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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (DE 527362) (provided by the applicant).
Claim 1
DE ‘362 discloses a packaging comprising at least one packaging part (defined by top of bottle shown in figure 1) comprising a structural layer (b) having a periphery and being based on cellulose (see [0001]), the structural layer including an inner face, a section that is an end of the at least one packaging part, and an outer face; and a first functional layer (c) at least partly covering the inner face of the structural layer, the first functional layer comprising an additional part (c2) which extends beyond the periphery of the structural layer (see figure 1 and [0007]); and a tubular body comprising a second functional layer (d), wherein the at least one packaging part is secured to the tubular body in an assembly area in which the first functional layer is in contact with the second functional layer figure 1).
Claim 2
DE ‘362 further discloses the at least one packaging part further comprises another functional layer (d1) partly covering the outer face of the structural layer (see figure 1).
Claim 3
DE ‘362 further discloses the additional part is formed by the part of the functional layer covering the inner face and the outer face and extending beyond the periphery of the structural layer (see figure 1).
Claim 5
DE ‘362 further discloses the additional part is folded back in order to cover the section of the structural layer (see figure 1).
Claim 7
DE ‘362 further discloses the said functional layer being single-layer (see figure 1).
Claim 9
DE ‘362 further discloses is one of a single-layer (see figure 1).
Claim 10
DE ‘362 further discloses part being is one of a tube head (see figure 1).
Claim 11
DE ‘362 further discloses the said part being is a tube head comprising a neck (see figure 1).
Claim 13
DE ‘362 further discloses the said part comprising comprises a stopper (a) (see figure 1).
Claim 16
DE ‘362 discloses a packaging comprising a packaging part (defined by top of bottle shown in figure 1) comprising a structural layer (b) having a periphery and being based on cellulose (see [0001]), the structural layer including an inner face, a section that is an end of the packaging part, and an outer face; and a functional layer (c) at least partly covering the inner face of the structural layer, the functional layer comprising an additional part (c2) which extends beyond the periphery of the structural layer (see figure 1 and [0007]), wherein the packaging part is a tube head (see figure 1); and
a second part (d) in the form of as a tubular body with a functional layer, the said parts being secured to one another in an assembly area comprising the functional layer of each respective part, in order to ensure a continuity of the said functional layers after assembly of the said parts (see figure 1).
Claim 18
DE ‘362 further discloses the said packaging being is a tube (see [0001]).
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.
Claims 4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (DE 527362) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roy (WO 02/18221).
Claims 4 and 8
DE ‘362 discloses the packaging is for pastes and the like (see [0001]). DE ‘362 does not explicitly disclose the additional part is at least partly cut, and wherein the functional layer has welding properties. However, Roy discloses a package (1) for consumable products, such as toothpaste, comprising a packaging part (3) comprising a structural layer (defined by layer of packaging part pointed by reference numeral 28), a first functional layer (8), which is an anti-diffusion layer, formed from silicon oxide (SiOX) (see page 4), wherein the functional layer is at least partially cut at top area of the packaging part and at end of seamless zone (10) (see figure 2), and the silicon oxide layer (8) extends as an interior layer of tube portion (2) f the package (see figure 1). Roy further discloses the anti-diffusion layer provides protection to the consumable product from its environment (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE ‘362 having the functional layer being at least partly cut as taught by Roy and extending as an interior layer of the tubular body of the packaging as taught by Roy to provide protection to the consumable product/pastes from its environment.
Claim 6
Roy further discloses the functional layer has welding properties. It is known that silicon oxide comprises welding properties.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (DE 527362) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Solle (US 2015/0203256).
DE ‘362 does not disclose a connection element between the neck and the stopper. However, Solle discloses a container comprising a collar/neck (112) and a cap/stopper (116), wherein a connection element (120) is disposed between the collar/neck and the cap/stopper (see figures 1A and 1B). Solle further discloses the connection element is used to maintain the cap/stopper connected to the collar/neck when the cap/stopper is detached from the collar/neck (see [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE ‘362 having a connection element between the neck and the stopper as taught by Solle to maintain the stopper attached to the neck.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (DE 527362) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dobson (3,260,411).
DE ‘362 further discloses a tube (d) extending from the packaging part (see figure 1), wherein paste is held within the tube (see [0001]). DE ‘362 discloses the functional layer extending towards the neck but does not obstruct an orifice of the neck. However, Dobson discloses a container comprising a container part/barrier (20) comprising attached to a head part, wherein container part/barrier obstruct an orifice of the neck (see figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE ‘362 having the functional layer obstructing the orifice of the neck as taught by Dobson to prevent unintended dispensing of the product in the interior of the tube.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (DE 527362) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshida (WO 2016/163378).
Regarding the limitation of the assembly carried out by welding or gluing, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e the packaging, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. welding or gluing. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Yoshida discloses a tubular container comprising a body part (10) and a dispensing part (20) wherein the two parts can be attached together by welding (see page 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE ‘362 having the two parts attached together by welding as taught by Yoshida since welding is a known method of attaching portions of a tube container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument of the teachings of DE ‘362, the examiner disagrees. DE ‘362 discloses a package comprising a packaging part including layer (b) considered as a structural layer and layer (c) considered as a functional layer. Further, DE ‘362 discloses the packaging comprising a tube which is considered as a functional layer. Nowhere in the claim is a limitation or language in which any of the layers in DE ‘362 could be prevented of being used and/or being considered as functional layers and/or a structural layer. For example, nowhere in the claim is specified any material for any of the functional layers. In claim 1, the structural layer is required to be of cellulose or recycled material, which DE ‘362 discloses layer (b) comprising cellulose. DE ‘362 further discloses additional part (c2) of the functional layer which, in figure 1, is shown extending over the periphery of layer (b) considered as the structural layer, therefore is proper for portion (c2) to be considered as the additional part. As shown in figure 1, the considered packaging part is in contact with tube part (d) considered functional layer of the tubular body.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736