DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Applicant Argues:To compensate for the shortcomings of Uno, the rejection relies upon Hirose. Applicant maintains, however, that Hirose cannot be predictably relied upon since Hirose is not concerned with flexible packaging films that are gusset or pillow wrapped. Instead, Hirose is exclusively concerned with paper boxes. While paper boxes and gusset or pillow wrapped packaging may both offer packaging for bundled tissue, this is the only commonality. And, there is no evidence in the record that this commonality is relevant to the claimed features, especially the nature and configuration of the dispenser-port-forming region. Indeed, conspicuously absent is any evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably rely on teachings related to paper boxes to predictably modify a flexible film gusset or pillow wrapped packaging. Applicant therefore maintains that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that paper and plastic containers are recognized within the art as equivalents. Newly cited reference Ellonen, specifically shows a container with a removable opening, and the container may be made of plastic or paper. Thus, there is evidence that this commonality is relevant to the claimed features.
For the reasons stated above, the claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 2 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.
5. Claim 1 recites the limitation " and a line connecting each one end of the pair of the flaring sections, where the each one end is not continued from the corresponding narrowed section,”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not understood by the Examiner as to what is being claimed as no end of the pair of the flaring sections has been previously claimed or described.
6. Claim 1 is unclear as to how “where the each one end is not continued from the corresponding narrowed section”. The figures show flared sections which both continue from a line defining a narrow section, it is unclear as to where or how each one end is not continued from the corresponding narrowed section when all the parts appear to be connected. Furthermore, the drawing do not show the various lines claimed, thus, it is further unclear as to what is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno et al. (WO 2020004025 A1 – hereinafter Uno) in view of Ellonen et al. (US 2020/0071061 A1 – hereinafter Ellonen), Norimitsu Hirata (JP 2018052559 A – hereinafter Hirata) and Hirose et al. (JP 2004208765 A – hereinafter Hirose).
Re Claim 1:
Uno discloses a packaged product comprising: a flexible packaging film (1) made of resin (see paragraph [0039]); and a bundle of sanitary tissue paper (3) packaged therewith, the flexible packaging being in the form of gusset wrapping or pillow wrapping around the bundle of sanitary tissue (see Figs. 1-10), the packaged product having a dispenser-port-forming region (10) formed with an easy-tear line (at 12) disposed in a loop in the packaging film in a top face of the product (see Fig. 7), wherein the dispenser-port-forming region (10) is shaped to have a narrowed section (12) extending in a width direction of the product in a middle of a depth direction of the product, opposed flaring sections (initial portion, adjacent horizontal portion, of outer opening at 11) each continued from a corresponding end of the narrowed section (12) and gradually flaring with increasing distance from the narrowed section (12) outward in the width direction, and opposed curved convex sections (following portion of outer opening at 11) each continued from a corresponding flaring section (initial portion of outer opening at 11) and bulging convexly outward in the width direction, and wherein a dimension in the width direction of the dispenser-port-forming region (10) is 70% or more of a width of the top face of the bundle(see paragraphs [0038, 0048 and 0065]), a maximum dimension in the depth direction of the dispenser-port-forming region (10) is 10 to 40% a dimension in the depth direction of the top face of the bundle (see paragraphs [0038, 0048, and 0065] –Examiner notes that Uno teaches the package size similar to the bundle size, thus, given a particular bundle size between 80-130mm, then the maximum dimension in the depth direction would be achievable), a dimension in the width direction of the narrowed section (12) is 50 to 70% of a length of the top face of the bundle (see paragraphs [0038, 0048, 0062, and 0065] – see Figs. 7a-7b) and a dimension in the depth direction of the narrowed section (12) is 0.5 to 10% a dimension in the depth direction of the top face of the bundle, (see paragraphs [0038, 0048, 0042, 0049, and 0065 – Examiner notes that (13) is at maximum 5mm, (12) is larger than (13), since the bundle can be 80-130mm, then greater than 5mm would be capable of achieving 0.5 to 10% a top since the top would range similar to the bundle), and wherein the edge flaps deform in a direction of withdrawal of the sanitary tissue paper with a turn up (see Figs. 8-10 – Examiner notes the dispenser is a flexible package for pop-up dispensing, thus, the package is capable of flexing when a sheet is pulled through the opening, especially in situations where the thickness or number of sheets pulled out at once is greater than width of the opening, or even the sheet itself was to apply force against the flaps as dispensed as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art). Furthermore, Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use, but fails to teach wherein the sanitary tissue paper having a basis weight per ply of 10 to 40 g/m², wherein the packaging film having a thickness of 25 to 75 µm, wherein an angle of the easy-tear line with respect to the width direction in each flaring section gradually increases outward in the width direction of the bundle and then gradually decreases as the flaring section transitions to the curved convex section, and a line connecting end points of a portion of the easy-tear line defining a boundary of each flaring section forms a taper angle of 25 to 60 degrees with respect to the width direction of the packaged product, wherein generally trapezoidal edge flaps are formed in the top face of the packaged product upon tearing the easy-tear line, where each edge flap includes one edge of the easy-tear line in the narrowed section, a line connecting the end points of the easy-tear line in each flaring section continued from a corresponding end of the narrowed section, and a line connecting each one end of the pair of the flaring sections, where the each one end is not continued from the corresponding narrowed section.
Ellonen teaches wherein a sanitary tissue paper having a basis weight per ply of 10 to 40 g/m² (see paragraph [0035]), and a dispenser may be made of paper or plastic (see paragraph [0136]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Uno with that of Ellonen, to provide a particular type of tissue paper product as typically known within the art, while also allowing for dispensing from a particular type of container material for a desired purpose as recognized within the art as equivalents.
Hirata teaches wherein a sanitary tissue paper having a basis weight per ply of 10 to 40 g/m² (see Solution), and wherein a packaging film having a thickness of 25 to 75 µm (see Solution). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Uno with that of Ellonen and Hirata, to provide a tissue paper packaging product in which take-out performance is improved.
Hirose teaches wherein an angle of a line with respect to a width direction in each flaring section gradually increases outward in a width direction of a bundle and then gradually decreases as the flaring section transitions to the curved convex section (see Examiner’s Drawing of Fig. 4), and a line connecting end points of a portion of the easy-tear line defining a boundary of each flaring section forms a taper angle of 25 to 60 degrees with respect to the width direction of the packaged product (see Examiner’s Drawing of Fig. 4) (see Figs. 1-12), wherein generally trapezoidal edge flaps (see Figs. 4-6 - two generally parallel sides (the flap and the container outer wall, and two no parallel sides (the flared sections) are formed in the top face of the packaged product upon tearing an easy-tear line (at 10), where each edge flap includes one edge of the easy-tear line in the narrowed section (at 11), a line connecting end points (near 18) of the easy-tear line in each flaring section continued from a corresponding end of the narrowed section (at 11), and a line (near 12) connecting each one end of the pair of the flaring sections, where the each one end is not continued from the corresponding narrowed section (see side furthest away from narrow section). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Uno with that of Ellonen, Hirata, and Hirose, so that when a product is taken out, it does not become caught on corners at the edge portions, thus, allowing the product to be taken out more smoothly. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
656
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Drawing of Fig. 4
9. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno in view of Ellonen, Hirata, and Hirose, and further in view Hirasawa et al. (US 2008/0257903 A1 – hereinafter Hirasawa).
Re Claim 2:
Uno in view of Ellonen, Hirata, and Hirose does not specifically disclose wherein a dimension in the depth direction of the curved convex sections (following portion of outer opening at 11) is 25 to 45 mm (10 to 20mm), and a dimension in the width direction of bulging of the curved convex sections is 2.5 to 12.5 mm (10 to 20mm) (see paragraphs [0038, 0048, 0062, and 0065] – see Figs. 7a-7b), however, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held 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, especially since Uno discloses changing sizes to fit a particular need. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Hirasawa further in view teaches wherein a dimension in the depth direction (W1) of the curved convex sections is 25 to 45 mm, and a dimension in the width (y) direction of bulging of the curved convex sections is 2.5 to 12.5 mm (see paragraph [0044-0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Uno in view of Ellonen, Hirata, and Hirose, with that of Hirasawa, to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held 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 through routine experimentation and optimization. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights