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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20040106827 A).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, and 13, Lee discloses a gable top carton and blank for making configured to be folded into a gable top package that holds a food product and is openable by forming a spout (see Fig. 3) for the package, the blank being formed from a multilayer packaging material that comprises a layer of fibrous material (see Par. 0012; paperboard substrate coated on either side with a thermoplastic material), and comprising bottom panels (40-44), sidewall panels (30-33), first and second top panels (61, 63), first and second gable panels (60, 62), first and second top fin panels (71, 72) and first and second gable fin panels (88/89, 98/99), the first gable fin panel being located between the first and second top fin panels (see Fig. 1) and arranged to form a top section of the spout (see Figures 2-3) for the folded gable top package, wherein the first gable fin panel comprises a spout top crease (96) that separates the first gable fin panel into a spout top portion and a spout reinforcement portion (98/99) that is configured to be folded, along the spout top crease, over the spout top portion, and the spout reinforcement portion is arranged with a distance (see Fig. 1; Examiner notes that a small notch gap exists between top corners of 98/99 and adjacent fins 71 and 72 on either side due to the rounded corners of fins 71 and 72) from the respective first and second top fin panels, and the spout portion extends along a majority of the spout top portion. Examiner notes that Lee’s spout reinforcement portion is comprised of all straight edges.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a gable top carton and blank for making wherein a height of the spout reinforcement portion is within the range of 60 - 85 % of a height of the spout top portion (see Fig. 1; Examiner notes that reinforcement portion 98/99 is slightly shorter than 88/89).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (JP 2002-173133 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 13, Yamada discloses a gable top carton and blank for making configured to be folded into a gable top package that holds a food product and is openable by forming a spout (see Figures 5-6) for the package, the blank being formed from a multilayer packaging material that comprises a layer of fibrous material, and comprising bottom panels, sidewall panels (3a-d), first and second top panels (see Fig. 1), first and second gable panels, first and second top fin panels (8b, 8d) and first and second gable fin panels (8a, 8c/10), the first gable fin panel being located between the first and second top fin panels (see Figures 2 and 4) and arranged to form a top section of the spout (see Figures 1-6) for the folded gable top package, wherein the first gable fin panel comprises a spout top crease (between 8c and 10) that separates the first gable fin panel into a spout top portion and a spout reinforcement portion (10) that is configured to be folded, along the spout top crease, over the spout top portion, and the spout reinforcement portion is arranged with a distance (see Fig. 1; Examiner notes that a small notch gap exists between 10 and adjacent fins 8b and 8d on either side due to the triangular shape of element 10) from the respective first and second top fin panels, and the spout reinforcement portion extends along a majority of the spout top portion. Examiner notes that Yamada’s reinforcement portion is triangular with first and second inclined sides.
Regarding claim 11, Yamada discloses a gable top carton and blank for making wherein the spout reinforcement portion is welded to the spout top portion (see Par. 0011).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Poole (US 5421512 A).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the claimed invention except for a lacquer coating. Poole teaches a system for packaging perishable liquids in gable top cartons wherein a spout reinforcement portion is provided with a lacquer coating (Col 8 lines 25-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Lee’s gable top carton by adding a lacquer coating in order to hermetically seal said carton (Poole; Col 5 lines 45-57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-7, and 9 are 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.
Claim 15 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose spout reinforcement portions that are arranged a distance from the respective first and second top fin panels since said reinforcement portions end up abutting said fin panels in the carton’s erect form.
-Examiner notes that the claims in question are drawn to a blank, not an erect carton, therefore the argument is moot.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights