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 Group II, claims 5-13 in the reply filed on 05 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the phrase “wherein the plurality of see-through holes is covered” which is believed to be a typographical error. Claim 6 should instead recite “wherein the plurality of see-through holes are
Claim 6 recites the phrase “wherein the see-through hole(s) is/are positioned” which should instead recite “wherein at least one of the plurality of see-through holes are.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation "defining the three-dimensional shape of the body” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 does not previously recite a three-dimensional shape of the body. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as instead reciting “defining a
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the see-through holes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5, from which claim 7 depends, only recites a singular see-through hole not a plurality of see-through holes. As a distribution of holes requires a plurality of holes, claim 7 is interpreted as instead being dependent on claim 6 and reciting “according to claim 6 plurality of see-through holes”.
Claim 7 recites the term "preferably" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, claim 7 is interpreted such that the limitations following the term “preferably” are optional.
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.
Claims 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshita et al. (US 20090297741 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Oshita teaches a laminated three-dimensional rigid body comprising a three-dimensional rigid body (paper container) having a wall section delimiting an open body volume, wherein the body comprises a see-through hole (window) penetrating the wall section, and wherein at least the wall section is laminated with a laminate (Gas barrier laminate) to cover at least the wall section and the see-through hole (Oshita, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0034-0037, Claim 1, and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Oshita teaches the body is made from a cellulose material (see paper) (Oshita, Abstract and Claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Oshita teaches the laminate has a layered structure (Oshita, Abstract, Claim 1, and Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita et al. as applied to claim 5 under 35 USC § 102 above.
Regarding claim 6, Oshita teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 5. Oshita further teaches the see-through hole is positioned at or in a transition area (bottom) of the wall section defining the three-dimensional shape of the body (Oshita, Par. 0034-0037 and Fig. 1). Oshita further teaches the see-through hole allows the contents of the three-dimensional body to be viewed easily (Oshita, Par. 0217). Regarding the limitation of the body comprising a plurality of see-through holes, this is a mere, obvious, duplication of parts of duplicating the see-through hole to allow the contents to be viewed easily, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B.
Regarding claim 7, Oshita teaches a plurality of see-through holes as stated above for claim 6 and thus teaches either an even or uneven distribution of the see-through holes.
Regarding claim 8, the size of the windows can be scaled up or down by scaling up or down the entire three-dimensional body. Therefore, the claimed largest extension E diameter of claim 8 can be achieved via an obvious change in size of the entire three-dimensional body of Oshita, see MPEP 2144.04, IV.
Regarding claim 13, Oshita teaches the laminate comprises a gas barrier layer and a substrate (Oshita, Abstract, Par. 0072, and Claim 1). Oshita teaches the gas barrier layer has a thickness of 0.1-100 µm (Oshita, Par. 0176). Oshita teaches the substrate is a polyamide layer having a thickness of 5-100 µm (Oshita, 0122 and 0126). This results in a laminate thickness of 5.1-200 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of 25-150 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita et al. as applied to claim 5 under 35 USC § 102 above, further in view of Qui et al. (US 6309717 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Oshita teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 5. Oshita further teaches the body is formed from a paper layer and a polyolefin (PO) layer wherein the PO layer has a thickness of 50-200 µm (Oshita, Par. 0036, 0051, and 0113).
Oshita is silent regarding the body having a material thickness B of 200 to 1200 µm.
Qui teaches a container formed a paper layer, wherein the paper layer has a thickness of greater than about 0.014 inch (355.6 µm) (Qui, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 5-14, Col. 2 Lines 8-14).
Oshita and Qui are analogous art as they both teach containers comprising a paperboard layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the paper layer of Oshita to have a thickness of greater than about 355.6 µm. This would allow for sufficient strength of the container (Qui, Col. 2 Lines 8-14). This would further result in an overall body thickness of modified Oshita of at least 405.6 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of 200 to 1200 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita et al. as applied to claim 5 under 35 USC § 102 above, further in view of Cleveland et al. (US 20070184220 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Oshita teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 5. Oshita teaches the laminate is formed of a polymer material (Oshita, Abstract and Claim 1). Oshita teaches the laminate is a gas barrier laminate (Oshita, Abstract and Claim 1).
Oshita is silent regarding the laminate being made from a material that is selected from the group consisting of bio-based, petro-based, and a biodegradable polymer material.
Cleveland teaches a gas barrier laminate for use with containers comprising paper wherein the gas barrier laminate comprises biodegradable polymers (Cleveland, Abstract, Par. 0002-0004, 0013, and Claim 1).
Oshita and Cleveland are analogous art as they both teach paper containers comprising a gas barrier laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the gas barrier laminate of Oshita from biodegradable polymers. This would allow for a biodegradable container (Cleveland, Abstract, Par. 0002-0004, and 0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights