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 without traverse of Species I (Figures 1-7 and Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 line 8 recites, “…the perforated line is wherein the perforated line is hidden from view…” Examiner finds the wording generally confusing and the metes and bounds of the limitation are not readily understood. Further, Examiner notes that Applicant elected the Species of Figures 1-7; and Examiner notes that perforated line 11 is visible from an exterior of the erected carton in Figures 1-2 and 6.
Claims 2-7 fail to cure the deficiencies.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the middle part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation are not readily understood.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carpenter et al. (US 11999530 B2; hereinafter Carpenter).
Regarding claims 1-3, Carpenter discloses a container comprising an outer paper shell (12) and an inner membrane (14) built into the outer paper shell (see Figures 1-2 and 8A); wherein the inner membrane comprises at least an edge in contact with a first adhesive part (Col 4 lines 19-28), wherein the first adhesive part is bonded and fixed with the outer paper shell; a perforated line disposed on the outer paper shell (see Figures 1-2; Examiner considers the perforated line to be hidden from viewed from above), wherein the perforated line is absent from the inner membrane (see Fig. 2); and wherein the inner membrane further comprising a second adhesive part (50), wherein the second adhesive part encloses a perforated line, and the second adhesive part is glued and fixed to the outer paper shell (see Fig. 8A; Examiner considers the adhesive 50 to attach above the removable portion of the body ply). Examiner notes that the container is cylindrical, therefore Examiner considers the glue patterns and perforation pattern to be cylindrical, or circular, as well.
Regarding claims 5-6, Carpenter discloses a container further comprising a box cover (18), the box cover is connected with the outer paper shell (see Fig. 8A), and the outer paper shell is provided with a through hole (Examiner considers the top opening of the cylindrical tube to be the “through hole”) corresponding to the box cover (Examiner notes that Carpenter’s through hole is covered by 29 and 18). Examiner considers the top rim curl adhering the inner membrane to the outer shell to be a third adhesive part.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter in view of Lowry et al. (US 6460759 B1; hereinafter Lowry).
Regarding claim 4, Carpenter discloses the claimed invention except for the perforated line being arranged in a middle part of the outer shell. Lowry teaches a multi-ply composite container comprising a perforated line in various locations (22) including a “middle part” of the container (see Figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Carpenter’s container to have the perforated line in various locations along the container, including a middle part, in order to permit easy recycling of the container (Lowry; Col 2 lines 19-39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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