DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnin (US 2011/0108614 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 11,794,971).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Bonnin teaches a casing for transporting food or beverage product substantially as claimed, the casing comprising: a side panel part 600 comprising at least two side panels 601, 602 each side panel comprising a peripheral free edge and a sealing margin along the peripheral free edge (Figs. 11-18), one band 700 made from one sheet, and comprising a sealing area 701, and the sealing area of the band being sealed to the sealing margin of both side panels, forming a flange extending outward. Bonnin does not disclose the casing being made from a barrier paper material having the claimed 2mL/m^2/day/bar oxygen transmission rate. Park teaches an eco-friendly packing material (Figure 1) having a barrier paper material 1 with an OTR that is less than the claimed rate – see claim 1 and Table 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the casing of Bonnin from the material of Park to make the casing from eco-friendly packaging.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Bonnin teaches the side panel part 600 is made of one sheet which comprises the two side panels 601, 602 and a linking part 603 between the two side panels linking both side panels one to the other, the side panel part is folded in a U-shape and the linking part forms a bottom of the U (Fig. 15), the linking part further comprising two free edges on either side between the two side panels, and a sealing margin along its two free edges, the peripheral free edge of each side panel extending from one free edge of the linking part to the other, and the band being sealed to the sealing margin of both side panels, and to the sealing margin of both free edges of the linking part, forming the flange extending outward (Figs. 13-15). 10.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Bonnin teaches at least one notch (Figs. 11-12) formed in at least a part of the flange surrounding a corner 706, 707 of the casing.
Regarding claim 14, Bonnin teaches a method for manufacturing a casing substantially as claimed, including the steps of: providing a blank casing for transporting food or beverage product, the casing comprising: a side panel part 700 (Fig. 11) comprising at least two side panels (on either end of the blank), each side panel comprising a peripheral free edge and a sealing margin 701-705 along the peripheral free edge, one band 600, made from one sheet, and comprising a sealing area, and the sealing area of the band being sealed to the sealing margin of both side panels, forming a flange extending outward (Fig. 15); sealing a sealing area of the band on at least a part of the sealing margin of a first of the two side panels (0050), forming at least a part of the flange extending outward (Fig. 13); placing product P on the first side panel; and sealing a sealing area of the band along the sealing margin of a second of the two side panels, finalizing forming the flange extending outward (0103). Bonnin does not disclose the casing being made from a barrier paper material having the claimed 2mL/m^2/day/bar oxygen transmission rate. Park teaches an eco-friendly packing material (Figure 1) having a barrier paper material 1 with an OTR that is less than the claimed rate – see claim 1 and Table 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the casing of Bonnin from the material of Park to make the casing from eco-friendly packaging.
Regarding claim 15, Bonnin teaches a step of folding a sealing margin of at least one of the side panels along a corresponding press-formed line (0100) which is parallel to at least a part of the peripheral free edge of the side panel in order to form at least a part of the flange (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 16, Bonnin teaches folding the side panel part 700 made of one sheet into a U about a linking part; sealing the linking part of the side panel part to at least one end of the band (Figs. 12-15); and completing sealing a sealing area of the band along a sealing margin of the side panel part.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (US 2013/0048703) in view of Park et al. (US 11,794,971).
Regarding claim 1, Fuchs teaches a casing for transporting food or beverage product substantially as claimed, the casing comprising: a side panel part 16 comprising at least two side panels 30, 32 each side panel comprising a peripheral free edge and a sealing margin 19 along the peripheral free edge, one band 16a, made from one sheet (Fig, 1), and comprising a sealing area 19a, and the sealing area of the band being sealed to the sealing margin of both side panels, forming a flange extending outward (Fig. 4). Fuchs does not disclose the casing being made from a barrier paper material having the claimed 2mL/m^2/day/bar oxygen transmission rate. Park teaches an eco-friendly packing material (Figure 1) having a barrier paper material 1 with an OTR that is less than the claimed rate – see claim 1 and Table 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the casing of Fuchs from the material of Park to make the casing from eco-friendly packaging.
Regarding claim 2, Fuchs teaches the side panel part 16 is made of one sheet which comprises the two side panels 30, 32 and a linking part 28 between the two side panels linking both side panels one to the other, the side panel part is folded in a U-shape and the linking part forms a bottom of the U (Fig. 2), the linking part further comprising two free edges on either side between the two side panels, and a sealing margin 19 along its two free edges, the peripheral free edge of each side panel extending from one free edge of the linking part to the other, and the band being sealed to the sealing margin of both side panels, and to the sealing margin of both free edges of the linking part, forming the flange extending outward (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Fuchs teaches comprises an opening system comprising at least one opening and a closing element 60 configured to close the opening (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Fuchs teaches the casing comprises a pre-cut line demarcating the closing element and/or the opening (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Fuchs teaches a casing blank to manufacture a casing substantially as claimed, the casing blank comprising: a side panel part 16 comprising at least two side panels 30, 32, configured to build the two side panels of the casing, each side panel comprising a peripheral free edge and a sealing margin 19 along the peripheral free edge which is configured to be bent outward to form a flange (Fig. 3), and one band 16a, made from one sheet, comprising a sealing area configured 19a to be sealed to at least the sealing margin of both side panels (Fig. 4). Fuchs does not disclose the casing being made from a barrier paper material having the claimed 2mL/m^2/day/bar oxygen transmission rate. Park teaches an eco-friendly packing material (Figure 1) having a barrier paper material 1 with an OTR that is less than the claimed rate – see claim 1 and Table 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the casing of Fuchs from the material of Park to make the casing from eco-friendly packaging.
Regarding claim 8, Fuchs teaches the side panel part 16 is made of one sheet (Fig. 1) which comprises the two side panels 30, 32 and a linking part 28 between the two side panels linking both side panels one to the other. 21.
Regarding claim 9, Fuchs teaches the casing comprises an opening system comprising at least one opening (Fig. 8). 22.
Regarding claim 10, Fuchs teaches the opening system further comprises at least a closing element configured to close the opening (Fig. 8), and a pre-cut line demarcating the closing element and the opening (Fig. 6). 23.
Regarding claim 12, Fuchs teaches at least one of the side panels comprises a press- formed line which is parallel to at least one peripheral free edge of the side panel (0031), and which is formed a few millimeters at a distance from the peripheral free edge of the side panel, thus forming the sealing margin between the peripheral free edge and the press-formed line (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (US 2013/0048703 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 11,794,971), as applied to claim 4 and 10 above, and further in view of Nilsson (US 5,188,285).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the examiner applies the embodiment of Fuchs illustrated in Fig. 4, in which Fuchs does not teach an opening system. Nilsson teaches an analogous container sealed by a seam and teaches there are applications where opening a large part of a packaging is desirable (col 1 lines 28-47) and teaches providing a perforated line encircling portion of the container that would allow an entire cross section to be exposed (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the structure of Fuchs with such a perforated line for that purpose. This perforated ring is an opening system that comprises at least one opening (the exposed area after the line is torn) and a closing element configured to close the opening (the material covering the opening).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Fuchs is modified with a perforated ring as taught by Nilsson, and the perforated is a pre-cut line demarcating the closing element and/or the opening.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Fuchs is modified with a perforated ring as taught by Nilsson to teach a pre-cut line. Fuchs teaches the seam joining container blanks runs along both vertical and horizontal sides of the container (Fig. 4), so any ring placed on the container would necessarily result in at least a part of the pre-cut line being done in the sealing area of the band in which the band is sealed to at least the sealing margin of one side pane I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights