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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two diametrically opposed holes of claim 4, the cutting tool of claim 6, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the methos actually seals the end of the paper based drinking straw, or if it just creates two lateral holes instead of a single axial hole.
It is unclear what is meant by the term “based on paper” of line 3 of claim 1. Is the straw made from paper, or is it made from something else?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the term “is/are designed” in lies 4 and 6. Is the straw designed that way, or does the features just formed?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer side wall of the drinking straw" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the exterior side wall of the drinking straw" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this side wall the same sidewall as in claim 1, or a different side wall?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the end area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the wall" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the end edge" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOZUTSUMI (JP 2004024408 A) in view of Huang (2020/0085218)
Regarding claim 1 KOZUTSUMI teaches a drinking straw with a sealed end (fig 1d) that is made using the steps of: - providing a tubular drinking straw (2); - cutting an end area of the drinking straw (A) so that a tongue-shaped portion (fig 1d) is designed; - folding the tongue-shaped portion over the opening of the drinking straw (fig 1d), so that two lateral openings (h2) are designed; and- adhesively bonding the tongue-shaped portion with the outer side of the wall of the drinking straw ([0007]).
But does not disclose that the straw is made from paper.
However Huang teaches a paper straw (20) that has a cutout in it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the straw of KOZUTSUMI out of paper, just like the star of Huang, in order to make the straw easily recyclable.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOZUTSUMI (JP 2004024408 A) as modified by Huang (2020/0085218), further in view of Kim (KR 20200047393 A)
Regarding claim 2, the above combination shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose for bonding the tongue-shaped portion to the exterior side of the wall of the drinking straw, a defined amount of adhesive is applied to the exterior side of the wall of the drinking straw.
KIM et al. teaches using a food grade hot melt adhesive used to bond pieces or paper together to make a straw (7th paragraph under Description)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use a food grade hotmelt adhesive for bonding the tongue-shaped portion to the exterior side of the wall of the drinking straw, in order to make it safe for humans (as taught by Kim).
Regarding claim 10, in the above combination, the adhesively bonding the tongue-shaped portion over the opening of the drinking straw comprises a fast-setting (fast setting is relative), food contact suitable hot-melt adhesive
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOZUTSUMI (JP 2004024408 A) as modified by Huang (2020/0085218), further in view of Sussman (2,943,794)
Regarding claim 3, the above combination shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose in addition to the two lateral openings, at least one hole is made in the wall of the drinking straw.
However Sussmann teaches multiple holes in the side of the drinking straw (fig 1, 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add multiple hoes to the sidewall of the drinking straw in order to aerate the fluid inside the straw as taught by Sussman.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the two lateral openings, two diametrically opposite holes are made in the wall of the drinking straw (Sussman teaches multiple diametrically opposed holes).
Claim(s) 1, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marouthis (2014/0263718) in view of KOZUTSUMI (JP 2004024408 A) and Huang (2020/0085218)
Regarding claim 1 Marouthis teaches a drinking straw with a sealed end (fig 17) that is made using the steps of: - providing a tubular drinking straw (12); - creating a tongue-shaped portion (104, 20; - folding the tongue-shaped portion over the opening of the drinking straw (fig 17), so that two lateral openings (fig 17) are designed;
But fails to disclose that the tongue shaped portion is formed by cutting an end area of the drinking straw;
and adhesively bonding the tongue-shaped portion with the outer side of the wall of the drinking straw
KOZUTSUMI teaches forming the tongue shaped element by cutting (fig 1d) and adhesively bonding the tongue-shaped portion with the outer side of the wall of the drinking straw (fig 1d)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the tongue shaped portion by cutting in order to easily create the tongue shaped portion on an already existing straw
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adhesively bonding the tongue-shaped portion with the outer side of the wall of the drinking straw instead of having it be located in the inside of the straw, in order to create a more permanent bond between the tongue shaped portion and the straw.
The above combination still fails to disclose that the straw is made from paper.
However Huang teaches a paper straw (20) that has a cutout in it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the straw of Marouthis as modified above, out of paper, just like the star of Huang, I order to make the straw easily recyclable.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination teaches using cutting to form the tongue shaped portion but fails to disclose in that the end area of the drinking straw is cut by making two first cuts along two first cut lines starting from an end edge of the drinking straw into the wall of the drinking straw and making a second cut along a second cut line, wherein the second cut is made in a direction parallel to the end edge of the drinking straw and the cutting line connects the end points of the two first cutting lines.
The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are a finite number of different ways to cut out the tongue shaped portion from the drinking straw. Making two separate cuts, one at an angle to the longitudinal axis, through the side wall twice, and another parallel to the end of the straw would just be one way to do it, but likely the most efficient.
As the supreme court held in KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007) , when there are a finite number of identified, predicable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill or common sense.
The examiner notes that the number and locations and directions of the cuts to make the tongue shaped portion on a straw represent a finite and predictable set of variations, the implementation of which would have been “obvious to try” with a reasonable expectation of success, the motivation would have been to make the tongue shaped portion most efficiently.
Therefore making the tongue shape portion by making two first cuts along two first cut lines starting from an end edge of the drinking straw into the wall of the drinking straw and making a second cut along a second cut line, wherein the second cut is made in a direction parallel to the end edge of the drinking straw and the cutting line connects the end points of the two first cutting lines would have been obvious to try in order to make the tongue shaped portion efficiently.
Regarding claim 6, the above combination fails to disclose that that the two first cuts are designed simultaneously in a single cutting operation with the aid of a cutting tool which is positioned at a point on the end edge and is inserted into the wall of the drinking straw at an angle with respect to the longitudinal direction of the drinking straw.
The examiner notes that it is well known in the art to make two cuts that are aligned with each other at the same time, with the same cutting tool in order to cut two elements with one motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the two first cuts simultaneously in a single cutting operation with the aid of a cutting tool which is positioned at a point on the end edge and is inserted into the wall of the drinking straw at an angle with respect to the longitudinal direction of the drinking straw in order to cut two cuts with one motion.
Regarding claim, 7 the examiner notes that the longitudinal direction has not been defined by the claims, any direction that passes longitudinally through the straw can be considered the longitudinal direction, not just the central axis direction. The cuts can be made at 10 to 20° from the longitudinal direction if the longitudinal direction is defined to be 10 to 20 degrees to the cut.
Regarding claim 8, the above combination fails to disclose that the cutting depth of the second cut into the drinking straw is 3/5 of the diameter of the drinking straw.
However, the examiner notes that the cut length of the second is a results effective variable. The longer the cut, the shorter the togue shaped portion will be and vice versa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the second cut 3/5 the diameter of the straw, in order to make the tongue shaped portion the desired length.
Regarding claim 9, the tongue-shaped portion (104) is designed to be rounded at its free end (it is rounded in an axial direction).
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marouthis (2014/0263718), KOZUTSUMI (JP 2004024408 A) and Huang (2020/0085218) above, further in view of Kim (KR 20200047393 A)
Regarding claim 2, the above combination shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose for bonding the tongue-shaped portion to the exterior side of the wall of the drinking straw, a defined amount of adhesive is applied to the exterior side of the wall of the drinking straw.
KIM et al. teaches using a food grade hot melt adhesive used to bond pieces or paper together to make a straw (7th paragraph under Description)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use a food grade hotmelt adhesive for bonding the tongue-shaped portion to the exterior side of the wall of the drinking straw, in order to make it safe for humans (as taught by Kim).
Regarding claim 10, in the above combination, the adhesively bonding the tongue-shaped portion over the opening of the drinking straw comprises a fast-setting (fast setting is relative), food contact suitable hot-melt adhesive
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marouthis (2014/0263718), KOZUTSUMI (JP 2004024408 A) and Huang (2020/0085218) above, further in view of Sussman (2,943,794)
Regarding claim 3, the above combination shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose in addition to the two lateral openings, at least one hole is made in the wall of the drinking straw.
However Sussmann teaches multiple holes in the side of the drinking straw (fig 1, 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add multiple hoes to the sidewall of the drinking straw in order to aerate the fluid inside the straw as taught by Sussman.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the two lateral openings, two diametrically opposite holes are made in the wall of the drinking straw (Sussman teaches multiple diametrically opposed holes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 10/8/25