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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I Claims – Claims 28-44 in the reply filed on 9/2/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special technical feature is “the adhesive layer…configured such that the first end portion and the second end portion are detachable from one another in the overlapping region…” for the following reasons:
This is not found persuasive because the lack of any specific structural feature of the adhesive layer is not detailed in the claims that is qualifiable.
It is also noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “adhesive layer”) are not recited in independent claims. 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).
With respect to the scope of the claims with respect to the technical feature of the “adhesive layer configured to be detatchable…”, it should be noted that: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is generally known within the packaging arts to manipulate adhesive layers to release, reseal or reattach - i.e., laminated packages that allow the package to reseal (See Zamora et al. - US 20170259978) where this general technical feature is taught.
Claims 45-51 are withdrawn from consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 28-30, 33, 38-41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leser et al. (US 20120318812 – hereafter referred to as Leser) in view of Fu et al. (US 20180249853 – hereafter referred to as Fu). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for Leser follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
708
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram A
In regards to Claim 28, Leser teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110), comprising: a cup-shaped inner container (Cup – 11) including a container jacket (Cup Body – 12 and Sidewall - 18) having an open end (Diagram A, Figure 1, Top of cup is open) and a closed end (Diagram A, Figure 1, Bottom of cup is closed by Floor – 20) with a bottom (Floor – 20); an outer part (Sleeve – 113) encasing the inner container (11); the outer part (113) formed from a blank cut (Annotated Diagram A, Figure 9 and paragraph 0085 describes the sleeve blank – 300 process) having a first end portion (First Linear Edge – 316) and a second end portion (Second Linear Edge – 318), the blank cut (300) wound into a jacket (113 when ends are joined) such that the first end portion (316) and the second end portion (318) are coupled to one another in an overlapping region ( Annotated Diagram A, Figure 8, and 8A. Paragraph 0085 – describes “…316 and 318 may be treated with an adhesive to secure the edges …to one another.”) via an adhesive layer (Annotated Diagram A, Item A) of an adhesive (Annotated Diagram A, Item A); the outer part (113) having a first end face (Second Arcuate Edge – 312) and a second end face (First Arcuate Edge – 306) disposed spaced apart from one another (See Diagram A, Figure 9 where this is true), the first end face (312) facing the bottom (20), the second end face (306) facing the open end of the inner container (Diagram A, Figure 1 – Top of cup); (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {and wherein the adhesive layer is configured such that the first end portion and the second end portion are detachable from one another in the overlapping region.}
Leser – while teaching an adhesive layer - does not specifically teach an adhesive layer that is detachable.
Fu – in a similar disclosure on sleeved containers – does teach the missing limitations. Examiner’s Annotated Diagram B for Fu follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
702
1000
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram B
Fu teaches and adhesive layer configuration: wherein the previously taught adhesive layer is configured such that the previously taught first end portion and the previously taught second end portion are detachable from one another in the overlapping region (See Paragraph 0069 – the sleeve is secured with “…a suitable releasable adhesive…” in the glue area – 26 on Annotated Diagram B) (MOTIVATION: improved the capability to allow the attachment and reattachment of the sleeve many time and improve the flexibility of the containers to which the sleeve is applied – Paragraph 0069.).
Fu also teaches:
Use of a hot melt adhesive at Glue area - 26 – Paragraph 0040.
Use of a first longitudinal edge (Figure 1, At 18) is formed on the first end portion of Leser having a first longitudinal edge length (Diagram B, Item B); and the adhesive layer (Glue Area – 26) has an elongated extension and extends parallel to the longitudinal edge (See Figure 1 of Annotated Diagram B – that meets this limitation.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the adhesive selection of Leser, providing the detachable adhesive structure of Fu (Paragraph 0069 and Annotated Diagram B, Element 26 – Glue Area, Glue area configuration including length) motivated by the benefit of improving the capability to allow the attachment and reattachment of the sleeve many time and improve the flexibility of the containers to which the sleeve is applied – Paragraph 0069. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Adhesive selection based on performance required) according to known methods (selection from known adhesives with known qualities) to yield predictable results (form a releasable or detachable connection within a lap joint) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 29, Leser already teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein: the blank cut has a multilayer, composite structure (Paragraph 0074 describes a Sheet – 80) (Paragraph 0013 – Figure 3A – NOT PICTURED – describes the layers); the blank cut (300) includes: a support layer (Strip – 82); a printing layer (Ink Layer - 811) arranged on the support layer (82) at least in sections; and a sealing layer (Film Layer – 811) arranged at least in sections between the support layer (82) and the sealing layer (811); and the adhesive layer (Adhesive Layer - 810) is arranged on the sealing layer (811).
In regards to Claim 30, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein the printing layer (811) is recessed in a region of the adhesive layer (810) in a region of the first end portion (see Annotated Diagram A, Figure 8A where the printing layer of the outer surface of the sleeve – 113 is recessed at both ends of the sleeve – forming a lap joint.).
In regards to Claim 33, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein the adhesive is a hot-melt adhesive (Fu – Paragraph 0040 where adhesive is a hot melt adhesive in the glue area – 26.) (SEE MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM).
In regards to Claim 38, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container – 110) wherein: a first longitudinal edge (Fu - Annotated Diagram B, First Blank End - 19) is formed on the previously taught first end portion having a first longitudinal edge length (Annotated Diagram B, Item M); and the adhesive layer (26) has an elongated extension (Diagram B, Figure 1 at Item 18) and extends parallel to the longitudinal edge (Diagram B, Figure 1, where 26 is parallel to 19 in Figure 1.) (SEE MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM).
In regards to Claim 39, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container – 110) wherein a length (Diagram B, of the adhesive layer is 100% to 80% of the first longitudinal edge length (Fu – Diagram B, Item M) (See Diagram B, Figure 1 where this limitation is met by Glue Area – 26 with respect to First Edge – 19 – apparently the length is almost 100%.) (SEE MODIFICATION AND MOTIVATION IN PARENT CLAIM).
In regards to Claim 40, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein a width of the adhesive layer is 1mm to 10mm (See Paragraph 0085 – where the overlapped linear edges (112 and 114 of Annotated Diagram A and Paragraph 0079) of Leser appear to have an adhesive layer width claimed in the instant application.) Per MPEP 2125, Section I, Drawings can be used as prior art. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures.”
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary the width of the adhesive as applied in Paragraph 0079 of Leser because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific adhesive width provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the adhesive width of Leser because the aim of the adhesive is to form the sleeve.Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Leser as modified above to obtain the invention as claimed.
In regards to Claim 41, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container – 110) wherein the adhesive layer is arranged at a distance of 1mm to 10mm from a second longitudinal edge of the second end portion (See Paragraph 0079 – where the overlapped linear edges (112 and 114 of Annotated Diagram A and Paragraph 0079) of Leser appear to have an adhesive layer width claimed in the instant application and Paragraph 0085 where a similar embodiment has adhesive applied to both 112 and 114 parts to the secure the edges to each other.). Per MPEP 2125, Section I, Drawings can be used as prior art. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures.”
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary the width of the adhesive as applied in Paragraph 0085 of Leser because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific adhesive width on both tabs on both ends of the sleeve provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the adhesive width of Leser because the aim of the adhesive is to form the sleeve.Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Leser as modified above to obtain the invention as claimed.
In regards to Claim 44, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein the container jacket (12 and Sidewall – 18) of the inner container (11) tapers conically, at least in sections, from the open end (Cup Mouth – 32) to the closed end (20) (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 1 where the inner container has a conical taper.).
Claims 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leser/Fu and in further view of Vara (US 20200128987 – hereafter referred to as Vara.).
In regards to Claim 31, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein the adhesive (Diagram A, Item A) has a shear strength (See Annotated Diagram A, Item B) of in adhesion to the sealing layer (Shear strength – not clearly defined in the specification. It is – as can be best determined - is analogous to the tear strength of the adhesive.).
Leser does not specify a shear strength of 0.04N/mm2 to 2N/mm2.
Vara – in a similar disclosure on a sleeve for a beverage container - does teach: a sheet tensile strength of 1.1 N/m.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at time of the invention was made to adjust the selection of sheet tensile strength at the adhesion layer disclosed in the prior art (1.1N/m), discovering the optimum range claimed in the instant application of 0.04N/mm2 to 2N/mm2 to the application involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e. no criticality for the range of adhesion sealing layer strength is established).
Leser – as modified by Fu and Vara discloses the claimed invention except for specific adhesive strength range of 0.04N/mm2 to 2N/mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at 0.04N/mm2 to 2N/mm2, recognizing that the adhesive strength is directly correlated to the peelability of the sleeve for removal from the container, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
In regards to Claim 32, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein the adhesive has a peel strength of 0.0005N/mm2 to 1N/mm2 in adhesion to the sealing layer.
Leser does not specify a shear strength of 0.0005N/mm2 to 1N/mm2.
Vara – in a similar disclosure on a sleeve for a beverage container - does teach: a sheet tensile strength of 1.1 N/m.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at time of the invention was made to adjust the selection of sheet tensile strength at the adhesion layer disclosed in the prior art (1.1N/m), discovering the optimum range claimed in the instant application 0.0005N/mm2 to 1N/mm2 to the application involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e. no criticality for the range of adhesion sealing layer strength is established)
Leser – as modified by Fu and Vara discloses the claimed invention except for specific adhesive strength range of 0.04N/mm2 to 2N/mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at 0.04N/mm2 to 2N/mm2, recognizing that the adhesive strength is directly correlated to the peelability of the sleeve for removal from the container, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
In regards to Claim 34, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein: the adhesive layer, in the first end portion, abuts against an outer surface; the adhesive layer, in the second end portion, abuts against an inner surface; the first end portion has a first tensile strength in a region of the outer surface against which the adhesive layer abuts; the second end portion has a second tensile strength in a region of the inner surface against which the adhesive layer abuts; Anda peel strength of the adhesive is less than the first tensile strength of the outer surface of the first end portion.
In regards to Claim 35, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein: the adhesive has a peel strength and a shear strength; and the adhesive is selected such that the shear strength is greater than the peel strength (NOTE THAT: In order for the sleeve to remain on the container when installed, the shear strength must exceed the peel strength. Also note that the two forces are fundamentally different since one measures the combined strength of the adhesive and substrate where the peel strength measures the strength of the adhesive.).
In regards to Claim 36, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) has an adhesive with a peel strength that makes it a configurable, removable and reusable sleeve assembly.
Leser – as modified by Fu and Vara - discloses the limitations of the parent claim and further discloses the use of an adhesive with the view to remove and reattached the claimed sleeve.
Vara – in a similar disclosure on a sleeve for a beverage container - does teach: a sheet tensile strength of 0.1N/mm2 to 60N/mm2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at time of the invention was made to adjust the selection of sheet tensile strength at the adhesion layer disclosed in the prior art (1.1N/m), discovering the optimum range claimed in the instant application 0.1N/mm2 to 60N/mm2 to the application involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e. no criticality for the range of tensile strength is established)
Leser – as modified by Fu and Vara discloses the claimed invention except for specific tensile strength range of 0.1N/mm2 to 60N/mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the tensile strength of 0.1N/mm2 to 60N/mm2, recognizing that the strength of the container joint is directly correlated to the tensile strength of the material that forms the sleeve for removal from the container, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
In regards to Claim 37, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container – 110) wherein: the adhesive has a peel strength, a shear strength, and a tensile strength; and the adhesive is selected such that the tensile strength is greater than the shear strength and the tensile strength is greater than the peel strength.
Leser does not specify an adhesive that is selected such that the tensile strength is greater than the shear strength and the tensile strength is greater than the peel strength.
Vara – in a similar disclosure on a sleeve for a beverage container - does teach: a range of strength considerations and associated test regimens to arrive at the claimed differences in strengths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at time of the invention was made to adjust the selection of an adhesive has the peel, tensile and shear strengths claimed in the instant application as discovering the optimum range and relationships between the factors involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. no criticality for the relative values between the different strengths. As the application stands and can be best understood, the relative values claimed are inherent in any sleeved container with a lap joint.).
Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leser/Fu and in further view of Smith (US 20040232157 – hereafter referred to as Smith). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram C for Smith follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
720
1018
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram C
In regards to Claim 42, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein: the previously taught inner container (Leser – 11) and a closed end (20) and the previously taught first end face (316) of the previously taught outer part (113).
Leser – as previously modified – does not teach the use of a radially projecting shoulder.
Smith – in a similar disclosure on sleeved containers – does teach the missing limitations including: the previously taught inner container has a shoulder (Rounded Step - 45) projecting radially outwardly (Paragraph 0018 describes 45 as a rounded step that is outwardly projecting.) in a region of the closed end (See Annotated Diagram C, Figure 1); and the shoulder (45) serves as an axial stop for the previously taught first end face of the previously taught outer part (Sleeve – 30) (MOTIVATION: providing structural support to the receptacle – Paragraph 0019.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the lower cup structure of Leser, providing the Rounded Step – 45 of Smith motivated by the benefit of providing structural support to the receptacle – Paragraph 0019. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Stepped retaining protrusion – 45, for increasing strength of cup) according to known methods (integrating sleeve into cup strength structure) to yield predictable results (improve overall cup assembly strength) is Rational (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 43, Leser – as previously modified - teaches a combination packaging container (Leser, Insulated Container - 110) wherein the shoulder (Rounded Step of Smith – 45 – see parent claim) tapers conically (Smith teaches rounded step), at least in sections, from the open end to the closed end (Leser – Open end – 32 and Closed End – 20).
It should be noted that, per MPEP 2144.04 Section IV – Changes in Size, Shape – Section A, that changes in relative dimensions or shapes while performing the same function (retaining the sleeve on the cup and providing sleeve strength to the cup assembly) does not result in a patentable distinction. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device…” .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John M. Hoppmann whose telephone number is (571) 272-7344. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 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 Jenness can be reached on (571) 270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOHN MARTIN HOPPMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733