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 2024/0166416, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 28 July 2023 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 3, 7-9, and 15, the reference character “(10)” is utilized to designate both “remote control packaging” and “bag”, and further, claims 11 and 13 lack the recitation of said reference character “(10)” – the totality of the foregoing hinders the readability of the claims and creates inconsistent claim language
The amendments for claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, and 15 below are respectfully suggested for correction of the aforesaid issues, for correction of spelling issues as indicated, and for enhancing the readability/clarity of the claims in accordance with the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below. Please see the aforesaid 112(b) rejections for further amendments respectfully suggested by the Examiner.
[claim 1] Remote control packaging (10) made of a folded material of a sheet (1) comprising a closed package interior in which a remote control is arranged and a plurality of walls bounding the package interior, wherein the sheet (1) defining the walls of the bag (10) [[are]]is constructed in multiple layers with a foil inner layer (8) of poly(1,4-butylene succinate) and a paper outer layer (9) for mechanical stabilization thereof.
[claim 3] The remote control packaging according to claim 1, wherein the walls of the bag (10) are
[claim 7] The remote control packaging as claimed in claim 1, wherein the bag (10) is folded from [[a]]the sheet (1) and bonded via one or more adhesive flaps (6, 7), the bag (10) having a closable insertion opening (13) for insertion of a remote control.
[claim 11] The remote control packaging as claimed in claim 1, wherein the package interior of the bag (10) is delimited by only two opposite walls which are
[claim 13] The remote control packaging as claimed in claim 1, wherein the foil inner layer (8) fully encloses the interior of the packaging when the bag (10) is closed.
[claim 15] Method for manufacturing a remote control packaging in the shape of a bag (10) as claimed in claim 1, comprising at least the following steps:
a Providing the paper outer layer (9);
b Applying the foil inner layer (8) to form a multilayer
c Inserting rebated and/or folded lines (2) in the sheet (1) and/or
d Shaping the bag (10);
e Bonding the packaging (10);
f Inserting the remote control into the bag (10) and closing [[the]]an insertion opening (13) of the bag (10).
In claim 6, the acronym “ESD” is recited, but is not explicitly defined in the spec [0023, 0077] – in order to overcome the objection, it is respectfully suggested to amend claim 6 as follows: “…features an antistatic agent as electrostatic dissipation (ESD) protection.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3, 8, 10-12, and 14-15 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 regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the term “firmly” of the phrase “firmly bonded” constitutes a relative term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. The term “firmly” is not defined by the claim, and the specification 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, and could not readily determine, the scope of the claimed term and thereby the scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173, MPEP 2173.05(b)(I).
In order to overcome the indefiniteness issue, it is respectfully suggested to delete the term “firmly” from claim 2. For examination on the merits, the term “firmly” of the phrase “firmly bonded” is interpreted as encompassing any degree and/or method of bonding the foil inner layer (8) and paper outer layer (9).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “are preferably only formed with two layers” constitutes preferential language which renders the claim indefinite – it is unclear whether the walls of the remote control packaging are required to be formed from only the layers (8) and (9), i.e. consist of said two layers. See MPEP 2173.05(d) – description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim.
In order to overcome the indefiniteness issue, and in view of the suggested amendments to claim 3 set forth above in the objections to the claims, the following amendments to claim 3 are respectfully suggested. For examination on the merits, claim 3 is interpreted in accordance with the suggested amendments.
[claim 3] The remote control packaging according to claim 1, wherein the walls of the bag (10) are from only the foil inner layer (8) and paper outer layer (9).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “preferably in the region of the insertion opening (13)” renders the claim indefinite – “preferably” constitutes preferential language (see ¶10 above), and “the insertion opening” lacks sufficient antecedent basis (there is no prior recitation/introduction of an insertion opening in claim 1, upon which claim 8 is directly dependent). In order to overcome the indefiniteness issues, the following amendments to claim 8 are respectfully suggested. For examination on the merits, claim 8 is interpreted in accordance with the suggested amendments.
[claim 8] The remote control packaging as claimed in claim 1, wherein the bag (10) features an insertion opening (13), and a predetermined tear point or a predetermined separation point in a region of the insertion opening.
Regarding claim 10, the phrases “preferably between 100-180 µm” and “particularly preferred between 120-130 µm” render the claim indefinite, as “preferably” and “particularly preferred” constitute preferential language (see ¶10 above). See MPEP 2173.05(d). In order to overcome the indefiniteness issues, the following amendments to claim 10 are respectfully suggested. Claim 10 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the suggested amendments.
[claim 10] The remote control packaging as claimed in claim 1, wherein the paper outer layer (9) has an average layer thickness between 60-250 µm
Regarding claim 11, the phrases “which are preferably connected to each other via the folded edges (2)” render the claim indefinite – “preferably” constitutes preferential language (see ¶10 above), and “the folded edges” lacks sufficient antecedent basis (there is no prior recitation/introduction of folded edges (2) in claim 1, upon which claim 11 is directly dependent). In order to overcome the indefiniteness issues, the following amendments to claim 11 are respectfully suggested. Claim 11 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the suggested amendments.
[claim 11] The remote control packaging as claimed in claim 1, wherein the package interior of the bag (10) is delimited by only two opposite walls which are
Regarding claim 12, the phrases “the two secondary segments (4) and (5)” and “the middle segment (3)” render the claim indefinite, as the aforesaid phrases (the secondary segment features and the middle segment feature) are not recited/introduced in claim 1 upon which claim 12 is directly dependent. In order to overcome the indefiniteness issues, and to increase the clarity and readability of the claim, the following amendments to claim 12 are respectfully suggested. Claim 12 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the suggested amendments, including the change in dependency to claim 11, rather than claim 1.
[claim 12] The remote control packaging as claimed in claim [[1]]11, wherein [[the]] two secondary segments (4) and (5) of the sheet (1) form the first of the two opposite walls, and [[the]]a middle segment (3) of the sheet (1) forms the second of the two opposite walls.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “Use of the remote control packaging as claimed in claim 1 for packaging a remote control” is indefinite, as the mere recitation of a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced renders the metes and bounds of the scope of the claim unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2173.05(q) and MPEP 2173.05(q)(I). In order to overcome the indefiniteness issue, and in view of the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth below, it is respectfully suggested to cancel claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the phrases “to form a multilayer, in particular two-layer, sheet (1)” and “the insertion opening (13)” render the claim indefinite – the former constitutes preferential language (see ¶10 above), and the latter lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to overcome the indefiniteness issues, it is respectfully suggested to amend claim 15 in accordance with the amendments indicated above in the objection to claim 15 under “Claim Objections”. Claim 15 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the aforesaid suggested amendments.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 – which recites “Use of the remote control packaging as claimed in claim 1 for packaging a remote control” – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is a “use” claim that does not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 14 fails to recite any active, positive steps delimiting how the use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q) and MPEP 2173.05(q)(I) – one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. 101. In order to overcome the 101 rejection, and as stated above in ¶16, it is respectfully suggested to cancel claim 14.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostergren (US 2021/0237409; “Ostergren”), in view of Miranda et al. (US 2023/0159242; “Miranda”), Grenmark et al. (WO 2020/263149; “Grenmark”) (copy provided herewith), and Mosharrafa (US 2017/0099923; “Mosharrafa”).
Rii (JP 2008-044675; “Rii”) (copy and machine translation provided herewith; translation relied upon) is optionally relied upon as an evidentiary reference supporting the basis of the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Ostergren discloses a compostable flexible packaging material comprising at least two layers, said material suitable for packaging of consumer goods [Abstract; Figs. 4, 6; 0002, 0005, 0019, 0029, 0043-0044, 0072]. The packaging material may be formed into a package (24) [Fig. 6; 0019, 0072] exhibiting a bag shape, said package comprising a front wall (26) and back wall (28) formed from a continuous sheet of the material [0072, 0076] which defines a central cavity for receiving goods therein [0072] (closed package interior bounded by a plurality of walls). Given the aforecited embodiment of the package depicted in Fig. 6, and in view of said package being formed from a continuous sheet of the material, the sheet of material must necessarily be folded at the longitudinal edges [Fig. 6] to form the package (shape of a bag made of a folded material of a sheet).
The (at least) two layers forming the packaging material comprise an inner sealant layer (12) [Fig. 4; 0045, 0051, 0053] and an outer barrier layer (16) [Fig. 4; 0057], wherein the sealant layer defines the innermost surface of the package, i.e. the surface of the central cavity [0053]. An adhesive (14) may be integrated into either the sealant layer or the barrier layer, for the purpose of adhering said layers together [0045]. Each of the sealant (12) and barrier (16) layers, and the adhesive (14), are compostable/biodegradable [0038-0039, 0042, 0045].
The sealant layer (12) is formed from, inter alia polybutylene succinate (PBS) [0016-0017, 0051, 0053] (foil inner layer (8) of poly(1,4-butylene succinate)). The barrier layer (16) is not particularly limited, and can be made from a renewable resource [0057], e.g. transparent cellulose film.
The packaging material/package suitably exhibits anti-static properties and dead-fold characteristics (does not spontaneously unfold) [0043, 0060, 0064], and can exhibit low oxygen and water vapor transmission rates [0047-0050].
In view of the foregoing, with respect to the differences relative to the claimed invention, Ostergren is silent regarding the consumer product disposed in the central cavity being a remote control, and does not explicitly disclose the barrier layer (16) being formed from paper.
However, as stated/cited above, Ostergren discloses that the package suitably exhibits anti-static properties, and that the (compostable/biodegradable) barrier layer (16) is suitably formed from a renewable resource, such as those based on cellulose. Further, Ostergren recognizes/teaches the use of (compostable) paper as a layer in additional embodiments of the packaging material, wherein said paper may be formed from, inter alia recycled paper or new paper, each of which may be made from plants, vegetables, wood, etc. [0007, 0061, 0063].
Miranda is directed to biodegradable packaging materials (multilayer films) and packages, e.g. pouches and containers formed therefrom [Abstract; Figs. 5, 6a-6f; 0002, 0004-0005, 0015, 0047, 0051-0052, 0071]. The packaging material comprises a first layer and a second layer [0006], wherein the second layer defines the interior surface of the package (formed from said material) and the first layer defines the exterior surface of the package [0031, 0041, 0044, 0047] to protect the product(s) disposed therein which may be sensitive to moisture/liquid. The second layer (interior surface) is suitably formed from, inter alia PBS [0011, 0038, 0059, 0068], of which is biodegradable, heat-sealable, exhibits moisture barrier properties, and may be coated onto the first layer [0038].
Miranda teaches that the first layer (exterior surface) is suitably formed from a water-dispersible paper, or alternatively cellulosic polymer, or both; the paper is suitably formed from plant fibers and/or wood pulp [0010, 0035, 0054], wherein the aforesaid may define up to 100 wt.% of the first layer [0055] and is compostable/biodegradable [0058]. That is, Miranda reasonably teaches that paper formed from plant fibers and/or wood pulp is biodegradable/compostable, and suitable for the intended use as the exterior surface layer in biodegradable/compostable two-layer packaging materials formed into packages for consumer goods requiring protection from moisture exposure (see MPEP 2144.07).
Grenmark teaches that it was known/recognized in the art to package consumer goods which are fragile, including (in particular) electronic devices, in wrappings/enclosures, e.g. bags to protect the goods during transport [Abstract; p. 1 ln. 13-24; p. 2 ln. 22-24; p. 9 ln. 6–p. 10 ln. 2]. Grenmark teaches that the packages for said goods (electronic devices) are suitably formed from paper, which may have disposed thereon – on one or both surfaces – a membrane layer which is substantially impermeable to water vapor, said membrane layer suitably formed from, inter alia PBS [p. 9 ln. 6–p. 10 ln. 25; p. 47 ln. 24–p. 48 ln. 26; p. 49 ln. 1-22].
Mosharrafa teaches that electronic devices including, inter alia remote controls are desirably packaged in and protected by closed or closeable materials, e.g. sleeves to protect the remote control from exposure to moisture and/or air [Abstract; Figs. 1A, 2-3, 5A-5B; 0004, 0013, 0016-0018, 0023]. The sleeves may be formed from front and back walls and exhibit a bag or bag-like shape defining an internal volume, and are suitably formed from a single continuous piece of material [0018-0019, 0031, 0033]. Mosharrafa teaches/recognizes that the sleeves are suitably formed from biodegradable, plastic, multilayered materials [0035] (MPEP 2144.07).
Rii constitutes optional evidence that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that remote controls are electronic devices which are typically disposed in external packaging to protect the remote control during shipping/transportation and display [0002, 0006-0007, 0012; Figs. 1-2].
Ostergren, Miranda, Grenmark, and Mosharrafa each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – multilayer packaging materials for moisture sensitive products.
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the package of Ostergren by (i) utilizing a compostable/biodegradable paper formed from plant fibers and/or wood pulp to form the outer barrier layer (16), as the aforesaid would have been readily recognized as a renewable and biodegradable/compostable material suitable for use in forming the outer layer of the two-layer packaging material intended to protect moisture-sensitive consumer products in combination with an inner layer formed from PBS (MPEP 2144.07); and (ii) by packaging a remote control in the central cavity of the resultant package of Ostergren, as the packaging would have been readily recognized as suitable for the intended use of packaging/protecting electronic devices which are sensitive to moisture/liquids/water vapor.
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the outer barrier layer (16) of the packaging material and package formed therefrom of Ostergren would have been formed from a biodegradable/compostable paper, and a remote control would have been disposed in the central cavity of said package – the resultant remote control package (hereinafter “modified Ostergren”) reads on the remote control packaging defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the packaging defined by claim 2. The inner (12) and outer (16) layers of the material of modified Ostergren are adhered to one another via an adhesive incorporated into one of the aforesaid layers, or as a standalone layer intervening said layers [Ostergren, 0045].
Regarding claim 3, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the packaging defined by claim 3. The material of modified Ostergren may be formed from only the inner (12) and outer (16) layers.
Regarding claim 4, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above, Ostergren discloses that the packaging material may have an overall thickness of from 30 to 130 µm [0046], and states that the thickness of each layer may be readily modified by one of ordinary skill in the art, such as to adjust rigidity/flexibility [0044]. Ostergren is silent regarding the packaging material consisting of at least 80 wt.% paper. In view thereof, Grenmark teaches that the weight (i.e. substance/basis weight, i.e. grammage) of the (outer) paper layer may be from 30 to 100 g/m2, and the weight of the of the PBS layer (membrane layer) may be from 5 to 10 g/m2 [Grenmark, p. 51 ln. 1-8]. Through simple calculation based on min. paper weight and max. PBS coating weight, Grenmark implicitly teaches that the packaging material – formed from an outer paper layer and inner PBS layer – may consist of at least 75 wt.% paper (30/40*100). In view of the aforecited disclosure of Ostergren, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the aforesaid weights for each of the inner layer (12) and outer layer (16) of the packaging material, formed from PBS and paper, respectively, as the aforesaid weights would have been recognized as suitable for forming packaging materials capable of protecting electronic devices, and/or in order to achieve/adjust the (desired) degree of flexibility/rigidity exhibited by the packaging material and package formed therefrom (see MPEP 2144.05(I); MPEP 2144.05(II); MPEP 2144.07). In accordance therewith, the packaging material of modified Ostergren would have consisted of 75 wt.% or greater of the outer (paper) layer (16), of which encompasses and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of at least 80 wt.% paper (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above, the grounds of rejection of claim 4 are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated). The packaging material of modified Ostergren would have consisted of 25 wt.% or less of the inner (PBS) layer (12) (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above, Ostergren discloses that the package, at the opening (30) (insertion point) to the central cavity (30), suitably includes closure means (32, 34) [Fig. 6; 0072-0075], such as a tongue-and-groove pressure closure or hook-to-hook closure. The aforesaid closure means read on the claimed predetermined separation point.
Regarding claim 10, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above, Ostergren discloses that the packaging material may have an overall thickness of from 30 to 130 µm [0046], and states that the thickness of each layer may be readily modified by one of ordinary skill in the art, such as to adjust rigidity/flexibility [0044]. Ostergren does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the outer (paper) layer (16). In view thereof, Miranda teaches that the first (paper, exterior) layer may suitably exhibit a thickness of from about 2 to about 5 mils [0033, 0046, 0056] (about 50.8 to about 127 µm), allowing for adjusting/optimizing the flexibility/rigidity (e.g. modulus) of the packaging material. In view thereof, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the packaging material/package of modified Ostergren (set forth above) by forming the outer layer (16) to a thickness of about 50.8 to about 127 µm to achieve/adjust the desired/(pre)requisite degree of flexibility of the packaging material and resultant package. See also MPEP 2144.05(II). As such, the thickness of the outer (paper) layer (16) of the packaging material/package of modified Ostergren would have been from about 50.8 to about 127 µm, of which encompasses the lower bound of, and is within the upper bound of the claimed range of 60 to 250 µm, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the packaging defined by claim 11. The central cavity of the package of modified Ostergren is bounded (delimited) by only the front (26) and back (28) walls which are formed from a continuous sheet of the packaging material inclusive of longitudinal folded edges.
Regarding claim 13, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the packaging defined by claim 13. The inner layer (12) of the packaging material defines the (innermost) surface of the central cavity of the package when the opening thereof is closed.
Regarding claim 14, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 above, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the “use” of the remote control packaging as defined by claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated) and read on the method for manufacturing a remote control packaging in the shape of a bag defined by claim 15. That is, modified Ostergren (as set forth above) discloses (a) provision of the outer (paper) layer (16); (b) applying the inner (PBS) layer (12) to the outer layer via an adhesive intervening said layers or integrated into one of said layers to form the continuous sheet of packaging material; (c)/(d) shaping the packaging material into the package, e.g. bag; and (f) inserting the remote control into the packaging and closing the opening.
Further (in relation to claimed step (e)), given that Ostergren discloses that the package may not comprise a bottom such as a gusseted bottom [0076], and/or may take the form of, e.g. a pillow pouch [0072] – wherein one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the inner sealant layer (12) formed from PBS is heat-sealable (as evidenced by Miranda cited above) and recognizes that the end of the package opposite to the (closeable) opening to the central cavity must be closed/sealed such that the bag is capable of receiving/storing products therein – the end of the package opposite the opening would [therefore] have necessarily been sealed via bonding, e.g. heat sealing (or other means) of the respective inner sealant layers (12) of the front (26) and back (28) walls, and/or it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have done so in order to form a package (bag) capable of containing products therein. The foregoing reads on claimed step (e) – bonding the packaging with shaping of the bag.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostergren in view of Miranda, Grenmark, and Mosharrafa as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bourgeois et al. (US 2015/0122373; “Bourgeois”).
Regarding claim 6, as set forth above in the grounds of rejection of claim 1, Ostergren discloses that the packaging material and package formed therefrom may exhibit anti-static properties [0043, 0060, 0064]. However, Ostergren does not explicitly disclose an anti-static additive being included in the inner (PBS) layer (12).
Bourgeois – directed to multilayer flexible packaging materials and bags formed therefrom, said materials comprising an inner layer formed from, inter alia PBS and an outer layer formed from, inter alia paper, and said materials suitable for use in packaging electronic devices [0143, 0147, 0154, 0156, 0169-0171, 0189, 0196, 0199] 0225] – teaches that general anti-static additives and film anti-static additives may be included in one or more layers of the multilayer packaging material [0150, 0166-0167], in order to provide a requisite degree of protection against/dissipation of electrostatic buildup.
Given that the packaging material/package of modified Ostergren is formed from only two layers and may exhibit anti-static properties, and in view of the teachings of Bourgeois, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the anti-static additive imparting said properties may be present in the inner layer (12), outer layer (16), or both. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the packaging material/package of modified Ostergren (set forth above) by including an anti-static additive in either of the inner layer and outer layer, or both, to achieve the requisite degree of anti-static protection/dissipation. The aforesaid modification encompasses embodiments where the anti-static additive would have necessarily been present in the inner (PBS) layer (12), thereby reading on/rendering obvious the packaging defined by claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostergren in view of Miranda, Grenmark, and Mosharrafa as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Staerck (US 2020/0361171; “Staerck”).
Regarding claim 7, as set forth above in the grounds of rejection of claim 1, the package of modified Ostergren exhibits a bag shape [Fig. 6] including a closed end (not depicted) which does not require a bottom (i.e. does not require a bottom wall), and an open end allowing for receiving a product in the central cavity (30). Further, the grounds of rejection of claim 8 above are incorporated herein – the open end of the package suitably includes closure means such as a tongue-and-groove pressure closure [0072; Fig. 6]. However, Ostergren is silent regarding the package, which is folded from a sheet of continuous packaging material, being “bonded” via one or more adhesive flaps as claimed.
Staerck is directed to and teaches bags defined by a first wall and second wall and exhibiting a tubular shape, wherein the bag ends are suitably closed by flaps and corresponding adhesive applied thereto or to the opposing outer wall surface – the first flap extends beyond the first wall at one end of the bag, and the second flap extends beyond the first wall at the opposing (bottom) end of the bag, wherein the second flap is folded upward and bonded to the outer surface of the second wall to close the bottom of the bag. The end of the bag with the first flap extending from/beyond the first wall defines the bag opening, where the first flap may be folded downward and bonded to the outer surface of the second wall after placing a product intended for storage in the bag in the interior cavity [Abstract; Figs. 1, 3-4; 0008, 0013, 0020, 0022, 0033-0034, 0038-0039, 0043, 0047-0048]; a repositionable adhesive may be utilized in conjunction with the first flap, allowing for the flap to be open and reclosed multiple times [0011, 0018, 0042]. The tube is suitably formed from a combination of paper and plastic materials, and may be formed in the absence of bellows, i.e. may be a two-wall bag [0043]. That is, Staerck reasonably teaches the use of adhesive flaps for closing one or more ends of the bag.
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the package of Ostergren (as modified above) by utilizing adhesive flap closures at one or both ends of the bag, such as an alternative to the tongue-and-groove closure means, and/or as an alternative to heat-sealing or adhesive bonding for forming the closed bottom of the bag, as the adhesive flaps would have been readily recognized as suitable closure means therefor (MPEP 2144.07) and (in the case of a repositionable adhesive, rather than a permanent adhesive) functionally equivalent to tongue-and-groove closures which allow opening and reclosing of the bags multiple times (MPEP 2144.06(II)). As such, one or both ends of the package (bag) of modified Ostergren would have been permanently and/or resealably closed by adhesive flaps formed from the packaging material, of which read on the claimed one or more adhesive flaps.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostergren in view of Miranda, Grenmark, and Mosharrafa as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fredlund et al. (WO 00/76759; “Fredlund”) (copy provided herewith).
Regarding claim 9, as set forth above in the grounds of rejection of claim 1, the package may be formed from a continuous sheet of the packaging material, wherein the package (necessarily) exhibits folds at the longitudinal edges between the front wall (26) and back wall (28). The aforesaid folds at the longitudinal edges read on the claimed plurality of folded edges (2). However, Ostergren is silent regarding said (folded) edges being formed as grooves – see spec [0076].
Fredlund – directed to a method of creasing packaging laminates manufactured from cellulosic fiber layers and additional polymeric and/or foil layers – teaches that to eliminate the formation of bulges, cracks, and delamination issues when the multilayer packaging materials are folded to form package structures, the packaging material is provided with a crease (indentation) prior to said folding [Abstract; Figs. 3-5; p. 4 ln. 19-30; p. 5 ln. 13-29; p. 6 ln. 18-32; p. 7 ln. 16-32; p. 9 ln. 1-17].
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed creases (indentations) in the packaging material of modified Ostergren, prior to folding/forming the package, as taught by Fredlund in order to prevent delamination of the inner (12) and outer (16) layers, and prevent or eliminate the formation of bulges and/or cracks in the packaging material. As such, the packaging material/package of modified Ostergren would have included creases (grooves) at the longitudinal folded edges, thereby reading on the claimed plurality of folded edges formed as grooves.
Regarding claim 15, the grounds of rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth above at ¶49-50, and the grounds of rejection of claim 9 above, are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated). The incorporated grounds of rejection of claim 15, taken in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 9, i.e. the combination thereof, read on the method defined by claim 15 – in particular, wherein step (c) including insertion of rebated and/or folded lines in the sheet is performed.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostergren in view of Miranda, Grenmark, and Mosharrafa as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Valerio (US 2021/0371179; “Valerio”).
Regarding claim 12, as set forth above in the grounds of rejection of claim 1, the package of modified Ostergren is formed from a continuous, folded sheet of the packaging material, said package including front (26) and back (28) walls, an opening/central cavity (30), and a closed end. However, Ostergren is silent regarding one of said walls including, i.e. being divided into two secondary segments, e.g. two panels extending from respective opposing longitudinal folds along each (longitudinal) end of the first wall (see spec [Fig. 1A, secondary segments 4, 5]).
Valerio teaches that bags formed from a continuous sheet of flexible packaging material (106) comprising one or more of bioplastics and paper may be shaped/formed so as to have a front wall (108), and back wall left and right sections (110, 112) [Abstract; Figs. 1A, 1C, 2; 0014, 0016, 0018, 0036-0041], wherein the back wall left section (110) and back wall right section (112) extend from folds along the respective longitudinal edges of the front wall and are united to one another by a seal (130), such as along a vertical seal (138) (longitudinal seal) [0042, 0048; Figs. 1A-1C, 2]. The aforesaid seal between the back wall left (110) and right (112) sections may be formed by an adhesive or a heat-seal, and may or may not include overlapping of the packaging material of the sections [0042-0044, 0048]. The bag of Valerio is suitable for use with household and industrial products, and may be formed to be resealable, have any desired dimensions, or any number of panels [0036-0037, 0039].
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, and given that Ostergren states that the package is not limited to the form depicted in Fig. 6 [Ostergren, 0072], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to have formed the packaging material/package of modified Ostergren (as set forth above) into/as the aforecited packaging bag (and corresponding structure, as described above) of Valerio, as the packaging material would have been readily recognized as suitable for use in forming bags of the structure taught by Valerio, and/or the bag structure of Valerio would have been readily recognized as a functionally equivalent structure to that depicted in Fig. 6 of Ostergren for bags intended for use with household/industrial products (see MPEP 2144.07; MPEP 2144.06(II)).
As such, the package (bag) of modified Ostergren would have been formed from a continuous sheet of the flexible packaging material, said sheet being folded to define longitudinal edges which delimit a front wall extending between said edges, and which define left and right rear wall sections, respectively, which extend from the respective edges and are united to one another via an adhesive or heat-seal [Valerio, Figs. 1A, 1C, 2]. The aforesaid package of modified Ostergren reads on the packaging defined by each and claims 11 and 12, and in particular one of the two walls being formed from two secondary segments and the other of the two walls being formed from a middle segment located between said two secondary segments.
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 2010/0102084 to Clark – discloses a disposable cover for remote controls [Abstract; Figs. 1, 3; 0002, 0017, 0031]
US 2007/0193918 to Coyne et al. – discloses transparent plastic bags for remote controls which are closed along the sides and at one end thereof, and include an open end closeable via an adhesive flap [Abstract; Figs. 1-2; 0002, 0005, 0012, 0015]
US 1,246,650 to Peterson – discloses packaging bags formed from a continuous sheet of flexible packaging material including a thermoplastic/foil layer and a paper layer, wherein the edges thereof are sealed/closed by folded flaps of foil layer material which extend beyond the respective edges of the paper layer [Figs. 1-6; pp. 1-4]
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