Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office action contains new grounds of rejection not necessitated by the most recent amendments, thereby making this action NON-FINAL.
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.
3. Claims 1, 4-10, and 12-20 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.
4. In each of claims 1 and 10, the scope of the limitation “a connecting length” is unclear. Paragraph [0025] of the Specification establishes that connecting length LC1 of the first connecting structure 140 (which includes 141 and 142) can be more than 50% and also more than 80% of the length LS1 of the first end portion 111. This seems to be shown in Figure 2B, at least the “more than 50%” version, where LC1 appears to correspond to the length of 141 which is show as ~50% of the length across end portion 111. What becomes confusing is that Figure 4A shows another embodiment where LC1 is shown to extend the full length of the package, well beyond the left and right bounds of the actual connection at 250. This structure is described in Paragraph [0040] of the Specification which equates the connecting length LC1 to the length of the connecting structure 250 (which includes 251 and 252). Looking at Figure 3, you can clearly see the lengths of 251 and 252. They are limited to a central region and are bounded to the left and right by end portion material (233a and 233b). Figure 4A currently seems to show this end portion material (233a and 233b) being part of the connecting length LC1 and this confuses the scope of the term. Is the connecting length as claimed limited to the length of the connectors alone, as shown in Figure 2B, or does the connecting length as claimed include the length of the connectors plus the length of surrounding end portion material, as shown in Figure 4A? For the purpose of examination, Examiner is treating the claimed “connecting length” as including the length of the physical connector components only, and not including any adjacent end portion material that does not serve in the physical connection. Without this interpretation, any end portion with any connector would read on this claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feigelman (US 1,471,478 A).
Regarding claim 1, Feigelman discloses an adhesive-free packaging structure, comprising: a substrate (see blank in Figure 1) comprising a first end portion (see above dotted line below) and a second end portion (Bx), wherein a material of the substrate comprises a natural fiber (see “paper” in Title and page 1 line 10); at least one foldable area (see 1, 2, 3, 4 below) disposed on the substrate and comprising at least one folding line; and at least one first connecting structure (E’/C) disposed on the substrate and comprising a first connecting element (E’) and a second connecting element (C), wherein the first connecting element and the second connecting element are respectively disposed on the first end portion and the second end portion (see Figure 1); wherein, when the substrate is bent along the foldable area, the first end portion and the second end portion approach each other, so the first connecting element and the second connecting element are correspondingly assembled (see page 2 lines 35-43), wherein a connection length of the first connecting structure (E’/C) is more than 80% of a length of the first end portion (even assuming the drawings may not be to scale, the length of E’/C is shown as 100% of the length of E).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In another interpretation B of Feigelman, the first connection structure can be viewed as the slot (C) which spans 100% of a length (the length being measured between the fold lines between side portions b and end portion B/Bx) of the first end portion (Bx) and the second connection structure can be view as the insertion member (E’) at the second end (see above the dotted line above).
Regarding claim 5, Feigelman discloses the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 1, wherein the material of the substrate is a non-plastic material (see “paper” in Title and page 1 line 10).
Regarding claim 7, Feigelman discloses the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 1, wherein the first connecting element (C) is a slot, the second connecting element (E’) is an insertion member, and the second connecting element is correspondingly inserted to the first connecting element (see page 2 lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 8, Feigelman under a first interpretation discloses the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a body (A), a first side board (B’ together with the portion of E below the dotted line above), a second side board (B without Bx), a third side board (left D), and a fourth side board (right D), and the first side board, the second side board, the third side board, and the fourth side board are respectively connected (via the foldable areas 1, 2, 3, 4 above) to four sides of the body (A); wherein the first end portion (see above dotted line above) is disposed on one side of the first side board away from the body, and the second end portion (Bx) is disposed on one side of the second side board away from the body.
Regarding claim 9, Feigelman discloses the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 8, wherein: a number of the at least one foldable area is four (see 1, 2, 3, 4 above), and the four foldable areas are respectively disposed between the body (A) and the first side board (B’ together with portion of E below the dotted line above), between the body and the second side board (B without Bx), between the body and the third side board (left D), and between the body and the fourth side board (right D); and when the first side board, the second side board, the third side board, and the fourth side board are respectively bent along the four foldable areas toward the body, the first side board, the second side board, the third side board, and the fourth side board approach each other so as to form an accommodating space by folding the adhesive-free packaging structure (see Figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feigelman (US 1,471,478 A) in view of Bethune (EP 1,571,258 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Feigelman discloses the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a weight percentage of the natural fiber in the substrate is greater than or equal to 50%. While the paper material discloses by Feigelman would inherently include natural fibers, the exact weight percentage may vary and might not inherently be greater than or equal to 50%. Feigelman also mentions the use of “still paper or the like sheet material”, clearly contemplating the use of other materials beyond paper (see page 1 line 10).
Regarding claim 6, Feigelman discloses the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the substrate is T, and the following condition is satisfied: 50μm < T < 500μm. Feigelman is silent as to the thickness of the substrate.
Bethune teaches that it was already known in the art for a package like that of Feigelman to be made of natural fibers at a weight percentage of at least 80% (see “lignin” in [0006]) and to have a thickness between 100μm and 1000μm (see [0035]). Bethune also goes on to teach a coating layer that reduces light degradation of the package (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the Feigelman package out of any known and suitable base material, in this case a material having a weight percentage of the natural fiber in the substrate is greater than or equal to 50% and a thickness between 100μm and 1000μm, where Bethune teaches such material being suitable for such use, and optionally to have also provided a protective coating in order to reduce light degradation in the manner taught by Bethune. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
10. Claims 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Robinson (GB 536,719) in view of Bethune (EP 1,571,258 A1) and Wyman (US 595,684 A).
Regarding claim 10, Robinson discloses an adhesive-free packaging structure comprising: a substrate (see blank of Figure 1), comprising: a body (C) having two body sides and comprising a first extending portion (F) and a second extending portion (G), the first extending portion having a first end portion (“portion” being any partial section thereof, including the left end section that includes slit “P”), and the second extending portion having a second end portion (“portion” being any partial section thereof, including the left end section that includes slit “Q”); and two side boards (A and E) respectively connected to the two body sides, wherein each of the two side boards comprises a first connecting side (side of A adjacent R, side of E adjacent V) , a second connecting side (side of A adjacent S, side of E adjacent W), and an open connecting side (side of A with Z2, side of E with Z1), and the open connecting side of each of the two side boards is not connected to the two body sides (see Figure 1); at least two foldable areas (B and D) disposed on the substrate and respectively located between the two side boards (A and E) and the body (C), wherein each of the two foldable areas comprises at least one folding line (see Figures); a first connecting structure (Z1/Z2) disposed on the substrate and comprising a first connecting element (“tongue” Z1) and a second connecting element (“slot “ Z2), wherein the first connecting element is connected to the open connecting side of one of the two side boards, and the second connecting element is connected to the open connecting side of another one of the two side boards (Z1 is on A and Z2 in on E); and at least two second connecting structures (Q/U/Y and P/T/X) disposed on the substrate, each of the at least two second connecting structures comprising at least one third connecting element (Q and/or P) and at least one fourth connecting element (U and/or Y, T and/or X), wherein the at least one third connecting element (Q and/or P) of one of the at least two second connecting structures is disposed on the first end portion (Q is on the end portion of G), the at least one fourth connecting element of the one of the at least two second connecting structures is connected to the first connecting side of one of the two side boards (for example, U is on a connecting side of A), the at least one third connecting element of another one of the at least two second connecting structures is disposed on the second end portion (P in on the end portion of F), and the at least one fourth connecting element of the another one of the at least two second connecting structures is connected to the second connecting side of the one of the two side boards (for example, T is on a connected side of A; wherein, when the two side boards are respectively bent along the at least two foldable areas, the open connecting side of the one of the two side boards and the open connecting side of the another one of the two side boards approach each other, so the first connecting element and the second connecting element are correspondingly assembled (see Figures); and wherein, when the two side boards are respectively bent along the at least two foldable areas, the first connecting side of the one of the two side boards and the first end portion approach each other, and the second connecting side of the one of the two side boards and the second end portion approach each other, so the two third connecting elements of the at least two second connecting structures are respectively and correspondingly assembled to the two fourth connecting elements of the at least two second connecting structures (see Figures).
Robinson fails to disclose wherein a material of the substrate comprises a natural fiber and also fails to disclose wherein a connection length of the first connecting structure is more than 50% of a length of the first end portion. Robinson is silent as to the material of the blank and appears to show a connection length of around 33% (length of Z1 compared to length of E). Robinson discloses no criticality to the connection length shown.
Regarding the material, Bethune teaches that it was already known in the art for a package like that of Feigelman to be made of natural fibers at a weight percentage of at least 80% (see “lignin” in [0006]) and to have a thickness between 100μm and 1000μm (see [0035]). Bethune also goes on to teach a coating layer that reduces light degradation of the package (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the Feigelman package out of any known and suitable base material, in this case a material having a weight percentage of the natural fiber in the substrate is greater than or equal to 50% and a thickness between 100μm and 1000μm, where Bethune teaches such material being suitable for such use, and optionally to have also provided a protective coating in order to reduce light degradation in the manner taught by Bethune. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the connection length, Wyman shows that it was also known in the art for a package closure like that of Robinson to include a tongue (15) and a slot (7) where each are shown to have a connection length of around 65% (length of 15 compared to length of 5 and length of 7 compared to length of 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the tongue and slot closure of Robinson with any other known and suitable closure, including a tongue and slot closure like that of Wyman with a connection length of around 65%, as mere design choice and simple substitution of one known closure design for another. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It is also important to note that the Wyman figures may not be to scale. Regardless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose to either take them at the proportions they show or come up with some other scale on their own, the former seemingly the most obvious and common sense way of viewing Wyman.
Regarding claim 12, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 10, Robinson showing wherein a connecting length of each of the two second connecting structures (P and Q) is right around 50% of a length of the first end portion (length of P and Q compared to length of F), the connecting length of each of the two second connecting structures is right around 50% of a length of the second end portion (length of P and Q compared to the length of G), the connecting length of each of the two second connecting structures is more than 50% of a length of the first connecting side of each of the two side boards (length of tongue U compared to the length of first connecting side of A is shown to be around 60%), and the connecting length of each of the two second connecting structures is more than 50% of a length of the second connecting side of each of the two side boards (length of tongue T compared to the length of second connecting side of A is shown to be around 60%).
Robinson fails to show a connecting length of each of the two second connecting structures being more than 50% of a length of the first end portion. As mentioned above, Robinson appears to show a connecting length of each of the two second connecting structures (P and Q) is right around 50% of a length of the first end portion (length of P and Q compared to length of F). Robinson discloses no criticality to such connecting length.
Wyman shows that it was also known in the art for package closures like those of Robinson to include a tongue (15) and a slot (7) where each are shown to have a connection length of around 65% (length of 15 compared to length of 5 and length of 7 compared to length of 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have increased the connecting length of the second connecting structures (P and Q) of Robinson to above 50%, more like 65%, where such connecting length was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Wyman. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It is also important to note that the Wyman figures may not be to scale. Regardless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose to either take them at the proportions they show or come up with some other scale on their own, the former seemingly the most obvious and common sense way of viewing Wyman.
Regarding claim 13, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 10, wherein a weight percentage of the natural fiber in the substrate is greater than or equal to 50%, as taught by Bethune (who teaches “at least 80%”, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 14, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 10, wherein the material of the substrate is a non-plastic material, as taught by Bethune (who doesn’t mention the base material including plastic).
Regarding claim 15, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 10, wherein a thickness of the substrate is T, and the following condition is satisfied: 50 μm < T < 500 μm, as taught by Bethune (who teaches “between 100μm and 1000μm”, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 16, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 10, and modified Robinson can be viewed such that first connecting element (Z2 which has been replaced by a longer slot) is a slot, the second connecting element (Z1 which has been replaced by a longer tongue) is an insertion member, and the second connecting element is correspondingly inserted to the first connecting element.
Regarding claim 17, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 10, wherein Robinson discloses each of the at least one third connecting element (P and Q)is a slot, each of the at least one fourth connecting element (U, Y, T, or X) is an insertion member, and each of the at least one fourth connecting element is correspondingly inserted to one of the at least one third connecting element (see Robinson Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 10, wherein Robinson discloses each of the at least two second connecting structures (Q/U/Y and P/T/X) comprises at least two fourth connecting elements (U/Y and T/X), another one of the two fourth connecting elements of the one of the at least two second connecting structures is connected to the first connecting side of the another one of the two side boards (U and T are connected to the sides of A), and another one of the two fourth connecting elements of the another one of the at least two connecting structures is connected to the second connecting side of the another one of the two side boards (Y and X are connected to the sides of E); and when the two side boards are bent respectively along the two foldable areas, the firs connecting side of the another one of the two side boards and the first end portion approach each other, and the second connecting side of the another one of the two side boards and the second end portion approach each other, so the two third connecting elements of the at least two second connecting structures are respectively correspondingly assembled to the two fourth connecting elements of each of the two second connecting structures (see Robinson Figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 18, wherein Robinson discloses a number of the at least one folding line of each of the two foldable areas is at least two (see Robinson Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Robinson as modified above would include the adhesive-free packaging structure of claim 10, wherein Robinson shows the body (C) is rectangular-shaped. Examiner notes that Robinson appears to show body (C) as a square, but all squares can be considered rectangles, i.e. both are quadrilaterals with opposites sides of equal length.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed 8/11/25 with respect to the connecting lengths shown by Heyworth and Robinson are found persuasive but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bisler (US 610,255 A) shows a connecting length (of D/Q) of 80% while Labombarde (US 1,365,251 A) shows a connecting length (of 16/29) of 85%.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 7/28/26
Prosecution Insights