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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed 5/15/2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 8-15 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's amendment and arguments with respect to the rejection of present claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krampe et al. (US 6,099,682; “Krampe”) in view of Cheung (US 2021/0009869) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made based on newly discovered reference.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005/077764 to Utada et al (“Utada”, citations below refer to the bold paragraph number of the English translation) in view of Cheung (US 2021/0009869).
Regarding claim 1, Utada teaches a blister pack (the package of Utada, para [0036] [0037], see Fig. 2 below, para [0050] [0067]-[0068]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
377
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- (a) a contact adhesive (contact adhesive 5, para [0043] [0053] [0054]),
- (b) a first paperboard substrate (the substrate 3, of which suitable material for substrate includes paperboard, cardboard, paper, para [0051]-[0052]) having a first substrate surface and a second substrate surface, and the contact adhesive is applied directly on the first substrate surface (see Fig. 2, para [0054], the contact adhesive 5 is applied directly on the first substrate surface 3a, meeting the claimed limitations);
- (c) a second paper substrate (the substrate 4, of which suitable material for substrate includes paperboard, cardboard, paper, para [0051] [0052]) having a first substrate surface and a second substrate surface, and the contact adhesive is applied directly on the second substrate surface (see Fig. 2, para [0054], the contact adhesive 5 is applied directly on the second substrate surface 4a, meeting the claimed limitations); and
- (d) an article (article 2, Fig. 3, para [0054]); wherein the article (2) is sandwiched and adhered in between the applied contact adhesive of the first surface of the paperboard substrate and the applied contact adhesive of the second surface of the paper substrate (Fig. 2, para [0053], the article (2) is sandwiched and adhered in between, in the blister pack).
Utada teaches its blister pack with the inclusion of contact adhesive (contact adhesive 5, para [0043] [0053] [0054]). But Utada does not specifically teach a contact adhesive having the specific composition as instantly claimed.
Cheung teaches a contact adhesive that provides high initial cohesive strength that maintains high strength over an extended period of time and various temperature conditions, making them suitable as pre-applied adhesive that eliminates release liners and reactivation (para [0001]). Cheung teaches its contact adhesive comprises (para [0001] [0008]) (i) a metallocene-catalyzed olefin block copolymer; (ii) a mixture of polyethylene wax and Fischer-Tropsch wax, having a penetration hardness value of less than about 5 dmm at 25°C, measured in accordance with ASTM D3954; (iii) a plasticizer; and (iv) a tackifier, which contact adhesive meets the claimed material limitations of the instantly claimed contact adhesive of instant claim 1. Cheung teaches its contact adhesive is suitable for applying on to various substrate such as paperboard, paper, Kraft board, and corrugated board (para [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blister pack of Utada in view the teachings of Cheung, to select and include the suitable contact adhesive for its blister pack, such as the contact adhesive taught by Cheung (i.e., that comprises (i) a metallocene-catalyzed olefin block copolymer; (ii) a mixture of polyethylene wax and Fischer-Tropsch wax, having a penetration hardness value of less than about 5 dmm at 25°C, measured in accordance with ASTM D3954; (iii) a plasticizer; and (iv) a tackifier; para [0001] [0008] of Cheung), to provide an improved blister pack with high initial cohesive strength that maintains high strength over an extended period of time and various temperature conditions and that eliminates the use of release liners as taught by Cheung (para [0001] [0008] of Cheung), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory blister pack that is the same as instantly claimed. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, modified Utada teaches a blister pack having the contact adhesive (as taught by Cheung). Cheung teaches its contact adhesive is essentially free from polypropylene based polymer and/or wax (para [0008]), meeting the claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blister pack of Utada in view the teachings of Cheung, to select and include the suitable contact adhesive for its blister pack, such as the contact adhesive taught by Cheung (i.e., as discussed above that meets the claimed material limitations of the instantly claimed contact adhesive), to provide an improved blister pack with high initial cohesive strength that maintains high strength over an extended period of time and various temperature conditions and that eliminates the use of release liners as taught by Cheung (para [0001] [0008] of Cheung). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, modified Utada teaches a blister pack having the contact adhesive (as taught by Cheung). Cheung teaches in its contact adhesive, the metallocene-catalyzed olefin block copolymer which is an ethylene-octene block copolymer (para [0065]), meeting the claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blister pack of Utada in view the teachings of Cheung, to select and include the suitable contact adhesive for its blister pack, such as the contact adhesive taught by Cheung (i.e., as discussed above that meets the claimed material limitations of the instantly claimed contact adhesive), to provide an improved blister pack with high initial cohesive strength that maintains high strength over an extended period of time and various temperature conditions and that eliminates the use of release liners as taught by Cheung (para [0001] [0008] of Cheung). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, modified Utada teaches a blister pack having the contact adhesive (as taught by Cheung). Cheung teaches in its contact adhesive, the polyethylene wax and/or Fischer-Tropsch wax have a hardness value of less than or equal to about 3 dmm at 25°C, measured in accordance with ASTM D1321 (para [0041]), meeting the claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blister pack of Utada in view the teachings of Cheung, to select and include the suitable contact adhesive for its blister pack, such as the contact adhesive taught by Cheung (i.e., as discussed above that meets the claimed material limitations of the instantly claimed contact adhesive), to provide an improved blister pack with high initial cohesive strength that maintains high strength over an extended period of time and various temperature conditions and that eliminates the use of release liners as taught by Cheung (para [0001] [0008] of Cheung). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, modified Utada teaches a blister pack having the contact adhesive (as taught by Cheung). Cheung teaches its contact adhesive further includes suitable additives, including antioxidant, fillers (para [0046], meeting the claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blister pack of Utada in view the teachings of Cheung, to select and include the suitable contact adhesive for its blister pack, such as the contact adhesive taught by Cheung (i.e., as discussed above that meets the claimed material limitations of the instantly claimed contact adhesive), to provide an improved blister pack with high initial cohesive strength that maintains high strength over an extended period of time and various temperature conditions and that eliminates the use of release liners as taught by Cheung (para [0001] [0008] of Cheung). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Utada teaches in its blister pack, the substrate is of suitable paper board material including corrugated board (see Fig. 2, and para [0051] [0052]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Utada does not specifically teach the thickness of the paper substrate as instantly claimed. Utada teaches in its blister pack, the substrate is of suitable paper board material including corrugated board (see Fig. 2, and para [0051] [0052]), Utada teaches the thickness of the substrate is a result effective variable in that the substrate can be of a sheet, corrugated, or in other forms/thickness depending on the intended application of the pack (para [0001] [0010]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to thickness of the paper substrate (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (weight, toughness, and/or flexibility, etc.) of the blister pack once produced, which would have arrived at a workable thickness of the paper substrate that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., a thickness of about of about 0.008" (8 point) to about 0.024" (24 point). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
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 YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights