DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in response to Applicant’s arguments of 5/22/2026 filed after the Patent Board entered new grounds of rejection on 4/30/2026. The rejections are maintained as noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5, 16-19, 24-26, 29, 32 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 4386576) in view of Knauf et al. (US 20170225423) and Swoboda et al. (US 20100012712).
As to claim 1, Johnson discloses a method of forming a container sleeve from a sleeve blank defined by a pair of opposing side edges and opposing top and bottom edges, the method comprising: applying a second coating 17 of an adhesive on a sleeve blank having a first coating 15 of the adhesive such that the second coating overlies at least a portion of the first coating, resulting in an adhesive portion having a combined thickness of the first and second coatings, wherein the adhesive portion extends along at least one of the side edges of the sleeve blank; after printing, supplying the sleeve blank to a container forming station and wrapping the sleeve blank into a sleeve such that the side edges overlap and adhere together the overlapping side edges with the adhesive portion to form a seam seal along the overlapping side edges of the sleeve (Fig. 1-2; C3, L49 – C4, L30).
As to claim 1, Johnson discloses a method of forming a container sleeve from a
sleeve blank defined by a pair of opposing side edges and opposing top and
bottom edges, the method comprising: applying a second coating 17 of an
adhesive on a sleeve blank having a first coating 15 of the adhesive such that
the second coating overlies at least a portion of the first coating, resulting in
an adhesive portion having a combined thickness of the first and second
coatings, wherein the adhesive portion extends along at least one of the side
edges of the sleeve blank; after coating said adhesive, supplying the sleeve
blank to a container farming station and wrapping the sleeve blank into a
sleeve such that the side edges overlap and adhere together the overlapping
side edges with the adhesive portion to farm a seam seal along the
overlapping side edges of the sleeve (Figs. 1, 2; C3:L49-C4:L30).
Johnson fails to specifically teach or disclose that the thickness of the
adhesive layer is controlled by making multiple coatings. Using either a
single coating or multiple coatings to achieve a desired coating thickness,
however, would have been a known option and would have been within the
level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Swoboda.
Johnson fails to specifically teach or disclose that the coater glue
applicator may be replaced with printing equipment known and conventional
in the art. Knauf discloses that glue printers and glue coaters are known
functional equivalents for creating a layer of glue upon a desired surf ace.
Knauf ¶37. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to utilize a glue printer in place of a glue coater in
the method of Johnson because Knauf discloses they are known functional
equivalents. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to replace Johnson's coater glue applicator with a glue
printer because Swoboda discloses that the glue may be printed in place with
precision (Swoboda ¶53).
Like Johnson, Swoboda relates to paper cup manufacturing using a
paperboard blank cut and applying adhesive to secure a sidewall seam.
Swoboda (¶2). Swoboda discloses adhesives (microencapsulated) that are
used to seal sidewall seams of paper cups, where the adhesive may be
applied in multiple layers (Id.; ¶ 43, 48; Fig. 4C) . Swoboda discloses this
method to achieve desired "add-on rates." (Id.;¶ 48). Swoboda's disclosure
supports the finding that in applying adhesives to side seams for sealing
paper cups, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing
would have known to use multiple layers of adhesive as an alternative to a
single layer of adhesive.
As to claims 2-4, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Johnson discloses that an adhesive portion extends along at least one side edge and the bottom edge along the edge’s respective entireties (Id.).
As to claim 5, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Johnson discloses that the coatings comprise of a glue (Id.) which one of ordinary skill would recognize commonly comprises of a pressure sensitive adhesive.
As to claim 16, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. As to the claim limitations that printing the graphic or second coating prior to cutting a sleeve from a web material supply and prior to processing by the container forming station would amount a mere selection of the order of process steps which is prima facie obvious. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). The order of steps would not affect the product which is formed.
As to claim 17, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. It is the position of the Examiner that using an adhesive forming the seam seal that would be 0.2 to 0.7 wt% of the container would have been obvious since this relates to the amount of adhesive used (i.e. thickness) of the adhesive used. The claimed weight percentage of adhesive in relation to the weight of the container, i.e. the amount/thickness of the adhesive, would have been the result of routine experimentation by a person having ordinary skill to achieve a desired/required adhesive strength.
Claims 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-4 above.
As to claims 24 and 25, Johnson discloses that an adhesive portion extends along the bottom edge and overlaps the side edges of the sleeve to form a cup (Fig. 1-2).
Claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above.
As to claim 29, the method of claim 18 is taught as seen above. Johnson would obviously render that the printing of the second coating occurs prior to supplying the sleeve blank to a container forming station (Id.).
As to claim 32, the method of claim 5 is taught as seen above. Johnson discloses that the seam seal is formed from the top edge to the bottom edge of the blank (Fig. 2-4).
As to claims 37-38, the method of claims 1 and 18 respectively are taught as seen above. Johnson discloses that the sleeve blank comprises of paper (Abstract).
Claim(s) 6-10, 13-15, 27-28 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 4386576), Knauf et al. (US 20170225423) and Swoboda et al. (US 20100012712) as applied to claims 1-5, 16-19, 24-26, 29, 32 and 37-38 above, and further in view of Neale et al. (US 6265040).
As to claim 6, the method of claim 5 is taught as seen above. Johnson fails to specifically teach or disclose that there is a printed graphic on the outer surface of the sleeve. Neale discloses a method of making a container sleeve (Abstract). Neale discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to print a graphic on the outer surface of a container sleeve (C6, L50-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the method of Neale in the method taught by Johnson because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional method of providing a desired graphic on a cup. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claims 7-9, the method of claim 6 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined are silent as to whether the sleeves are cut from a web. Swoboda (paragraph 2 and 53) discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to cut/blank a sleeve from the base stock at the cup machine, but the above references as combined fail to specifically teach or disclose the means which is used to cut a sleeve blank from the stock material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the method of Swoboda in the method taught by the above references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means of producing a sleeve from a material supply. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to the claim limitations that printing the graphic or second coating prior to cutting a sleeve from a web material supply and prior to processing by the container forming station would amount a mere selection of the order of process steps which is prima facie obvious. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). The order of steps would not affect the product which is formed.
As to claim 10, the method of claim 9 is taught as seen above. It is the position of the Examiner that using an adhesive that would be 0.2 to 0.7 wt% of the container would have been obvious since this relates to the amount of adhesive used (i.e. thickness) of the adhesive used. The claimed weight percentage of adhesive in relation to the weight of the container, i.e. the amount/thickness of the adhesive, would have been the result of routine experimentation by a person having ordinary skill because Woods and Carignan teaches that the thickness/amount of adhesive is a known parameter affecting the adhesive strength in bonding.
As to claim 13, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 above, wherein glue strips are printed on an inner surface of the sleeve and a graphic is printed on the outer surface of the sleeve.
As to claims 14-15, the method of claim 13 is taught as seen above. Claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 7-9 above.
As to claim 27, the method of claim 18 is taught as seen above. Claim 27 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 above.
As to claim 28, the method of claim 18 is taught as seen above. Claim 28 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8 above which would cut the blank after printing the second coating.
As to claim 36, claim 7 is taught as seen above. Johnson discloses that the sleeve blank comprises of paper (Abstract).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 4386576), Knauf et al. (US 20170225423) and Swoboda et al. (US 20100012712) as applied to claims 1-5, 16-19, 24-26, 29, 32 and 37-38 above, and further in view of Wiedmeyer (US 20080121681).
As to claim 11, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined fail to specifically teach or disclose that the adhesive may comprise of a material to make it a barrier layer. Wiedmeyer discloses a method of making a three-layered containers (Abstract; Fig. 1). Wiedmeyer discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use polyethylene to serve as both a barrier layer (waterproof coating) and an adhesive coating (¶24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use polyethylene as the adhesive in the above references as combined and would have been motivated to do so because Wiedmeyer teaches that polyethylene can act as both a waterproof layer and adhesive layer.
As to claims 30-31, the method of claim 18 is taught as seen above. Claims 30-31 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 11-12 above.
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 4386576), Knauf et al. (US 20170225423) and Swoboda et al. (US 20100012712) as applied to claims 1-5, 16-19, 24-26, 29, 32 and 37-38 above, and further in view of Busse (US 4409045).
As to claim 33, the method of claim 32 is taught as seen above. Johnson fails to specifically teach or disclose that the first and second adhesive coatings are in the form of a single adhesive pattern which is printed along the extend of a side and bottom edge. Busse discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to utilize a single adhesive pattern which runs along the side and bottom edges of a cup blank (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the adhesive pattern of Busse in the method taught by the above references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a knowns successful and conventional adhesive pattern for use on a cup blank. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claims 34-35, the method of claim 33 is taught as seen above. The method of claim 33 would have an adhesive portion along the bottom edge continuously extending between opposing side edges of the blank (Fig. 2-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7-8 that Johnson fails to specifically teach or disclose that the adhesive is applied prior to the sleeve blank being applied to the container forming station. This argument is not persuasive since Applicant has not utilized any claim language that would narrow the interpretation of “container forming station” to require a “container forming machine” as argued. “Container forming station” merely is a place/section upon which the blank is formed into a cup, which doesn’t require any particular apparatus components and/or structure. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights