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) 24-37, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Philips (US 8985321 B2).
Regarding claims 24-27, 36-37, and 46, Philips discloses a shipping and display container comprising a plurality of containers of consumer goods (P; see Fig. 3); and a wrapper (10) wrapped around the plurality of containers to form a bundle housing comprising a bundle front wall (16; see Fig. 2)), a bundle back wall (18), a bundle top wall (12b), a bundle bottom wall (12a), a first bundle side wall (14a), and a second bundle side wall (14b), wherein the wrapper comprises a first tearing portion (24a’) and a second tearing portion (24b’; see Fig. 4), the first tearing portion being discrete from the second tearing portion on the wrapper, wherein the wrapper is wrapped around the plurality of containers such that a first end segment of the first tearing portion overlaps with and is affixed to a first end segment of the second tearing portion to form a tear strip of the bundle (see Figures 1-4), the tear strip extending along the bundle front wall, the first bundle side wall, and the bundle back wall, and wherein the first end segment of the first tearing portion has a generally trapezoidal shape (Examiner considers 26’ to have a generally trapezoidal shape).
Regarding claims 28-30 and 32, Philips discloses a shipping and display container wherein the first tearing portion is delimited by at least one line of weakness (Col 3 lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 31, Philips discloses a shipping and display container wherein the pair of spaced apart lines of weakness of the first tearing portion diverge from each other along at least a portion of the first bundle side wall (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 33-34, Philips discloses a shipping and display container wherein the wrapper is configured to be torn along the tear strip to divide the bundle housing into a first part and a second part (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 35, Philips discloses a shipping and display container wherein the wrapper is wrapped around the plurality of containers such that a second end segment of the first tearing portion overlaps with and is affixed to a second end segment of the second tearing portion (Col 2 lines 35-45).
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) 38-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philips in view of Boekeloo et al. (US 2016/0176601 A1; hereinafter Boekeloo).
Regarding claims 38-43, Philips discloses the claimed invention except for a polymeric layer on the container. Boekeloo teaches an easy open flexible package comprising a multi-layer sheet wherein the multi-layer sheet comprises a cellulose based layer and a polymeric layer (see Par. 0030-0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to provide a polymeric coating on Philips container in order to protect the paperboard layer from moisture damage, as taught by Boekeloo.
Claim(s) 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philips in view of Boekeloo as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Keller et al. (US 10131482 B2; hereinafter Keller).
Regarding claims 44-45, Philips, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for a wax or hydrocarbon resin coating. Keller teaches an antimicrobial packaging material comprising a paperboard coated with wax or hydrocarbon resin (Col 4 lines 48-65 and Col 7 lines 45-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Philips container to include a wax or hydrocarbon resin coating on the paperboard in order to provide an anti-microbial barrier (Keller; Col 1 lines 35-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 69