DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species B of Figures 1B - 1C in the reply filed on 3/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21 and 22 drawn to the species of figure 4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/3/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 4 ,6, 8, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen CN 114043782 A.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Chen teaches a straw, comprising: a tubular straw body (tubular straw shown in figure 2) having an end (straw of figure 2 comprises two ends) and formed of a substrate (material used for straw shown in figure 2), wherein the substrate has a first long side (first long end at 11), a second long side (second long end at 12) and a first thickness (depth of paper 1 as shown in figure 1), the first long side overlaps with the second long side to form an overlapping portion having a second thickness (overlap of 12 and 13 form a second thickness the same as the first thickness as shown in a finished form at the bottom of figure 1), characterized in that: a ratio of the second thickness to the first thickness is smaller than 2 (straw 1 has the same thickness around its entirety, such that a ratio of the thickness of 1 and a thickness where 13 overlaps 12 is 1/1 resulting in a ratio of 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Chen teaches the substrate is paper (abstract).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Chen teaches the substrate has a first surface coated with a degradable coating (degradable plastic-free coating, paragraph [0042], where it is not claimed that the entire surface is coated).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Chen teaches the degradable coating is at least one of hydrolytically degradable and bacteria decomposable (coating can be polylactic acid layer, which is a coating that is susceptible to hydrolytic degradation, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Chen teaches the overlapping portion is sealed by heating the degradable coating using ultrasonic waves (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Chen teaches that the substrate has a second surface coated with the degradable coating (surface of 11 and 12 can be coated with the degradable coating, paragraph [0047], where it is not claimed that the entire surface is covered with the coating).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Chen teaches the substrate has a first short side having a first width (21 mm, paragraph [0040]), the overlapping portion has an overlapping width (1 to 5 mm, paragraph [0041]), and the straw is further characterized in that: a ratio of the overlapping width to the first width ranges from 0.051 to 0.131 (ratio is 0.047 to 0.238).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai TW I663942 B, and further evidenced by Ade 2010/0068097.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Cai teaches a straw (straw B shown in figure 5), comprising: a tubular straw body (straw B of figure 5 has a tubular body) having an end (angled end at the bottom of B in figure 5) and formed of a substrate (paper sheet 1), wherein the substrate has a first long side (first long side in overlap 11 shown in straw on left side of figure 4), a second long side (second long side in overlap 11 in figure 4) and a first thickness (thickness of 1 not at 11), the first long side overlaps with the second long side to form an overlapping portion having a second thickness (thickness of 11 in figure 4, where the connection is formed through ultrasonic welding of waterproof coating 2 to produce adhesive layer 3, paragraph [0019]). However, Cai does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of the overlap portion that is ultrasonically welded is less than twice the thickness of the substrate where there is not overlap. Ade discloses that using ultrasonic welding to melt plastic to connect two components will reduce the thickness of the plastic that has been heated through ultrasonic vibration and application of force to connect two components such that the thickness of the welded components is less than the initial thickness of the two components (paragraph [0032] of Ade). Therefore, the process of ultrasonic welding of the two overlapping long sides of the straw of Cai will result in a thickness that is less than twice the thickness of the straw outside of the overlapping area because ultrasonic welding acts to reduce the thickness of components welded together, as recognized by Ade.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Cai teaches the substrate is made of paper (abstract).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Cai teaches the paper has a food grade (achieves food safety, abstract).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Cai teaches the overlapping portion has two longitudinal side being straight (straight bonding portion 12 as shown in figure 5), and the end of the tubular straw body has a beveled end having a sharp point (beveled end with sharp point of B shown in figure 5).
Regarding Dependent Claim 18, Cai teaches one of the two longitudinal sides is not in a straight line with the sharp point wherein the straight line is parallel to the axis of the longitudinal axis of the straw (angle of point at bottom of B in figure 5 is not parallel with longitudinal sides that are parallel with 12).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Cai teaches a material density of the overlapping region is larger than that of a non-overlapping portion of the substrate (portion at 11 is ultrasonically welded, paragraph [0019], where Ade is used as evidence that ultrasonic welding of two materials together will compress and reduce the thickness of the materials being welded together, see paragraph [0032] of Ade), wherein the non-overlapping portion has the first thickness (thickness of 1 not at 11).
Claim(s) 1, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wan 2023/0014818, and further evidenced by Ade 2010/0068097.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Wan teaches a straw (40 in figure 2a), comprising: a tubular straw body (straw 40 of figure 2a has a tubular body) having an end (44) and formed of a substrate (paper sheet, paragraph [0030]), wherein the substrate has a first long side (first long side 24, paragraph [0030]), a second long side (second long side 24) and a first thickness (thickness of 40 not at overlap 34), the first long side overlaps with the second long side to form an overlapping portion having a second thickness (thickness of 34 in figure 2a, where the connection is formed through ultrasonic welding, paragraph [0034]). However, Wan does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of the overlap portion that is ultrasonically welded is less than twice the thickness of the substrate where there is not overlap. Ade discloses that using ultrasonic welding to melt plastic to connect two components will reduce the thickness of the plastic that has been heated through ultrasonic vibration and application of force to connect two components such that the thickness of the welded components is less than the initial thickness of the two components (paragraph [0032] of Ade). Therefore, the process of ultrasonic welding of the two overlapping long sides of the straw of Wan will result in a thickness that is less than twice the thickness of the straw outside of the overlapping area because ultrasonic welding acts to reduce the thickness of components welded together, as recognized by Ade.
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Wan teaches the overlapping portion has two longitudinal sides being straight (as shown at interface line 48 in figure 2a), and the end of the tubular straw body has a beveled end having a sharp point (point 42 at 44 in figure 2a).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Wan teaches one of the two longitudinal sides is in a straight line with the sharp point (48 terminates at 42 at end 44 in figure 2a), and the sharp point has at least a part of the overlapping portion (interface line at overlapping region 34 extends to point 42 at end 44 in figure 2a).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Wan teaches a distance between one of the two longitudinal sides and a virtual straight line passing through the sharp point and parallel to a longitudinal direction of the tubular straw body ranges from 0-1.0 mm (overlap at interface 48 extends directly to tip 42, such that at least one of the longitudinal sides is the same as a virtual line extending from sharp point 42).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as evidenced by Ade.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Cai as evidenced by Ade teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Cai as evidenced by Ade does not teach that the ratio of compression is in the range of 1.43 to 1.8. Ade teaches that ultrasonic welding of two components reduces the thickness of the welded components to less than the initial thickness of the two components (paragraph [0032] of Ade), and is a function of the amount of vibration and force applied (paragraph [0032]). Therefore, the thickness of the two ultrasonically welded components is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that applying more force and vibration to the two components during welding will further reduce the resultant thickness of the combined components. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that ultrasonic welding will reduce the thickness of the welded components, was disclosed in the prior art by Ade, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have a thickness of the overlapping parts be between 1.43 to 1.8, in order to provide adequate adhesion of the parts together through the ultrasonic welding process. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horie JP 2000308558 A.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Chen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Chen does not teach that the nominal diameter is selected from the group consisting of 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 mm. Horie teaches a straw (4) with a diameter of 4 mm or 6 mm (paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the diameter of the straw of Chen 4 or 6 mm, as taught by Horie, in order to use the straw for drinking fluids using the commercially available straw diameters used of 4 and 6 mm (paragraph [0022]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee KR 102259702 B1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Chen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Chen does not teach that the coating has a thickness of 14 to 20 microns. Lee teaches using a coating for a straw with a thickness of 10-35 microns (paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the thickness of the coating of Chen 14 to 20 microns, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent the straw from being torn or allowing the beverage to be absorbed by the straw (paragraph [0020]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Toft 2020/0384752.
Regarding Dependent Claims 10 and 11, Chen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Chen does not teach that the coating is waterproof and water-based. Toft teaches using PAA (polyacrylic acid) as a barrier coating for paper (paragraph [0125]) that is water-based (paragraph [0128]) and waterproof (PAA is the example polymer disclosed in the instant application). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use PAA as the coating of Chen, as taught by Toft, in order to provide a very thin and homogenous coating over the paper after drying (paragraph [0127]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752