functional part being “overmolded” constitutes a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113(I) and (II)), wherein injection molding the thermoplastic material over/around, so as to encapsulate, the member (30)/insert (29) is overmolding, as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art and in accordance with Applicant’s disclosure [spec, 0110] incorporating therein WO 2018/073735.
It is noted that hereinafter, the singular/integral thermoplastic piece (of the tube head) defined by the shoulder portion (including headpiece (12) and breast portion (14)) and neck portion (13) formed via injection molding is referred to as “injection-molded shoulder/neck” or “shoulder/neck”, for simplicity and sake of brevity.
With respect to the differences relative to the packaging part defined by claim 1, Brandt is silent regarding the barrier member (30), or the laminated insert (29) including said member, comprising a cellulosic material (a structural part based on cellulose), and thereby, does not explicitly disclose the injection-molded shoulder/neck having a lower cellulose content relative to said member or insert (…and having a lower cellulose content than the structural part).
However, Brandt suggests that multilayer laminates inclusive of a cellulosic material, e.g., paper layer, which are suitable for use in forming the multilayer laminate constituting the tube body (to be attached to the tube head above), may also be contemplated for use in the headpiece (12) [col. 2 ln. 52-69; col. 6 ln. 50-63].
Tsukada – whose disclosure/teachings set forth/cited in the NFOA [id., ¶58-61] are incorporated herein by reference – teaches that the disc-shaped insert forming the tube head in combination with the injection-molded pieces thereof includes paper, e.g., a paper layer having a basis weight of 100-300 g/m2, said paper layer being interposed between inner and outer thermoplastic facing layers, and said insert providing for increased barrier properties relative to transmission of oxygen and water vapor [0013, 0015, 0019, 0021, 0024]. The inclusion of the paper layer imparts a paper texture to the tube head (and tube body), and decreases the relative amount of thermoplastic waste when the tube is disposed (e.g., increases incineration capability/performance when the disposed tube is incinerated) [0005, 0007, 0012.
West – whose disclosure/teachings set forth/cited in the NFOA [id., ¶72-75 are incorporated herein by reference – teaches that in the recent past (i.e., modern times), production/amount of waste resultant from thermoplastic material has significantly increased, wherein thermoplastic material decomposes at a very slow rate [0003].
As such, to reduce the amount of waste and/or percentage thereof defined by (environmentally harmful, slowly decomposing) thermoplastic material, it is advantageous to increase the relative amount of biodegradable and/or compostable material utilized to form packaging containers, or to form packaging containers or elements/features thereof from only biodegradable and/or compostable materials (thermoplastic material substantially or totally absent), such as paper and other cellulose-based materials (e.g., fibers, pulps, etc.) [0002-0005, 0012-0013, 0016, 0018-0019, 0033, 0040]. The packaging containers exemplified by West in accordance with the aforecited teachings include tubular containers and the heads therefor (i.e., tube heads) [Abstract; Figs. 1-6; 0012-0013, 0016, 0018-0019, 0033, 0040].
Brandt, Tsukada, and West each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – tubular containers and tube heads therefor, formed via molding processes and incorporating therein thermoplastic and biodegradable and/or paper-based materials. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube head of Brandt (set forth/cited above) by (1) having utilized a paper-based or cellulose-based material/layer in the multilayer insert (29) (e.g., sandwiched between outer/inner facing thermoplastic layers), or in combination with barrier member (30) (e.g., on either said of the metallic foil), encapsulated within the thermoplastic shoulder portion, in order to have increased the relative amount of biodegradable/compostable material utilized to form the tube head and thereby decreased the relative amount of thermoplastic-based, environmentally harmful waste resultant upon disposal of the container after use; in order to have improved the incineration performance of the tube head and/or imparted thereto a paper-like texture or appearance; and/or because said paper/cellulose-based materials would have been readily recognized as suitable for (the intended) use in multilayer inserts for injection-molded tube heads (see MPEP 2144.07).
For the same reason(s) above, and as an alternative to aforesaid modification (1), it also would have been obvious to (2) have utilized (specifically) the multilayer insert disclosed by Tsukada as the insert (29) of the tube head of Brandt, as said multilayer insert would have been readily recognized for said use (MPEP 2144.07), and/or to impart increased barrier properties to transmission of oxygen and water vapor to the tube head relative to those provided by the presence of a metal foil, e.g., aluminum foil alone.
In view of the foregoing modification (1), the foil-based barrier member (30) encapsulated within the shoulder portion of the tube head of Brandt would have included a paper layer or a layer based on cellulosic material in addition to the foil-based material, or the encapsulated multilayer insert (29) would have included said paper layer or layer based on cellulosic material.
In view of the foregoing alternative modification (2), the insert (29) encapsulated within the shoulder portion of the tube head of Brandt would have been the multilayer insert disclosed by Tsukada, i.e., would have comprised the following materials in the order (layer sequence) stated: polyethylene/paper/polyethylene/BO-PET+SiOx deposited layer/polyethylene [NFOA, ¶59], wherein said paper layer would have exhibited a basis weight ranging from 100-300 g/m2.
In accordance with either modification (1) or modification (2), the member (30) or insert (29) of the resultant tube head of Brandt (hereinafter “modified Brandt”) would have included at least some amount of cellulosic material (a structural part based on cellulose), wherein (as set forth above) the thermoplastic constituting the injection-molded shoulder/neck does not include cellulosic material (at least one overmolded functional part based on resin and having a lower cellulose content than the structural part) and therefore exhibits a lower cellulose content than said member (30) or insert (29). As such, the tube head of modified Brandt in accordance with modification (1) (hereinafter “modified Brandt-1”), and the tube head of modified Brandt in accordance with modification (2) (hereinafter “modified Brandt-2”), each read on the packaging part that is a tube head defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the packaging part defined by claim 3. The member (30) of modified Brandt-1, and the insert (29) of modified Brant-2, each constitute a multilayer cellulose-based structure (i.e., each includes a cellulosic- or paper-based layer and at least one additional layer of material) (wherein said structural part has a single-layer or multilayer cellulose-based structure).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the packaging part defined by claim 4 (wherein said packaging part is a tube head).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 3 above, the barrier member (30) of modified Brandt-1 – taken in light of the teaching that an adhesive may be utilized to adhere layers to one another where necessary [Brandt, col. 6 ln. 50-63] and/or that use of an adhesive for the aforesaid purpose would have been readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention – encompasses the following material layer sequences (from outer surface of shoulder portion to inner surface thereof): foil/paper, paper/foil, foil/adhesive/paper, paper/adhesive/foil. The species paper/adhesive/foil reads on paper/coating.
In view of the foregoing, the insert (29) of modified Brandt-1 – wherein polyethylene (PE) is disclosed throughout as the thermoplastic suitable for use in forming the facing layers of the insert – encompasses at least the following sequences (outer to inner): PE/foil/paper/PE, PE/paper/foil/PE, PE/foil/adhesive/paper/PE, and PE/paper/adhesive/foil/PE. The aforesaid species read on paper/PE, or paper/coating, or PE/paper/PE.
Alternatively, the insert (29) of modified Brandt-2 exhibits the following sequence: PE/paper/PE/barrier BO-PET/PE, of which reads on PE/paper/barrier PET/PE.
Regarding claim 6, it is first noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6, which is directly dependent upon claim 1 and recites “further comprising an outer layer which is one of a coating and a lacquer”, is a packaging part (as defined by claim 1) where either, or both of, the structural part and at least one overmolded functional part comprise a coated material (i.e., layer of material formed by any coating process) or a lacquer material, which defines any layer and/or surface thereof (i.e., a layer interposed between layers, a surface layer, a layer underlying an overlayer wherein said overlayer defines an outermost or innermost surface), and thereby, is not limited/required to define an outermost surface, i.e., not required to have at least one surface which is not coated with, not laminated to, or not in contact with, another material.
In view of the foregoing clarification of the scope of claim 6, the vapor-deposited SiOx layer of the insert (29) (structural part based on cellulose) of modified Brandt-2, and/or any of the three polyethylene (PE) layers of said insert (29), which are formed by extrusion [Tsukada, 0024], read(s) on the outer layer which is one of a coating and a lacquer. As such, the tube head of modified Brandt-2 reads on the packaging part defined by claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, in view of the rejection of claim 4 above, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the packaging part defined by claim 8. That is, the injection-molded shoulder/neck of the tube head of modified Brandt-1, and of the tube head of modified Brandt-2, each include (with reference to Figures 1 and 2 above corresponding to [Fig. 2] and [Fig. 6] of Brandt, respectively; and with additional citations provided where necessary):
skirt portion (20)/curved portion (21) for seating of, and bonding/heat-sealing the tube head to, the tube body [col. 3 ln. 50-75; col. 6 ln. 15-18] (a welding zone),
injection-molded thermoplastic portions – located proximate, and encapsulating – the opposing ends of the (encapsulated) member (30) or insert (29) (encapsulation zones of ends of the structural part),
threads formed on the outer circumferential surface of the injection-molded neck portion (13), configured to engage with a closure (cap) having corresponding threads formed on the inner circumferential surface thereof and close/seal the tube by screwing/twisting motion [Figs. 1 and 6; col. 3 ln. 50-61] (an assembly system configured to assemble the tube head with a cap),
a circular rim provided at, and defined by, the top planar surface of the neck portion (13) and orifice formed therein [Fig. 3] for expelling a product contained within the tube body (a sealing system between the tube head and the cap) [spec, 0028, 0078, 0098; Fig. 1, (8)], and
the aforesaid orifice (an orifice).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the packaging part defined by claim 9 – the thermoplastic material of the injection-molded shoulder/neck of the tube head is suitably, inter alia polyethylene (co)polymer [col. 3 ln. 74–col. 4 ln. 4; col. 5 ln. 35–col. 6 ln. 64] (wherein said at least one overmolded functional part is made of the resin including one of PE or PP or PVOH, PLA or other biosourced resin, biodegradable resins, and cold or hot glues).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 above (establishing the tube heads of modified Brandt-1 and modified Brandt-2) is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated). In view thereof, Brandt discloses that the tube head is intended for attachment to, and discloses attachment of the tube head to, a tube body (10) [Fig. 1; col. 2 ln. 42–col. 3 ln. 73; col. 6 ln. 3-18] (A packaging comprising the at least one packaging part [tube head] as defined in claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 above reads on the packaging defined by claim 17 – each packaging of modified Brandt-1 and modified Brandt-2 is a tube (wherein said packaging is one of a tube, a flask, a bottle, a can, a capsule, and a pot).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Tsukada and West as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0088324; “Sasaki”) (newly cited).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Tsukada and West as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Sasaki.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt in view of Tsukada and West as applied to claim 17 above, optionally further in view of Sasaki.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, as set forth above in the rejections of claim 1 and claim 4, the encapsulated barrier member (30) or multilayer insert (29) of modified Brandt-1, and (in the alternative) those of modified Brandt-2, include a layer of paper or other cellulosic material, and at least one additional layer of material (e.g., metallic foil, thermoplastic polymer, or both), thereby defining a multilayer structural part based on cellulose and having ends which are encapsulated by the injection-molded shoulder/neck.
Brandt, as modified above in the rejection of claim 1, is silent regarding the cellulose content of the (multilayer) member (30) or insert (29) being at least greater than one of 50%, 70%, and 85% (claim 2), e.g., being at least greater than 50% (claim 2, claim 7).
However, as set forth/cited above (citations incorporated herein), West reasonably teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that it is desirable to increase the relative amount (by weight) of cellulosic content utilized to form tube bodies and tube heads, such as/including forming said bodies and heads from up to 100 wt.% of biodegradable/compostable material, e.g., paper or other cellulosic/fibrous material and/or biodegradable, bio-based polymers, in order to reduce or eliminate use of synthetic thermoplastics and the environmentally-harmful waste resultant therefrom when the packaging materials (e.g., tube bodies and tube heads) are disposed.
Sasaki is directed to multilayer, inter alia paper-based barrier laminates [Abstract; 0001-0002, 0017-0018, 0023-0024, 0195-0196, 0205-0206, 0229-0231, 0236-0239], suitable for forming, or being incorporated into, packaging containers/structures including tube bodies and tube heads formed by, inter alia injection molding [Fig. 4; 0044, 0253-0258, 0265-0266]. The laminates exhibit superior gas and water vapor barrier properties before and after physical stresses, damage, or bending, high resistance to physical deformation and impact, and retention of the foregoing properties after being squeezed (e.g., in the form of a tube body) [0040, 0266].
Sasaki teaches that the paper layer(s) of the multilayer laminates – which may include polyolefin-based layers and vapor-deposited inorganic barrier layers, and which may have layer sequences as minimal/simple as layer Y/paper, or polyolefin/paper/layer Y/polyolefin (layer Y is coating of disclosed invention) [0060-0061, 0064-0068, 0070-0072, 0124-0125, 0205, 0229-0236, 0239] – is suitably the predominant layer by thickness. That is, the thickness of the paper layer(s) may be up to 1,000 µm [0060-0061, 0064], relative to the thickness of (when present) vapor-deposited inorganic barrier layer(s) ranging from 0.002-0.05 µm [0068], the thickness of coating layer Y ranging from 0.05-4.0 µm [0124-0125], and the thickness of (when present, if needed) adhesive layer(s) ranging from 0.01 to 10 µm [0188-0189]. Through simple calculation, Sasaki implicitly discloses/teaches that the paper layer(s) may define up to approximately 99% of the overall thickness of the multilayer laminate.
Sasaki, like the prior art relied upon above, constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art (West and Sasaki), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube head of modified Brandt above (specifically, either or both of modified Brandt-1 and modified Brandt-2) by (I) having increased the thickness of the paper or cellulosic-based layer of the (multilayer) barrier member (30) or insert (29) of the tube head up to a thickness of about 1,000 µm, and/or by (II) having increased the relative amount of paper or cellulosic material, by weight or by volume, present in member (30) or insert (29) to define the predominant amount thereof (by weight or volume); and (III) optionally, simultaneously decreased the thicknesses of any one or more of the other layers of said member (30) or insert (29) (i.e., metallic foil, polyolefin-based layers, vapor-deposited polymeric barrier layers), in order to have increased the biodegradability and/or compostability of the tube head and achieved the predictable result of reduction in the degree/amount of harmful thermoplastic waste generated upon disposal (i.e., discarding as waste/refuse) of the packaging container/material/tube (to which the head is attached) after use.
In accordance with the foregoing modification(s) (I) and (II), and optionally (III), the thickness of the paper or cellulosic-based layer of the (multilayer) barrier member (30) or insert (29) of modified Brandt-1 would have been increased up to 1,000 µm, and/or the relative weight or volume of said paper or cellulosic-based layer would have been increased to over 50 wt.% or over 50 vol.%; and optionally, the thicknesses of the other layers present (e.g., metallic foil, polyolefin-based facing layers) would have been decreased, such that, in either instance, the paper or cellulosic-based layer of the member (30) or insert (29) would have constituted the predominant material (i.e., greater than 50%, relative to total) thereof by thickness, by weight, and/or by volume.
Also in accordance with the foregoing modification(s) (I) and optionally (III), and in the alternative to modified Brandt-1, the thickness of the paper layer of the insert (29) of modified Brandt-2 (said insert being the multilayer insert of Tsukada) would have been increased up to 1,000 µm, resulting in the paper layer defining approximately 91% of the total thickness of the insert in the embodiment where the thicknesses of the other layers of the insert – PE (20 µm), PE (30 µm), BO-PET+SiOx (12 µm), and PE (40 µm) – are not decreased, and greater than 91% of said total thickness in embodiment(s) where any one or more of the thicknesses of the other layers of the insert are decreased. In accordance with the foregoing modification(s) (II) and optionally (III), the paper layer of the insert (29) of modified Brandt-2 would have defined greater than 50 wt.%, or greater than 50 vol.%, of the overall weight or volume, respectively, of the insert.
Each of the embodiments of the tube head of modified Brandt-1 and modified Brandt-2 set forth above, resultant from the stated modifications, include a multilayer barrier member (30) or multilayer insert (29) comprising a paper or cellulosic material layer which defines greater than 50% of the total thickness of, greater than 50 vol.% of, and/or greater than 50 wt.% of, said member (30) or insert (29), thereby reading on the packaging part defined by claim 2 (wherein the cellulose content of the structural part is at least greater than one of 50%, 70%, and 85%), and the packaging part defined by claim 7 as dependent upon claim 4 (wherein the structural part is manufactured from a multilayer sheet containing a cellulose content greater than 50%).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated); additionally, the (grounds of) rejection of claims 2 and 7 above, and the embodiments of the tube head of modified Brandt (modified Brandt-1 and modified Brandt-2) are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated).
In view of the combined totality of the foregoing, Brandt, as modified, discloses that a paper layer or other cellulosic material is suitably present in the tube body (10) [col. 2 ln. 52-69; col. 6 ln. 50-64], but is silent regarding the packaging – including the tube head (as modified above), and tube body attached thereto – having a total cellulose content greater than one of 50%, 70%, and 85%, as claimed.
The disclosure/teachings of West, set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 (see ¶29-30) and in the rejection of claims 2 and 7 (see ¶52), are incorporated herein (again, not repeated).
The disclosure/teachings of Sasaki, set forth above in the rejection of claims 2 and 7, is incorporated herein.
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the packaging tube of modified Brandt (i.e., modified Brandt-1 or modified Brandt-2) by increasing the amount (by volume or weight) and/or thickness of the paper or cellulosic material/layer(s) utilized to form the (multilayer) tube body relative to the overall volume or weight, and/or overall thickness, of said body, to greater than 50% (encompassing values up to about 99%) in order to increase the biodegradability of the packaging tube as a whole, thereby resulting predictably in substantial reduction of the amount of thermoplastic materials forming the tube body and thereby the tube as a whole, and as such, reduction in environmentally harmful thermoplastic waste generated by disposal (i.e., discarded as trash/refuse) of the packaging tube after use.
In accordance with the foregoing modification, the tube body of the packaging tube of modified Brandt (i.e., in accordance with either modified Brandt-1 or modified Brandt-2), which constitutes the predominant element of the tube by at least surface area and volume (see aforecited sections/Figures of Brandt; see [West, Figs. 4-5]; see [Tsukada, Figs. 2 and 4]), would have comprised over 50% by weight and/or by volume, of paper or cellulosic material, including up to about 99%. Given that the tube body constitutes the predominant element (by surface area and volume) of the packaging tube (tube head + tube body) as stated, it stands to reason/logic that the packaging tube of modified Brandt, taken as a whole, would have comprised over 50% by volume and/or by weight of said paper or cellulosic material, wherein said range is substantially identical to, overlaps with, or encompasses, and thereby renders prima facie obvious, the claimed range(s) of greater than one of 50%, 70%, and 85% (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The packaging tube of modified Brandt, set forth above, reads on the packaging tube defined by claim 19 as dependent upon claim 17.
Response to Arguments
It is noted that any of Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 8-16 of the Remarks which have not been acknowledged, or explicitly or implicitly addressed above under the Response to Amendment section (see ¶4-9), have been fully considered by the Examiner and found persuasive. As indicated above, any objection or rejection previously set forth in the NFOA and not repeated herein has been overcome and withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been set forth above, necessitated by the amendments to the claims and made in view of newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights