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.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, claims 4 and 8, directed to the packaging part being a tube head in the reply filed on 17 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, in light of the amendments to the claims filed 17 November 2025, the claimed invention does make a contribution over the previously cited prior art to Dobson, as Dobson does not disclose a packaging part that is one of a tube head, cap, bottom, or capsule body including a structural part based on cellulose and a functional part based on resin. The grounds of traversal have been found persuasive, as Dobson does not explicitly disclose a tube head, cap, bottom, or capsule body including said structural and functional parts, as instantly claimed – it is noted that the tubular container body (10) of Dobson was previously relied upon to break unity of invention, i.e. previously read on the claimed “packaging part” defined in claim 1 dated 07 March 2023.
However, newly cited prior art to “Tsukada” relied upon in the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) hereinbelow discloses a tube head (packaging part that is a tube head) comprising a structural part based on cellulose and a functional part based on resin, of which reads on the technical features (i.e. all of the limitations of claim 1) required by species (I)-(IV) of the invention previously identified in the Restriction Requirement dated 15 August 2025 [id., ¶5-6]. As such, it is maintained that the technical features do not constitute a special technical feature(s) as they do not make a contribution over the prior art to Tsukada. For this reason, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
In view of the foregoing, claims 1-19 remain pending, claims 10-16 are withdrawn, and claims 1-9 and 17-19 – directed to the packaging part being a tube head, and packaging inclusive of said packaging part – are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 07 March 2023, 15 July 2024, and 14 November 2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 8-9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities. Suggested amendments for correction of each issue are indicated below as sub-bullets.
[claim 3] – “having” constitutes improper grammar
“…wherein said structural part has a single-layer or multilayer cellulose-based structure.”
[claim 5] – improper grammar, and missing a period at the end of the sentence
“PE-EVOH-PE/paper/PE, or barrier OPP/paper/PP.”
[claim 8] – improper grammar
“…between the tube head and the cap, and”
[claim 9] – inconsistent claim language or phrase
“…wherein said at least one functional part is made of”
[claim 17] – inconsistent claim language or phrase
“A packaging comprising at least one packaging part as defined in claim 1.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181(I), claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
Specifically, in claim 8, the limitation “assembly means for assembling the tube head with a cap”, and the limitation “sealing means between the tube head and the cap”, each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and meet the three-prong test set forth above; regarding the latter limitation, “sealing means” is equivalent to “means for sealing” (see MPEP 2181(I)(A) and (I)(B)).
Regarding “assembly means for assembling the tube head with a cap”, the specification and corresponding Figures indicate assembly means as reference character 7 [Figs. 1-6, 16; 0078, 0097]. The spec [0108] states: “The assembly means (7) allow a cap to be fixed onto the tube head for the opening and the closure of the packaging. The fixing means are, for example, a threading if the cap is screwed onto the tube head, or even means for fixing the cap by snap-fitting if the cap has a hinged opening/closure system.” In accordance therewith, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “assembly means for assembling the tube head with a cap” for examination on the merits under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is one or more of threads (i.e. any structure inclusive of threads which facilitate screwing of a cap thereon), a snap-fit type closure, or equivalents thereof.
Regarding “sealing means between the tube head and the cap”, the specification and corresponding Figures indicate sealing means (of the tube head) as reference character 8 [Figs. 1-6, 16; 0078, 0098]. The spec [0109] states: “The tube head advantageously also has sealing means to allow the tube head with the cap to be sealed.” Thereafter, in relation to sealing means (14) of the cap (12) (i.e. not those of the tube head), the spec [0151, 0156] indicates that the sealing means is “made of resin” to allow the seal between the cap and the tube head – the spec does not provide any further written description regarding sealing means (8) of the tube head or the sealing means (14) of the cap. In accordance therewith, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “sealing means between the tube head and the cap” for examination on the merits under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is the presence of any resinous material (e.g. thermoplastic, thermoset, hot-melt adhesives, curable adhesives, etc.) at any position of the tube head (e.g. a rim, one or more threads, a seat, a neck, a flat surface, etc.) which is intended to be in contact with a corresponding cap or other type of closure upon fixing to (assembling) the tube head to close the orifice thereof, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “low” and phrase “low cellulose content” of the at least one functional part, introduced via amendment filed 17 November 2025, lacks sufficient written description support. First, it is noted that the phrases “low cellulose content” and “lower cellulose content” (originally recited) are not equivalent. The latter was recited in claim 1 and is recited in the spec relative to the “high cellulose content” structural part, i.e. in comparison thereto, whereas the former is a standalone (non-comparative) characterization of a cellulose content of the functional part(s) based on resin. That is, the phrase “low cellulose content” may be interpreted as, or implies that the at least one functional part includes at least some degree of cellulose content.
However, the spec does not recite in any instance the phrase “low cellulose content” – rather, the spec states “structural part with a high cellulose content and at least one functional part with a lower cellulose content” [0006], “the structural part having a high cellulose content and the functional part having a lower cellulose content” [0008], and “the structural part having a high cellulose content and the functional part having a lower cellulose content” [originally filed claim 1].
Further, there is no explicit written description of the at least one functional part including or being formed from cellulose. In contrast, the spec states that the functional part(s) are “made of resin” [0100] such as PE, PP, PVOH, PLA/bio-sources resin, cold/hot glues [0101-0105]. Furthermore, the spec states “The use of resin in the functional zones is preferable to obtain, ultimately, a tight and operational packaging with respect to the packaged product” [0111]. Additionally, the spec states “…packagings comprising a high cellulose content and requiring the addition of resin in small quantity in the functional parts” [0181].
In view of the foregoing, (1) the phrase “low cellulose content” is not supported by the written description as originally filed, the (2) the spec clearly and explicitly indicates that the at least one functional part is formed from resin, and (3) the spec does not suggest/imply that the at least one functional part includes or is formed from any cellulosic material. As such, the phrase “low cellulose content” constitutes new matter introduced by the amendment filed 17 Nov. 2025.
In order to overcome the rejection under 112(a), it is respectfully suggested to amend claim 1 to recite “lower cellulose content” as set forth in originally filed claim 1, or to amend claim 1 in the manner suggested below (see ¶34) in the grounds of rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the latter being preferred by the Examiner. The interpretation for examination on the merits of the term “low” and corresponding phrase “low cellulose content” is set forth below (see ¶33) in said grounds of rejection under 112(b).
Claims 2-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 112(a) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the lack of written description support issue(s) identified above.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 17-19 are 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 1, the term “high” of the phrase “high cellulose content” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite – the requisite amount of cellulose content is unclear. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, not explicitly defined by the spec, and the spec does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, i.e. the requisite amount of cellulose which constitutes “high cellulose content”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the scope of the claimed invention, and the public would not be able to determine the boundaries of what constitutes infringement (see MPEP 2173, MPEP 2111.01(II)).
Further, the term “low” of the phrase “low cellulose content” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite – the requisite amount of cellulose content is unclear, and/or it is unclear if the at least one functional part is required to contain any cellulose. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, not explicitly defined by the spec, and the spec does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the scope of the claimed invention, and the public would not be able to determine the boundaries of what constitutes infringement (see MPEP 2173, MPEP 2111.01(II)).
For examination on the merits, the term “high” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification (MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01(I), (II)), of which is any amount of cellulose content, i.e. a structural part which includes, or is based on, any amount of cellulose.
For examination on the merits – and in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above – the term “low” and phrase “low cellulose content” are interpreted as encompassing zero cellulose content, i.e. the absence of cellulose in the functional part, or encompassing any amount of cellulose which is less than the amount of cellulose content of the structural part, of which constitutes the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof.
In order to overcome the indefiniteness issues identified above, and to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, the following amendments to claim 1 are respectfully suggested, of which find support in claims 1 and 2 as filed:
“…a structural part of at least greater than 50%; and
at least one functional part based on resin
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “advantageously greater than 70% and preferably greater than 85%” constitutes exemplary/preferential claim language which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the structural part requires the increased amounts of cellulose content associated with “advantageously” and “preferably” – the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim are not clear. Applicant is respectfully directed to MPEP 2173.05(d), which indicates that description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the spec rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.
For examination on the merits, claim 2 is interpreted in accordance with the following amendment which is respectfully suggested in order to overcome the foregoing indefiniteness issue: “…wherein the cellulose content of the structural part is at least greater than 50%.”
Additionally, it is noted that claim 2, the other dependent claims, and the spec do not indicate the basis (unit) of the percentage of the cellulose content of the structural part, i.e. do not indicate whether the percentage is based on, e.g. weight/mass or volume. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof in view of the spec is any basis of cellulose content.
Regarding claim 5, the terms “the outer face” and “the inner face” of the phrase “from the outer face toward the inner face” lack sufficient antecedent basis and thereby render the claim indefinite. That is, there is no prior recitation in claims 1 or 3 of an outer face or an inner face of the multilayer structure and/or the structural part, and as such, the positioning or layer sequence of the materials listed in claim 5 is unclear (unclear which element defines the outer face and which element defines the inner face).
In order to overcome the indefiniteness issue, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “wherein the multilayer structure is, from an outer face toward an inner face”. Claim 5 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the suggested amendment.
Also regarding claim 5, the specific use of dashes, e.g. “PE-EVOH-PE” in the fourth and eighth bulleted species “PE/paper/PE-EVOH-PE” and “PE-EVOH-PE/paper/PE” is inconsistent with the use of slashes to denote the layer sequence of the multilayer structure recited in each bulleted species (e.g. “coating/PVOH/paper/PE”), thereby rendering the claim indefinite. The use of dashes, inconsistent with the use of slashes, introduces ambiguity into the claim – it is unclear if the dashes delineate layers of material in the same manner as the slashes, or if the dashes are indicative of a blend/combination of polymeric materials or some other structural or material element, e.g. “PE-EVOH-PE” could be interpreted as a blend of two polyethylene polymers with an EVOH polymer, wherein the order listed constitutes the predominance by weight of the components.
For examination on the merits, the dashes utilized for “PE-EVOH-PE” recited in the in the fourth and eighth bulleted species are interpreted as being equivalent to slashes, i.e. interpreted as delineating a layer of polyethylene, a layer of EVOH, and a layer of PE, in the order stated. The Examiner believes the aforesaid interpretation to be supported by, and in accordance with the spec, based on consideration of at least [0082-0090], [0100-0105], [0130-0138], and [0162-0170].
Regarding claim 6, the term “the outer layer” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and thereby renders the claim indefinite. There is no prior recitation in claim 1 (upon which claim 6 is directly dependent) or any of the claims preceding claim 6 of an outer layer. As such, it is unclear which element of the packaging part is required to include a layer of “coating type and/or a lacquer”, and unclear as to the position (structural location) of said layer.
It is noted that the spec does not clarify or provide any guidance regarding the location/position of said layer of [a] coating type and/or a lacquer; it is also noted that the spec does not discuss the aforesaid outer layer in the context of, or being equivalent to, the outer face which is recited in claim 3. See [0012-0022, 0081-0090, 0093].
Additionally, the word “type” following “coating”, e.g. “coating type” renders the claim indefinite – see MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E), which indicates that the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. It is unclear what “type” is intended to convey in the context of “coating type” as claimed, i.e. unclear how “coating type” differentiates from “coating”.
In view of the foregoing, claim 6 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the following amendment which is respectfully suggested for overcoming the indefiniteness issue: “The packaging part as claimed in claim 1, comprising an outer layer which is a
It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6, including the aforesaid amendments suggested for correction, is such that the “outer layer” of coating and/or lacquer may be positioned on any portion of either or both of the structural part and the at least one functional part.
Regarding claim 8, the term “the ends” of the phrase “encapsulation zones of the ends of the structural part” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, as there is no prior recitation in claim 1 or any claim preceding claim 8 of the structural part including “ends”, nor do said “ends” find implicit support in any of the claims. As such, it is unclear which portion or element of the structural part constitutes or is defined by said ends, thereby rendering the location/position/structure of the encapsulation zone unclear and thereby indefinite.
In order to overcome the indefiniteness issue, it is suggested to strike “the” from the aforesaid phrase, e.g. “encapsulation zones of
Regarding claim 9, the last bulleted species which recites “multilayer” renders the claim indefinite, as the bulleted species recited in claim 9 are species of resin from which the [at least one] functional part is made, wherein “multilayer” does not constitute a species of resin. It unclear how “multilayer” constitutes a species of resin, or how the species “multilayer” intends to limit “the resin”. In order to overcome the indefiniteness issue, it is respectfully suggested to strike “or multilayer” as a bulleted species from claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “…and preferably greater than 70%, or preferentially an overall cellulose content greater than 85%” constitutes exemplary/preferential claim language which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the packaging requires the increased amounts of cellulose content associated with “preferably” and “preferentially” – the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim are not clear. Additionally, it is unclear if “cellulose content” is different from “overall cellulose content” (inconsistent claim language) in the context of the latter being associated with “preferentially”.
Applicant is respectfully directed to MPEP 2173.05(d), which indicates that description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the spec rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. Further, see MPEP 2173.
For examination on the merits, claim 19 is interpreted in accordance with the following amendment which is respectfully suggested in order to overcome the foregoing indefiniteness issues: “…wherein said packaging has a cellulose content greater than 50%
Claims 2-9 and 17-19 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 1 identified hereinabove.
Appropriate action is required.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukada (JP H07-137753; “Tsukada”) (copy and machine translation provided herewith; translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukada discloses a tube head comprising: a shoulder (8) [Fig. 1; 0026] including a portion formed from a blank (11) and a pillared portion (13); a connecting portion (14); and a neck portion (12) [Figs. 3-4; 0008-0010, 0019, 0024-0026, 0030-0032]. To illustrate the basis of the rejection, the tube head depicted in Figs. 3 and 4 of Tsukada is reproduced hereinbelow, captioned Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
231
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Tube Head of Tsukada
The blank (11), which forms/defines the majority of the shoulder of the tube head based on overall surface area of the tube head, is formed from a multilayer laminated sheet comprising the following layers in the order stated, from the outer surface (exterior of tube head) to the inner surface (interior tube volume) of the shoulder [0019, 0024, 0030-0031; Figs. 1 and 3-4].
(2) extruded polyethylene (PE) layer
(3) paper, basis weight 100-300 g/m2, e.g. 160 g/m2
(4) extruded PE layer
(5) biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate (BOPET) film including SiOx vapor-deposited layer
(6) extruded PE layer
The neck portion (12), pillared portion (13), and connecting portion (14) of the tube head are formed from polyethylene resin via injection molding [0010, 0019, 0031].
The tube head of Tsukada set forth/cited above reads on and anticipates the packaging part that is a tube head defined by each and every limitation of claim 1. The blank (11) inclusive of paper layer (3), which forms in-part the shoulder, reads on the claimed structural part based on cellulose and having a high cellulose content, in accordance with the interpretation under 112(b) set forth above. That is, paper layer (3) which necessarily includes at least some degree of cellulosic material reads on the claimed “high” cellulose content. The connecting portion (14), pillared portion (13), and/or neck portion (12) read(s) on the claimed at least one functional part based on resin (and having a low cellulose content) in accordance with the interpretation under 112(b) made in light of/conjunction with the rejection under 112(a) set forth above – that is, the aforesaid portions (14), (13), and/or (12) formed from PE resin and having zero cellulose content read thereon.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 3 – the blank (11) (structural part) is a multilayer laminate inclusive of paper layer (3), and thereby reads on multilayer cellulose-based structure.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 4 – the tube head of Tsukada reads on the claimed packaging part which is a tube head.
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 3 above, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 5. The blank (11) comprises the layer sequence PE/paper/PE, i.e. 2/3/4 of the overall 2/3/4/5/6, which reads on the claimed species PE/paper/PE (second bullet) as well as the claimed species coating/paper/coating (second bullet). Additionally/alternatively, the blank (11) comprises the layer sequence PE/paper/barrier PET/PE, i.e. 2/3/5/6 of the overall 2/3/4/5/6, which reads on the claimed species PE/paper/barrier PET/PE (fifth bullet). Additionally/alternatively, the blank (11) comprises the layer sequence paper/PE, e.g. 3/4 or 3/6, each of which read on the claimed species paper/PE (first bullet) and paper/coating (first bullet).
It is noted that an extruded layer reads on the claimed “coating” layer, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “coating” and/or in view of the plain meaning thereof.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 6 in accordance with the interpretation under 112(b) above. The PE layer (2) of the blank (11), which defines the outer layer of the [portion of the] shoulder [defined by blank (11)] and is formed by extrusion (i.e. extrusion coating), reads on the claimed outer layer that is a coating.
Regarding claim 8, in view of the rejections of claim 1 and claim 4 above, Figure 1 above depicts thread(s), or otherwise a flange/lip, located at the lower end of the neck portion (12), i.e. located below the opening (mouth) of the neck (top-most portion of tube head) and above the region where the neck transitions into the sloped shoulder.
The aforesaid thread(s)/flange/lip reads on the claimed assembly means for assembling the tube head with a cap in accordance with the interpretation invoked under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above (see ¶17). The connecting portion (14) reads on the claimed welding zone. The pillared portion (13), and/or the connecting portion (14), read(s) on the claimed encapsulation zones of the ends of the structural part. The aforesaid opening (mouth) of the neck located at the top-most portion of the tube head depicted in Figure 1 above reads on the claimed orifice. The top of the neck portion (12), and/or outer circumferential surface of the neck portion (12) above the thread(s)/flange/lip – which are formed from PE resin – read(s) on the claimed sealing means between the tube head and the cap (alt. “means for sealing between the tube head and the cap”) in accordance with the interpretation invoked under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above (see ¶18). In view of the totality of the foregoing, the tube head of Tsukada reads on and anticipates the tube head defined by each and every limitation of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 9. The connecting portion (14), pillared portion (13), and/or neck portion (12), all of which are formed from PE resin [0022, 0031], read(s) on the at least one functional part based on resin, wherein the resin is PE (first bullet).
Regarding claims 17-18, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Tsukada discloses a tube [Figs. 2 and 4; 0001, 0007-0010, 0019, 0024-0027, 0033-0037] including the tube head set forth/cited above (claim 17, packaging comprising at least one packaging part (tube head) defined in claim 1; claim 18, wherein said packaging is a tube).
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West et al. (US 2012/0241354; “West”).
Regarding claim 1, West discloses a tube head (“restrictor portion” 200, 300, 600) [Figs. 2-3 and 6] formed from, inter alia moulded cellulose fibers [0012-0013, 0019, 0033-0034, 0040] (MPEP 2131.02(II)). To illustrate the basis of the rejection, the tube head depicted in Fig. 6 of West is reproduced hereinbelow, captioned Figure 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
435
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Tube Head of West
The tube head (600) includes conically-shaped walls (610) and threaded shoulder (620) [0040], wherein the walls (610) are formed from biodegradable fibrous material including at least 80 or 90 wt.% (dry) of cellulosic fibers [0013, 0019, 0040] – that is, the walls (610) are defined as “fibrous walls” [0013]. The threaded shoulder (620) is preferably made from polylactic acid (PLA) polymer to provide a secure and reusable closure in conjunction with end closure member (630) [0016, 0040].
To form a tubular container, the tube head (600) is suitably mated/coupled with/to a tube portion (100, 400, 500) [Figs. 1 and 4-5] – of which is also suitably formed from, inter alia moulded cellulosic fibrous material, i.e. “fibrous walls” [Fig. 1; 0013, 0019-0022, 0032] (MPEP 2131.02(II)) – via any suitable mating arrangement, e.g. snap-fitting, snug-fitting, threads, sliding-engagement, or adhesive [0023-0024, 0033-0034, 0038].
The tube head (600) of West set forth/cited above anticipates the packaging part that is a tube head defined by each and every limitation of claim 1. The walls (610) read on the claimed structural part based on cellulose and having a high cellulose content, in accordance with the interpretation under 112(b) set forth above. The threaded shoulder (620) reads on the claimed at least one functional part based on resin and having a low cellulose content, in accordance with the interpretation under 112(b) made in light of/conjunction with the rejection under 112(a).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 2 – the walls (610) (structural part) comprise at least 80 wt.% (dry), or at least 90 wt.% (dry) of cellulosic fibrous material, of which is within the claimed range of at least greater than 50% (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 3 – the walls (610) (structural part) may be formed solely from the [moulded] cellulosic fibrous material, of which reads on the claimed species “single-layer cellulose-based structure”. Alternatively, West discloses that the tube head, including the fibrous walls (610) may be coated or lined with a material that functions as a permeation barrier that is resistant to the intended contents of the container, e.g. a coating of PLA, deposited aluminum, or other biodegradable or plastic-based non-biodegradable layer [0017-0018]. The embodiment of the tube head coated or lined with said permeation barrier reads on the claimed species “multilayer cellulose-based structure”.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 4 – the tube head of West reads on the claimed packaging part which is a tube head.
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated herein by reference. In view thereof, West discloses that the permeation barrier may be coated on, inter alia the outer surface of the tube head [0017-0018]. The permeation barrier coating on the outer surface of the tube head reads on the claimed outer layer that is a coating.
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejections of claim 1 and claim 4 above, the rejections of claim 2, claim 3, and claim 6 are incorporated herein by reference. As set forth/cited in the aforesaid rejections, the walls (610) (structural part) of the tube head (600) – which suitably include a permeation barrier coating on the inner and/or outer surface thereof – are “fibrous walls” [0013] which include at least 80 wt.%, or at least 90 wt.% of dry cellulosic fibrous material. The walls (610) including said coating and defined by at least 80 wt.% (dry) cellulosic fibrous material read on the claimed structural part which is manufactured from a multilayer sheet containing a cellulose content greater than 50%.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the part defined by claim 9 – the threaded shoulder (620) (functional part) of the tube head is formed from PLA, of which reads on the claimed resin species PLA (second bulleted resin species).
Regarding claims 17-18, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on each packaging defined by claims 17-18. That is, West discloses (see ¶74 above) a tubular container comprising the tube head (600) mated/coupled with/to a tube portion (100, 400, 500), which reads on the claimed packaging comprising at least one packaging part as defined in claim 1 (claim 17), and reads on the claimed packaging being a tube (claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, in view of the rejection of claim 17 above, West discloses that the tube portion (100, 400, 500) may also be formed from the “fibrous wall” material which defines the tube head walls (610), as set forth/cited above in the rejection of claim 1 (see ¶74). As such, the tube head walls (610), and tube portion walls [0013, 0019] of the tubular container are “fibrous walls” (at least one including permeation barrier coating) [0013] which include at least 80 wt.%, or at least 90 wt.% (dry) cellulosic fibrous material and, as depicted, define a predominant portion of the total surface area and/or total structural material volume of the tubular container.
As such, it stands to reason that the tubular container (packaging) of West set forth/cited above would have necessarily exhibited a total cellulose content of greater than 50% based on weight and/or volume and/or surface area, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). As such, the tubular container of West reads on the claimed packaging which has a cellulose content greater than 50%.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
US 1,322,426 to Gearhart – discloses a tube head formed from molded fiber, said head comprising a shoulder portion, threaded neck portion, and opening; and a tubular container including said head [Figs. 1-2 and 5; pp. 1-2]
US 2004/0248486 to Hodson et al. – discloses a biodegradable composition for coating or impregnation of fibrous sheets [Abstract]
US 2001/0050291 to Jud et al. – discloses a hinged cover seal (12) (tube head) formed substantially from polypropylene [Abstract; Fig. 2]
US 2017/0057684 to Kisielinski – teaches use of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) barrier layer in a multilayer head for a container [Abstract; Fig. 1; 0016, 0032, 0041]
US 4,132,331 to Mägerle – discloses a tube head including structural and functional parts [Abstract; Figs. 1-2]
US 2015/0321829 to Maurice et al. – discloses a tube head for protecting a barrier insert [Abstract; Figs. 2-6;
US 2017/0253387 to Patel – discloses a collapsible tube formed from a bioplastic material [Abstract; Figs. 1-3; 0022-0027]
US 6,068,717 to Schwyn – discloses a prefabricated tube head attachable to a tube body by means of a plastifiable material section (26) disposed therebetween [Abstract; Figs. 2A-2E, 3A; cols. 3-6]
Conclusion
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