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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty et al. (US 2004/0052987 A1; hereinafter Shetty) in view of Dregger et al. (US 2020/0189791 A1; hereinafter Dregger).
Regarding claims 1, 7-8, and 19, Shetty discloses a paper based can comprising an inner body ply (20) wrapped into a tubular shape comprising an outer layer (20) and a sealant layer (74/76) in face-to-face contact with the outer layer (see Figure 5-7), wherein the outer layer defines a first surface of the inner body ply and the sealant layer defines a second surface of the inner body ply, wherein the inner body ply further comprises a first edge and a second edge, wherein the second edge is folded such that the second surface of the inner body ply adjacent the second edge contacts the second surface of the inner body ply adjacent the first edge to form an overlap (see Fig. 7), wherein the first surface is disposed within the interior of the fold, wherein the inner body ply further defines a seam formed in at least a portion of the overlap (170; see Fig. 14); and an outer body ply wrapped around the first surface of the inner body ply (see Fig. 8). Shetty lacks a sealant layer comprising a voided polymer sealant.
Dregger teaches a pressure-resistant tubular container comprising a sealant layer made of a voided polymer sealant (see Par. 0118). Examiner considers polyethylene to be an example of a “voided” polymer sealant as disclosed by Applicant’s own Specification (Par. 0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Shetty’s tubular paperboard container’s sealant layer to be polyethylene, as taught by Dregger, as a known substitution of materials in the art of sealants for tubular paperboard containers.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, Shetty, as modified above, discloses a paper can wherein the voided polymer sealant is a light- weight voided polymer sealant (Dregger; see Par. 0112 and 0118).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Shetty, as modified above, discloses a paper can further comprising an adhesive disposed on the first surface of the body ply within the interior of the fold (Shetty; see Par. 0016).
Regarding claim 6, Shetty, as modified above, discloses a paper can wherein the voided polymer sealant is polyethylene terephthalate (Shetty; see Par. 0113).
Regarding claim 9, Shetty, as modified above, discloses a paper can further comprising a label ply having an inner surface adhered in face-to-face contact with the outer body ply (Shetty; see Par. 0112).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Shetty, as modified above, discloses a paper can further comprising a liner (Shetty; 28/30) adhesively attached second surface of the inner body ply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 19-20 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Shetty have been fully considered and are persuasive. Shetty lacks a “voided polymer” sealant. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Shetty in view of Dregger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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 J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734