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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 8/11/2025, wherein claims 1-2, 4, were amended. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 5, 7-15 are withdrawn.
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 1-4 and 6 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.
The term “reclosable” and in claims 1-4 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “reclosable” and “movable between an open position and a closed position” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How does the elected species move to an open position? How is it reclosable? From the drawings it would appear that cover would be retained closed. There is no clear way to open once closing the closure. There are no grasping elements to allow for the cover to move to on open position. It is recommended that the applicant remove the term “reclosable”.
The term “wherein said support frame and said movable cover comprise mutually cooperating teeth and slots integrally formed with said support frame and movable cover” in claim 3 and is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wherein said support frame and said movable cover comprise mutually cooperating teeth and slots integrally formed with said support frame and movable cover” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Firstly, the phrase describes multiple slots, however, only one slot is shown in the elected species. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that singular slot meets the limitations of claim 3. Second, as written, one would assume that the slot and teeth are jointly part of the cover and frame. However, this does not appear to be true. Or that the movable cover and the support frame each feature has a slot and teeth
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giblin (US 4981256 A) in view of Visentin (US 20120074019 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Giblin discloses a reclosable container being entirely recyclable in a paper recycling chain, the reclosable container comprising a container body made of a cellulosic material (col 2 lines 31-50) and having a container aperture (44), and a movable cover (8) applied to said container aperture and movable from an open position to a closed position.
However, Giblin failed to disclose wherein said movable cover is made of a hydrosoluble thermoplastic material, wherein the reclosable container is entirely recyclable as a single unit in the paper recycling chain. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging elements, Visentin taught of a package that consists of cardboard and Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA), a hydrosoluble thermoplastic, to enable recyclability (page 2 [0035]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Giblin to be made out of a hydrosoluble material (such as PVA) as taught by Visentin in order to allow for recycling of the paperboard container.
Examiner Note: Giblin teaches of paperboard stock (so recyclable in the paper recycling chain). (col 2 lines 38-39)
PNG
media_image1.png
526
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Diblin in view of Visentin further teaches comprising: a support frame (10) made of a hydrosoluble thermoplastic material (26 on Diblin – material taught by Visentin reference, see claim 1 rejection above) fixed to an outer surface of said container body and surrounding said container aperture (44), the support frame having a frame aperture (14) overlapped to said container aperture, wherein the movable cover is hinged (20) to said support frame along a hinge axis and is pivotally movable about said hinge axis between said open position and said closed position.
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Diblin in view of Visentin further teaches wherein said movable cover (8) is formed by a flat panel having panel edges (46) which in said closed position are in contact with respective aperture edges of said frame aperture (14).
Examiner Note: the limitation “is formed by” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Diblin in view of Visentin further teaches wherein said support frame is fixed to said outer surface of said container body by water sealing or by glue. (col 3 lines 40-45)
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn (US 4732315 A) in view of Visentin (US 20120074019 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gunn discloses a reclosable container being entirely recyclable in a paper recycling chain, the reclosable container comprising a container body made of a cellulosic material (abstract) and having a container aperture (40), and a movable cover (48) applied to said container aperture and movable from an open position to a closed position.
However, Gunn failed to disclose wherein said movable cover is made of a hydrosoluble thermoplastic material, wherein the reclosable container is entirely recyclable as a single unit in the paper recycling chain. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging elements, Visentin taught of a package that consists of cardboard and Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA), a hydrosoluble thermoplastic, to enable recyclability (page 2 [0035]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Gunn to be made out of a hydrosoluble material (such as PVA) as taught by Visentin in order to allow for recycling of the paperboard container.
Examiner Note: Carton board can be synonymous with materials described in Giblin and is generally understood to be a cellulosic material. Paperboard is also discussed in the abstract.
PNG
media_image2.png
492
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Gunn in view of Visentin further comprising: a support frame (46) made of a hydrosoluble thermoplastic material (material taught by Visentin see claim 1 rejection, above) fixed to an outer surface of said container body and surrounding said container aperture, the support frame having a frame aperture (56a) overlapped to said container aperture (40), wherein the movable cover (48) is hinged to said support frame (46) along a hinge axis and is pivotally movable about said hinge axis between said open position and said closed position.
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Gunn in view of Visentin further teaches wherein said support frame (46) and said movable cover (48) comprise mutually cooperating teeth (62) and slots (empty space between 62s) integrally formed with said support frame and movable cover and engageable with each other to retain the movable cover in said closed position.
Examiner Note: See 112b rejection above. Unclear as to placement and relationship of the “slots and teeth” or what part the feature is located on.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giblin (US 4981256 A) in view of Cigada (WO 2016207849 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Giblin discloses a reclosable container being entirely recyclable in a paper recycling chain, the reclosable container comprising a container body made of a cellulosic material (col 2 lines 31-50) and having a container aperture (44), and a movable cover (8) applied to said container aperture and movable from an open position to a closed position.
However, Giblin failed to disclose wherein said movable cover is made of a hydrosoluble thermoplastic material, wherein the reclosable container is entirely recyclable as a single unit in the paper recycling chain. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging elements (page 3 lines 19-31), Cigada taught of a material that is a hydrosoluble thermoplastic, that can be advantageously used in conjunction with paperboard (page 19 lines 22-29) and easily recycled which promotes bio-sustainablity (page 16 lines 19-23) . It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Giblin to be made out of a hydrosoluble material as taught by Cigada in order to allow for ease of recycling of the paperboard container and bio-sustainability.
Examiner Note: Giblin teaches of paperboard stock (so recyclable in the paper recycling chain). (col 2 lines 38-39)
PNG
media_image1.png
526
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Diblin in view of Visentin further teaches comprising: a support frame (10) made of a hydrosoluble thermoplastic material (26 on Diblin – material taught by Visentin reference, see claim 1 rejection above) fixed to an outer surface of said container body and surrounding said container aperture (44), the support frame having a frame aperture (14) overlapped to said container aperture, wherein the movable cover is hinged (20) to said support frame along a hinge axis and is pivotally movable about said hinge axis between said open position and said closed position.
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Diblin in view of Visentin further teaches wherein said movable cover (8) is formed by a flat panel having panel edges (46) which in said closed position are in contact with respective aperture edges of said frame aperture (14).
Examiner Note: the limitation “is formed by” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Diblin in view of Visentin further teaches wherein said support frame is fixed to said outer surface of said container body by water sealing or by glue. (col 3 lines 40-45)
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn (US 4732315 A) in view of Cigada (WO 2016207849 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gunn discloses a reclosable container being entirely recyclable in a paper recycling chain, the reclosable container comprising a container body made of a cellulosic material (abstract) and having a container aperture (40), and a movable cover (48) applied to said container aperture and movable from an open position to a closed position.
However in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging elements (page 3 lines 19-31), Cigada taught of a material that is a hydrosoluble thermoplastic, that can be advantageously used in conjunction with paperboard (page 19 lines 22-29) and easily recycled which promotes bio-sustainablity (page 16 lines 19-23) . It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Gunn to be made out of a hydrosoluble material as taught by Cigada in order to allow for ease of recycling of the paperboard container and bio-sustainability.
Examiner Note: Carton board can be synonymous with materials described in Giblin and is generally understood to be a cellulosic material. Paperboard is also discussed in the abstract.
PNG
media_image2.png
492
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Gunn in view of Visentin further comprising: a support frame (46) made of a hydrosoluble thermoplastic material (material taught by Visentin see claim 1 rejection, above) fixed to an outer surface of said container body and surrounding said container aperture, the support frame having a frame aperture (56a) overlapped to said container aperture (40), wherein the movable cover (48) is hinged to said support frame (46) along a hinge axis and is pivotally movable about said hinge axis between said open position and said closed position.
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Gunn in view of Visentin further teaches wherein said support frame (46) and said movable cover (48) comprise mutually cooperating teeth (62) and slots (empty space between 62s) integrally formed with said support frame and movable cover and engageable with each other to retain the movable cover in said closed position.
Examiner Note: See 112b rejection above. Unclear as to placement and relationship of the “slots and teeth” or what part the feature is located on.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-4981256-A OR US-4732315-A OR US-11117718-B2 OR US-4949899-A OR US-4775098-A OR US-4770325-A OR US-10046901-B1 OR US-5409315-A OR US-6715805-B1 OR US-4852764-A OR US-20120074019-A1 OR US-20090250370-A1 OR US-20090196533-A1 OR US-20060260973-A1 OR US-20010015330-A1 OR US-20130309515-A1 OR US-20240253878-A1 OR US-20240253879-A1 OR US-3250436-A OR US-0902705-A
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the previous 112b over the term "reclosable", applicant has amended the material to include "movable from an open position to a closed position". However, the applicant did not remove the term "reclosable". The applicant has failed to point out any physical structure that enables reclosability. It would appear that the closure can be closed (and retained). However, it is unclear how to open the closure after it has been closed. There is no structure identified from the as filed specification. Therefore, the term reclosable remains rejected.
With respect to the prior art rejection, applicant argues that Giblin and Visentin are not related. However, both inventions are in the field of packaging and further, paperboard packaging. Further, Visentin is used to teach of packaging involving a hydrosoluble thermoplastic material with a paperboard material for the advantage of recyclability. The teaching is to show that in the field of product packaging, single chain recyclability has been previously considerd. The use of hydrosoluble thermoplastic materials with paperboard material has been previously conceived to enable recyclability of a product. If one wished to have ease of recyclability for Giblins product, it would have been obvious to incorporate Visentins material teachings. To further reinforce this idea, another rejection was added with WO 2016207849 A1.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 8/11/2025, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 4/9/2025 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735