DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Applicant Argues:
Castela is generally directed to a disposable container for tissues including at least one dispensing opening, the dispensing opening at least partially covered by a dispensing insert which includes at least one active substance that is arranged such that active substance is transferred to at least a portion of the tissues. (See Abstract). That is, Castela's objective is to provide a means for impregnating a dry tissue with an active substance when removing the tissue from the box. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Castela's insert for impregnating a tissue with active substance to solve the problem of protecting the raw edge of the biodegradable web when removing a wet tissue/wipe from a container.
However, the Office Action alleges that "it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando with that of Castela to provide an alternative selection of material that would allow for a disposable container and limiting the extent a container is open to contamination", Applicant respectfully disagrees. (See Office Action, page 4).
As discussed, Bando is generally directed to a wet-tissue storage space. Bando describes that "[w]et tissues 10 mean a sheet-type base material made of a fibrous material (cf. nonwoven fabric, gauze, cotton sheet, tissue paper) and impregnated with liquid." (See [0048]). The Office Action alleges that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a top package wall and a bottom package wall comprising a biodegradable web (cardboard) to provide an alternative selection of material that would allow for a disposable container. However, Castela is directed to a different field of endeavor in comparison to Bando. Castela describes that "[s]uitably, the tissues are dry when introduced into the container." (See [0015]). Thus, Castela describes that for a biodegradable web of cardboard to be used as packaging, the contents of the container must be dry tissue. One of ordinary skill in the art would not look to provide a cardboard packaging to the wet-tissue storage container of Bando as it would not withstand the transfer of liquid from the tissue to the container and would frustrate the purpose of Bando in storing wet tissues.
Examiner’s Response:
Castela paragraph [0025] describes: “The tissues 60 according to the invention are suitably "dry" when introduced into the container 10. In other words, they are not treated with any active substance 50 after the final drying, folding and/or rolling steps of their manufacture. This is in contrast to so-called wet-wipes, in which tissues may be impregnated with active substance 50 before being introduced into the container 10. However, the invention may also be used with wet wipes which comprise e.g. lotion, but are also impregnated with an active substance 50 (e.g. a fragrance) by the container 10 of the invention.”
Examiner notes that Castela describes using the biodegradable container to house a wet wipe. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, would look to Castela’s teachings, and would not frustrate the purpose of Bando.
Applicant Argues:
Next, Applicant respectfully submit that the Office Action's additionally stated
motivations to combine the references: "limiting the extent a container is open to contamination" and "being able to grip a leading edge of a following tissue/wipe and prevent it from falling back into a container, thus, simplifying a dispensing process" are not features of the top package wall and bottom package wall of Castela comprising a biodegradable web but are instead features of the dispensing insert of Castela. (See Office Action, pages 4 and 5). As stated in Castela, "[t]he dispensing opening 40 is at least partially covered by a dispensing insert 42. The dispensing insert 42 limits the extent of the container, which is open to contamination, yet allows tissues 60 to be dispensed" and "[t]he dispensing insert 42 can also act to grip the leading edge of the following tissue, and prevent it from falling back into the box, so that dispensing of the following tissue is simplified." (See [0030], [0031]). Thus, Castela attributes these features to the dispensing insert and not the package material of the top and bottom package wall as alleged by the Office Action. One of ordinary skill in the art attempting to modify the wet-tissue storage package of Bando in order to provide "limiting the extent a container is open to contamination" and "being able to grip a leading edge of a following tissue/wipe and prevent it from falling back into a container, thus, simplifying a dispensing process" would fail to provide a biodegradable web to the packaging of Bando based on Castela's disclosure as Castela provides no teaching, suggestion or motivation to do so. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would lack the proper motivation to provide for a biodegradable web for the top and bottom package wall as alleged by the Office Action.
Examiner’s Response:Examiner notes that Castela describes using the biodegradable container to house a wet wipe. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, would look to Castela’s teachings, and would not frustrate the purpose of Bando.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando with that of Castela, to provide an alternative selection of material that would allow for a disposable container; additionally, limiting the extent a container is open to contamination; additionally, being able to grip a leading edge of a following tissue/wipe and prevent it from falling back into a container, thus, simplifying a dispensing process.
Applicant Argues:
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the wet-tissue dispensing of Bando would frustrate the purpose of Castela's dispensing insert for which Castela attributes to "limiting the extent open to contamination" and "being able to grip a leading edge." Castela seeks to provide a disposable container with improved fragrance delivery to the tissues it houses. Castela describes that "[t]he dispensing insert comprises at least one active substance and is arranged such that active substance is transferred to at least a portion of said tissue." (See [0009]). The active substance may be transferred upon dispensing a tissue from the container, i.e., through contact between the tissue and the dispensing insert. (See [0040]). Further, Castela describes that "evaporation of the active substance 50 (which is volatile) creates a saturated atmosphere within the box, which impregnates the tissues. (See [0041]). However, the wet tissues of Bando would prevent the active substance from transferring to the wipe, would contaminate the active substance on the insert and would have already saturated the atmosphere in the box preventing the evaporation of the active substance from the insert. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to provide fragrance delivery via an active substance saturated dispensing insert to the wet tissues of the package of Bando as it would destroy the purpose of the insert.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that Castela describes using the biodegradable container to house a wet wipe. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, would look to Castela’s teachings, and would not frustrate the purpose of Bando. Furthermore, using a wet wipe would not prevent the active substance from transferring to the wipe, would not contaminate the active substance on the insert and would not have already saturated the atmosphere in the box preventing the evaporation of the active substance from the insert, since Castela specifically states that wet wipes can be used in the container and in combination with the insert.
For the reasons stated above, the claims stand rejected.
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, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi Bando (US 2012/0048857 A1 – hereinafter Bando) in view of Castela et al. (US 2010/0243668 A1 – hereinafter Castela).
Re Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8:
Bando discloses a package for containing premoistened wipes (see paragraph [0002]) comprising: a container (100) defining a hollow enclosure for receiving premoistened wipes (10), the container (100) including at least a top package wall (110) opposite a bottom package wall (100c), the top package wall (110) and the bottom package wall (100c) comprising a web having a first side (inner side) and an opposite second side (outer side), the first side (inner side) of the web facing the hollow enclosure, the top package wall (110) defining an opening (112) for dispensing premoistened wipes therethrough, the opening (112) being surrounded by an edge of the web (see Fig. 6); a baffle (120, 130) attached to the first side (inner side) of the top package wall (110), the baffle (120, 130) comprising polymer film (see paragraphs [0056 and 0062]), the baffle surrounding the edge of the web that defines the opening, the baffle (120, 130) including a passageway (at 132) configured to permit premoistened wipes to be removed from the package without contacting the edge of the biodegradable web (see Fig. 6, passageway 132 is smaller than that of 112, thus, permitting products to exit through 132 while not contacting 112); wherein the passageway (at 132) is smaller than the opening (112) in the top package wall (110) (see Fig. 6); a removable lid (140) covering the opening (112) defined by the top package wall (110); and at least one premoistened wipe (10) contained in the hollow enclosure (see Figs. 1-22), but fails to teach a top package wall and a bottom package wall comprising a biodegradable web; wherein the biodegradable web comprises a cellulose fiber web; and wherein a liquid resistant polymer film comprises a polyolefin film.
Castela teaches a top package wall and a bottom package wall comprising a biodegradable web (cardboard) (see paragraph [0021]); wherein the biodegradable web (cardboard) comprises a cellulose fiber web (Examiner notes that cardboard is made of cellulose fibers – see www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cardboard - see Applicants specification “The biodegradable web can be paper or paperboard”); and wherein a liquid resistant polymer film (42) comprises a polyolefin film (low density polyethylene; polymer) (see paragraphs [0030, 0034, and 0046] – see Applicant’s specification “the polymer film is made from a polyolefin polymer, such as a low density polyethylene polymer” – that is liquid resistant). Re Claim 4: Castela teaches wherein a passageway on a baffle (42) comprises at least one slit (44) (see Figs. 1-3). Re Claim 8: Castela teaches wherein a lid (41) comprises a paper layer (see paragraph [0028] – same material as the container). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando with that of Castela, to provide an alternative selection of material that would allow for a disposable container; additionally, limiting the extent a container is open to contamination; additionally, being able to grip a leading edge of a following tissue/wipe and prevent it from falling back into a container, thus, simplifying a dispensing process.
Further Re Claim 3:
Bando discloses wherein the opening (112) of the top package wall (110) has a circumference and wherein the passageway (at 132) on the baffle (120, 130) comprises an aperture (132), the aperture (132) having a circumference that is smaller than the circumference of the opening (112) (see Fig. 6).
Re Claim 22:
Bando discloses a package for containing premoistened wipes (see paragraph [0002]) comprising: a container (100) defining a hollow enclosure for receiving premoistened wipes (10), the container (100) including at least a top package wall (110) opposite a bottom package wall (100c), the top package wall (110) and the bottom package wall (100c) comprising a web having a first side (inner side) and an opposite second side (outer side), the first side (inner side) of the web facing the hollow enclosure, the top package wall (110) defining an opening (112) for dispensing premoistened wipes therethrough, the opening (112) being surrounded by an edge of the web (see Fig. 6); a baffle (120, 130) attached to the first side (inner side) of the top package wall (110), the baffle (120, 130) comprising a polymer film (see paragraphs [0056 and 0062]), the baffle surrounding the edge of the web that defines the opening, the baffle (120, 130) including a passageway (at 132) configured to permit premoistened wipes to be removed from the package without contacting the edge of the biodegradable web (see Fig. 6, passageway 132 is smaller than that of 112, thus, permitting products to exit through 132 while not contacting 112) wherein the passageway (at 132) is smaller than the opening (112) in the top package wall (110) (see Fig. 6); a removable lid (140) covering the opening (112) defined by the top package wall (110); and at least one premoistened wipe (10) contained in the hollow enclosure (see Figs. 1-22), but fails to teach a top package wall and a bottom package wall comprising a biodegradable web, a liquid resistant polymer film, and wherein the baffle and container are made of different materials.
Castela teaches a top package wall and a bottom package wall comprising a biodegradable web (cardboard) (see paragraph [0021]) and wherein a baffle (42) and container are made of different materials (cardboard/ low density polyethylene; polymer) (see paragraphs [0030, 0034, and 0046]) (see Figs. 1-3), and a liquid resistant polymer film (42) (polyolefin film) (low density polyethylene; polymer) (see paragraphs [0030, 0034, and 0046] – see Applicant’s specification “the polymer film is made from a polyolefin polymer, such as a low density polyethylene polymer” – that is liquid resistant). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando with that of Castela, to provide an alternative selection of material that would allow for a disposable container; additionally, limiting the extent a container is open to contamination.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Castela and further in view of Kennedy et al. (US 2004/0048086 A1 – hereinafter Kennedy).
Re Claim 7:Bando in view of Castela discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the package contains one or more polyolefin polymers in an amount less than 5% by weight.
Kennedy further in view teaches wherein a package contains one or more polyolefin polymers in an amount less than 5% by weight (see paragraph [0057]). Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando in view of Castela with that of Kennedy to provide a selection of material for a particular use as known within the art.
Claim(s) 9-11, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Castela and further in view of Miyake et al. (US 2011/0155738 A1 – hereinafter Miyaki)
Re Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19:Bando in view of Castela discloses the device of claim 1 and a lid (41) attached to a container by means of an adhesive (see paragraphs [0028 and 0029] of Castela), but fails to specifically teach wherein the lid has a first side and an opposite second side and wherein an adhesive has been applied to the first side of the lid, the adhesive removably adhering the first side of the lid to the second side of the top package wall surrounding the opening.
Miyaki further in view teaches wherein a lid has a first side and an opposite second side and wherein an adhesive (123) has been applied to the first side of the lid, the adhesive (123) removably adhering the first side of the lid to a second side of a top package wall surrounding the opening (see Fig. 4). Re Claim 10: Miyaki further in view teaches wherein the second side of the top package wall includes a release layer (surface - by way of allowing release of the adhesive) surrounding the opening, the release layer removably adhering to the adhesive applied to the first side of the lid (see Fig. 4). Re Claim 18: Miyaki further in view teaches wherein outer edges of the package are heat-sealed by applying heat and pressure to the polymer film (see paragraph [0042]). Re Claim 19: Miyaki further in view teaches wherein the top package wall and bottom package wall are flexible (see paragraph [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando in view of Castela with that of Bilezerian to allow for an alternative means for a lid to be reattached and reused on a container suitable for housing product as known within the art.
Further Re Claim 11:
Bando discloses wherein the baffle (120, 130) is pre-cut to define an aperture and to form a cut-out portion within the package, and wherein the cut-out portion adheres to the adhesive (at 124) applied to a removable top (see Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Castela and Miyake and further in view of Jose Gamundi Masque (US 2016/0251136 A1 – hereinafter Masque).
Re Claims 12 and 13:Bando in view of Castela and Miyake discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the release layer comprises a coating.
Masque further in view teaches wherein the release layer comprises a coating (see paragraphs [0008 and 0033]). Re Claim 13: Masque further in view teaches wherein the coating comprises a varnish (see paragraphs [0008 and 0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando in view of Castela and Miyake with that of Masque to allow for an adhesive to be easily, releasably attachable as known within the art.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Castela and further in view of Duane Lyle McDonald (US 7,597,213 – hereinafter McDonald).
Re Claims 14 and 15:Bando in view of Castela discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the top package wall has a length and a width and wherein the baffle extends over the entire length of the top package wall.
McDonald further in view teaches wherein a top package wall has a length and a width and wherein a baffle (20) extends over the entire length(/width) of the top package wall (see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando in view of Castela with that of McDonald to alternatively secure a baffle over an entire surface of a top portion.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Castela and McDonald and further in view of Toft et al. (US 2018/0311940 A1 – hereinafter Toft).
Further Re Claim 17:
Bando in view of Castela and McDonald discloses wherein the baffle (120, 130) extends only over a portion of the width of the top package wall (see Bando - Figs. 1-22), but fails to teach wherein the top package wall and the bottom package wall further comprise a liquid resistant layer bonded to the first side of the top package wall and the first side of the bottom package wall.
Toft further in view teaches wherein the top package wall and the bottom package wall further comprise a liquid resistant layer bonded to the first side of the top package wall and the first side of the bottom package wall (see paragraphs [0063 and 0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando in view of Castela and McDonald with that of Toft so as to protect the contents and container holding the contents from damage.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Castela and further in view of Ho et al. (US 6,672,475 A1 – hereinafter Ho).
Re Claim 16:Bando in view of Castela discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the walls of the package are formed from a single piece of biodegradable web that has been laminated to the baffle, the baffle defining an interior surface of the package surrounding the hollow enclosure.
Ho further in view teaches wherein the walls of the package are formed from a single piece of biodegradable web that has been laminated to the baffle (18), the baffle (18) defining an interior surface of the package surrounding the hollow enclosure (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando in view of Castela with that of Ho to allow for an insert member to interact with greater portions of sheets.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Castela and further in view of Craig Thomas (US 2004/0182875 A1 – hereinafter Thomas).
Re Claim 20:Bando in view of Castela discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the top package wall and the bottom package wall are rigid or semi-rigid.
Thomas further in view teaches wherein the top package wall and the bottom package wall are rigid or semi-rigid (see paragraph [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando in view of Castela with that of Thomas to provide a selection of material for a particular purpose as known within the art.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Castela and Miyake and further in view of Morin et al. (US 2009/0020547 A1 – hereinafter Morin).
Re Claim 21:Bando in view of Castela and Miyake discloses the device of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the adhesive applied to the first side of the lid is water-soluble.
Morin further in view teaches wherein an adhesive applied to a first side of a lid is water-soluble (see paragraph [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bando in view of Castela and Miyake with that of Morin to provide a selection of material for a particular use as known within the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Etheridge et al. US 7,325,699 – teaches a polyolefin baffle (see Abstract)
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 KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights