DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated November 10, 2025, claims 2, 11, 21, and 23 were amended and new claims 28 and 29 were presented. Claims 2-21 and 23-29 are pending, with claims 13-14 and 18-19 withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of the claims over Wolfe have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that "Wolfe does not teach major surfaces of a label divided into: a first segment with an adhesive, and a second segment with a bonding material having a lower tackiness than the adhesive – where the major surfaces of these segments directly border each other” (Remarks at p. 9), the examiner disagrees. First, as explained below, it is unclear what is meant by “first major surfaces of a first side of a first segment of the label,” “second major surfaces of a second side of a first part of the inner liner,” “third major surfaces of a third side of a second segment of the label,” and “fourth major surfaces of a fourth side of a second part of the inner liner.” These elements are not described in Applicant’s specification or called out in the figures. Second, the label of Wolfe has a first segment and a second segment as claimed. Notably, the claims do not require that the entire first segment be covered with the adhesive, or the entire second segment be covered with the bonding material.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Holford in view of Wolfe have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Wolfe does not teach major surfaces of a label divided into: a first segment with an adhesive, a second segment with a bonding material having lower tackiness than the adhesive – where the major surfaces of these segments directly border each other. And, Holford does not remedy these deficiencies of Wolfe” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. Holford, rather than Wolfe, is relied upon for the claimed label segments in the 103 rejection below. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Holford in view of Wolfe does not teach or suggest ‘wherein the reclosable container is devoid of additional structure aside from the inner liner and the label’ (as recited in claim 26) and ‘wherein the reclosable container is devoid of additional structure contacting an outer surface of the label and the inner liner’ (as recited in claim 27). Holford includes an outer box 400 (FIG. 7), and Wolfe includes an outer layer wrap 48 (FIG. 2) – and therefore it cannot be said that either Holford or Wolfe disclose a reclosable container that is devoid of additional structure aside from an inner liner and label, or devoid of additional structure contacting an outer surface of an inner liner” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. The embodiments of Figures 3-4 in Holford are devoid of additional structure aside from an inner liner and label. Holford expressly discloses that the embodiment of Figure 7 is an “alternative” (see p. 19, ll. 12-18).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-12, 15-17, 20-21, and 23-29 are rejected under 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.
Claim 2 recites “first major surfaces of a first side of a first segment of the label” in lines 5-6. It is unclear what is meant by this. Is this referring to a top surface and a bottom surface of the label? Is this referring to edges of the first side? Are there “minor” surfaces? To the extent there are plural “first major surfaces” recited, do the limitations relating to “connecting” (line 5) and “directly bordering” (lines 13-14) apply to all of the purported “first major surfaces”? The specification does not mention “first major surfaces,” and these are not called out in the figures.
Claim 2 recites “second major surfaces of a second side of a first part of the inner liner” in line 6. It is unclear what is meant by this. Is this referring to a top surface and a bottom surface of the inner liner? Is this referring to edges of the second side? Are there “minor” surfaces? To the extent there are multiple “second major surfaces,” do the limitations relating to “connecting” (line 5) and “directly bordering” (line 12) apply to all of the purported “second major surfaces”? The specification does not mention “second major surfaces,” and these are not called out in the figures.
Claim 2 recites “third major surfaces of a third side of a second segment of the label” in lines 8-9. It is unclear what is meant by this. Is this referring to a top surface and a bottom surface of the label? Is this referring to edges of the second segment of the label? Are there “minor” surfaces? To the extent there are multiple “third major surfaces,” do the limitations relating to “connecting” (line 8) apply to all of the purported “third major surfaces”? The specification does not mention “third major surfaces,” and these are not called out in the figures.
Claim 2 recites “fourth major surfaces of a fourth side of a second part of the inner liner” in line 9. It is unclear what is meant by this. Is this referring to a top surface and a bottom surface of the inner liner? Is this referring to edges of the fourth side? Are there “minor” surfaces? To the extent there are multiple “fourth major surfaces,” do the limitations relating to “connecting” (line 8) and “directly bordering” (line 12) apply to all of the purported “fourth major surfaces”? The specification does not mention “fourth major surfaces,” and these are not called out in the figures.
Claims 3-12, 15-17, 20, 21, and 23-29 are also rejected through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 2, 6-11, 15-17, 20, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b) and (e) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. 5,333,729 to Wolfe (hereinafter, “Wolfe”).
Regarding claim 2, Wolfe discloses a method of making a reclosable container (package 42, Fig. 1), comprising: defining an opening (open region 73, Fig. 2) in a first end (top wall 52, Fig. 1) of an inner liner (inner wrap 46, Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 42-59); and connecting a label (closure tab 60, Fig. 1) to the inner liner (Fig. 1) to overlay the opening (see Figs. 1-2), the connecting including, connecting first major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of a first side (top edge in Fig. 2) of a first segment of the label (annotated Fig. 2; ll. 8-35; see also Fig. 1) to second major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of a second side (top edge in Fig. 2) of a first part of the inner liner (portion 72, see annotated Fig. 1 below) using an adhesive (col. 4, ll. 8-14), and connecting third major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of a third side (bottom edge in Fig. 2) of a second segment (annotated Fig. 2) of the label (closure tab 60) to fourth major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of a fourth side (right edge in Fig. 2) of a second part of the inner liner (top region 75, Fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 16-35) using a bonding material (separable pressure sensitive adhesive, see col. 4, ll. 16-35), the adhesive having a higher tackiness than the bonding material (see col. 4, ll. 16-35), the fourth major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces of second part of the inner liner) directly bordering the second major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces of the first part of the inner liner) and the third major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces of the second segment of the label) directly bordering the first major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces of the first segment of the label, see Figs. 1-3), and the reclosable container (package 42) being devoid of an inner frame (see e.g., col. 3, ll. 42-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wolfe Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 6, Wolfe further discloses the connecting of the second segment (annotated Fig. 2) connects such that the bonding material (separable pressure sensitive adhesive) provides a low tack connection so that the second segment can be separated from the second part and then reconnected to the second part to open and reclose the opening (col. 4, ll. 16-35; col. 10, ll. 20-25).
Regarding claim 7, Wolfe further discloses the defining defines such that a top panel (top wall 52, Fig. 1) of the inner liner (inner wrap 46) at least partially defines the opening (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Wolfe further discloses the defining defines such that a front panel (front wall 50, Figs. 1-2) of the inner liner (inner wrap 46) also defines a portion of the opening (top edge of front wall 50 defines a portion of open region 73, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Wolfe further discloses the defining defines such that at least one line of weakness (perforations 100, Fig. 3) defines the opening (open region 73, see col. 5, ll. 18-23).
Regarding claim 10, Wolfe further discloses the defining defines such that the label (closure tab 60) is configured to initially be separated from the inner liner (inner wrap 46) by the second segment (annotated Fig. 2) being separated from the second part (top region 75, see Fig. 2) while the first segment (annotated Fig. 2) remains connected to the first part (portion 72) as the at least one line of weakness (perforations 100) is torn to form the opening (open region 73, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Wolfe further discloses the connecting the third major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces of the second segment of the label) connects such that the bonding material (separable pressure sensitive adhesive) is configured to reconnect the third major surfaces of the third side (top and bottom surfaces of the second segment of the label) to the fourth major surfaces of the fourth side (top and bottom surfaces of second part of the inner liner) to reclose the opening (col. 4, ll. 16-35; col. 10, ll. 20-25).
Regarding claim 15, Wolfe further discloses the reclosable container (package 42) is devoid of an outer box (see e.g., col. 3, ll. 42-44).
Regarding claim 16, Wolfe further discloses the connecting of the label (closure tab 60) connects at least one first section of the label (section of closure tab 60 on top wall 52, see Fig. 1) across an entire width (see Fig. 1) of a top panel of the inner liner (top wall 52).
Regarding claim 17, Wolfe discloses a product, comprising: the recloseable container made by the method of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above); and a plurality of consumer items within the recloseable container (col. 5, ll. 1-12).
Regarding claim 20, Wolfe further discloses the reclosable container (package 42) is devoid of an outer box (see e.g., col. 3, ll. 42-44).
Regarding claim 21, Wolfe further discloses the opening (open region 73) is defined by at least one line of weakness (perforations 100, Fig. 3; col. 5, ll. 18-23), and the label (closure tab 60) is configured to initially be separated from the inner liner (inner wrap 46) by the third major surfaces of the third side of the second segment (top and bottom surfaces of the second segment of the label, see annotated Fig. 2) being separated from the fourth major surfaces of the fourth side of the second part (top and bottom surfaces of the second part, see annotated Fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 16-35) while the first major surfaces of the first side of the first segment (annotated Fig. 2) remain connected to the second major surfaces of the second side of the first part (portion 72) as the at least one line of weakness (perforation 100) is torn to form the opening (see e.g., col. 4, ll. 16-35; Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of U.S. Pat. 7,877,963 to Messing et al. (hereinafter, “Messing”).
Regarding claim 3, Wolfe does not expressly disclose forming the inner liner from a material with a bending stiffness ranging from about 4.5 N/m to about 12 N/m. However, Wolfe does teach that the inner liner material has a thickness selected to provide stability when the container is opened and provide a “crush proof character” to the container (col. 8, ll. 11-26).
Messing teaches a liner for a container for consumer items (Abstract). Messing further teaches that the liner may be formed from paper and aluminum, or with a plurality of layers that include polypropylene-aluminum-polypropylene in order (col. 3, ll. 45-67). Messing teaches that the material of the liner may be selected in order to adjust the barrier properties and cost of the liner (col. 3, ll. 35-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Wolfe to form the inner liner of a material with a bending stiffness ranging from about 4.5 N/m to about 12 N/m because Messing teaches that different materials may be used for a liner to adjust the cost and barrier properties, Wolfe teaches that the material thickness is selected to provide a stable and crush-proof container, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, citing In re Aller, 104 USPQ 233). It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Wolfe to have the inner liner formed from a paper layer having a weight about 80 g/m2 and an aluminum layer having a thickness from about 8 μm to about 20 μm or formed from an aluminum layer bracketed by first and second polypropylene layers, the polypropylene layers each having a weight from about 20 to about 50 g/m2 and the aluminum layer having a thickness ranging from about 8 μm to about 20 μm because Messing teaches that different materials may be used for a liner to adjust the cost and barrier properties, Wolfe teaches that the material thickness is selected to provide a stable and crush-proof container, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, citing In re Aller, 104 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 4, Wolfe further discloses forming the inner liner (inner wrap 46), the forming including connecting a first layer (paper laminate, col. 3, ll. 44-47) made from paper (col. 3, ll. 44-47) to a second layer (aluminum foil, col. 3, ll. 44-47) made from aluminum (col. 3, ll. 44-47), the first layer (paper laminate) being an inner surface of the inner liner (col. 3, ll. 63-66), the first layer (paper laminate) having a weight ranging from 80 grams per square meter to 150 grams per square meter (first layer is 28 pound bond paper, which is about 105 grams per square meter, col. 3, ll. 44-47).
Wolfe as modified by Messing already includes the second layer having a thickness ranging from 8 μm to 20 μm (see rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 5, Wolfe as modified by Messing already includes forming the inner liner, the forming including connecting a first polypropylene layer and a second polypropylene layer to respective side surfaces of an aluminum layer, the first polypropylene layer and the second polypropylene layer each having a weight ranging from about 20 grams per square meter to about 50 grams per square meter and the aluminum layer having a thickness ranging from about 8 μm to about 20 μm (see rejection of claim 3 above)
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of U.S. Pat. 6,364,113 to Faasse et al. (hereinafter, “Faasse”).
Regarding claim 12, Wolfe further discloses the bonding material (separable pressure sensitive adhesive in region 74) is at least one of a synthetic semi-pressure sensitive hotmelt adhesive, a removable acrylic based adhesive, a double-sided tacky tape or a hook-and-loop fastener (col. 10, ll. 37-41).
Wolfe does not expressly disclose the adhesive is a hotmelt adhesive.
Faasse teaches a similar method of making a reclosable container. Faasse teaches that it is known in the art to permanently anchor components of the container together with a high tack, hot melt adhesive (col. 2, ll. 45-57). Faasse teaches that hot melt adhesives have excellent adhesion and good resistance to water and UV light (col. 2, ll. 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Wolfe to make the adhesive a hotmelt adhesive as taught by Faasse for the purpose of providing an adhesive with excellent adhesion and good resistance to water and UV light, as taught by Faasse (col. 2, ll. 45-57), and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Further, Applicant’s specification indicates that such a hotmelt adhesive is known as a suitable adhesive (para. [0042]).
Claims 2, 6-11, 15-17, 20, 21, and 23-29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2008/062159 to Holford (hereinafter, “Holford”) in view of Wolfe.
Regarding claim 2, Holford discloses a method of making a reclosable container (container 300, Figs. 3-4), comprising: defining an opening (aperture defined by portion 320, Fig. 3; p. 17, ll. 13-16) in a first end (top 305, Fig. 3) of an inner liner (enclosure 302, Figs. 3-4); and connecting a label (cover layer 310, Figs. 3-4) to the inner liner (enclosure 302) to overlay the opening (see Figs. 3-4), the connecting including, connecting first major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of a first side of a first segment of the label (annotated Fig. 2 below) to second major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of a second side of a first part of the inner liner (part of inner liner under first segment, see annotated Fig. 2) using an adhesive (see e.g., p. 13, ll. 10-14; p. 15, ll. 7-16; p. 18, ll. 1-5), and connecting third major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of a third side of a second segment of the label (annotated Fig. 2) to fourth major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of a fourth side of a second part of the inner liner (part of inner liner under second segment, see annotated Fig. 2) using a bonding material (see e.g., p. 13, ll. 10-14; p. 15, ll. 7-16; p. 18, ll. 1-5), the fourth major surfaces directly bordering the second major surfaces (see Fig. 2) and the third major surfaces directly bordering the first major surfaces (see Fig. 2), and the reclosable container (container 300) being devoid of an inner frame (Figs. 3-4; p. 19, ll. 12-14).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Holford Annotated Figure 2
Holford does not expressly disclose the adhesive having a higher tackiness than the bonding material.
Wolfe teaches a similar method of making a reclosable container (package 42, Fig. 1) including defining an opening in a first end of an inner liner (open region 73 defined in top wall 52, Fig. 1) and connecting a label to the inner liner to overlay the opening (closure tab 60, Fig. 1). Wolfe teaches connecting a first segment of the label to a first part of the inner liner with an adhesive (col. 4, ll. 8-14). Wolfe teaches connecting a second segment of the label to a second part of the inner liner with a bonding material (separable pressure sensitive adhesive, see col. 4, ll. 16-35). Wolfe teaches the adhesive having a higher tackiness than the bonding material (see col. 4, ll. 16-35; see also col. 10, ll. 20-25). Wolfe further teaches that using an adhesive and a bonding material with different tackiness provides good closure of the label while allowing the label to be moved for reopening the container (col. 4, ll. 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Holford to use an adhesive having a higher tackiness than the bonding material as taught by Wolfe for the purpose of providing a good closure of the label while allowing the label to be moved for reopening the container, as recognized by Wolfe (see col. 4, ll. 25-35).
Regarding claim 6, Holford as modified by Wolfe already includes the connecting of the second segment (Holford, annotated Fig. 2) connects such that the bonding material (Wolfe, separable pressure sensitive adhesive) provides a low tack connection so that the second segment can be separated from the second part and then reconnected to the second part to open and reclose the opening (Wolfe, col. 4, ll. 16-35; col. 10, ll. 20-25).
Regarding claim 7, Holford further discloses the defining defines such that a top panel of the inner liner (top 305, Fig. 3) at least partially defines the opening (aperture defined by portion 320, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Holford further discloses the defining defines such that a front panel of the inner liner (front 304, Fig. 3) also defines a portion of the opening (aperture defined by portion 320, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Holford further discloses the defining defines such that at least one line of weakness (line 309, Fig. 3) defines the opening (p. 17, ll. 13-16).
Regarding claim 10, Holford further discloses the defining defines such that the label (cover layer 310) is configured to initially be separated from the inner liner (enclosure 302) by the second segment (annotated Fig. 2) being separated from the second part (part of inner liner under second segment, see annotated Fig. 2) while the first segment (annotated Fig. 2) remains connected to the first part (annotated Fig. 2) as the at least one line of weakness (line 309) is torn to form the opening (see e.g., p. 18, ll. 7-12).
Regarding claim 11, Holford as modified by Wolfe already includes the connecting the third major surfaces connects such that the bonding material (Wolfe, separable pressure sensitive adhesive) is configured to reconnect the third major surfaces of the third side to the fourth major surfaces of the fourth side to reclose the opening (Wolfe, see col. 4, ll. 16-35).
Regarding claim 15, Holford further discloses the reclosable container (container 300) is devoid of an outer box (see p. 19, ll. 12-14).
Regarding claim 16, Holford further discloses the connecting of the label (cover layer 310) connects at least one first section of the label across an entire width of a top panel of the inner liner (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 17, Holford as modified by Wolfe discloses a product comprising the recloseable container made by the method of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above); and a plurality of consumer items within the recloseable container (cigarettes are arranged within container 300, p. 18, ll. 7-8).
Regarding claim 20, Holford further discloses the reclosable container (container 300) is devoid of an outer box (see p. 19, ll. 12-14).
Regarding claim 21, Holford further discloses the opening is defined by at least one line of weakness (line 309, Fig. 3), and the label (cover layer 310) is configured to initially be separated from the inner liner (enclosure 302) by the third major surfaces (top and bottom surfaces) of the third side of the second segment (annotated Fig. 2) being separated from the fourth major surfaces of the second part (part of inner liner under second segment, see annotated Fig. 2) while the first major surfaces of the first side of the first segment (annotated Fig. 2) remain connected to the second major surfaces of the second side of the first part (annotated Fig. 2) as the at least one line of weakness (line 309) is torn to form the opening (see e.g., p. 18, ll. 7-12).
Regarding claim 23, Holford further discloses the connecting connects such that the first segment (annotated Fig. 2) and the first part (part of inner liner under first segment) are rectangular in shape (see annotated Fig. 2), the third major surfaces of the second part (annotated Fig. 2) directly bordering the second major surfaces of the first part (annotated Fig. 2) on at least three sides of the first part (see Fig. 2), the third major surfaces of the second segment (annotated Fig. 2) directly bordering the first major surfaces of the first segment (annotated Fig. 2) on at least three side of the first segment (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Holford further discloses folding a single web (material 100, Fig. 2) of the inner liner (enclosure 302) to form an assembled container (see Figs. 3-4), the recloseable container (container 300) only including the assembled container and the label (see Figs. 3-4; p. 19, ll. 12-14).
Regarding claim 25, Holford further discloses the connecting connects the label (cover layer 310) such that the label (cover layer 310) is directly connected only to the inner liner (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 26, Holford further discloses the reclosable container (container 300) is devoid of additional structure aside from the inner liner and the label (see p. 19, ll. 12-14).
Regarding claim 27, Holford further discloses the reclosable container (container 300) is devoid of additional structure contacting an outer surface of the label and the inner liner (see Figs. 3-4; p. 19, ll. 12-14).
Regarding claim 28, Holford as modified by Wolfe already includes the connecting the first major surfaces (Holford, top and bottom surfaces of the first segment, see Fig. 2) connects such that the adhesive (Wolfe, col. 4, ll. 8-14) covers the first side of the first major surfaces (Holford, see Fig. 2) and the second side of the second major surfaces (Holford, see Fig. 2), and the connecting the third major surfaces (Holford, top and bottom surfaces of the second segment, see Fig. 2) connects such that the bonding material (Holford, see e.g., p. 13, ll. 10-14; p. 15, ll. 7-16; p. 18, ll. 1-5) covers the third side of the third major surfaces (Holford, see Fig. 2) and the fourth side of the fourth major surfaces (Holford, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Holford further discloses the connecting the label (cover layer 310) connects such that the third major surfaces of the second segment (annotated Fig. 2) directly border the second major surfaces of the first part (annotated Fig. 2) on at least three sides of the first part (see annotated Fig. 2), and the third major surfaces of the second segment (annotated Fig. 2) directly border the first major surfaces of the first segment (annotated Fig. 2) on at least three sides of the second part (annotated Fig. 2).
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 LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733