DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the line connecting end points of a portion of the easy-tear line defining the boundary of each flaring section forms a taper angle of 25 to 60 degrees with respect to the width direction, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the boundary". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “25 to 60 degrees with respect to the width direction” – Examiner notes that multiple width directions have been claimed, it is unclear as to which the language is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 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 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 packaged product having a dispenser-port-forming region (10) formed with an easy-tear line disposed in a loop in a top face of the product, 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, flaring sections (initial 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 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 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% 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). 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 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 a line connecting end points of a portion of the easy-tear line defining the boundary of each flaring section forms a taper angle of 25 to 60 degrees with respect to the width direction.
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 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 (see Examiner’s Drawing of Fig. 4) (see Figs. 1-12). 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 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
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno in view of Hirose, and further in view Hirasawa et al. (US 2008/0257903 A1 – hereinafter Hirasawa).
Re Claim 2:
Uno in view of 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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