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 § 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) 24-37 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (JP 2001031069 A) in view of Phillips (US 8985321 B2).
Regarding claims 24-27, 35-37, and 46, Aoki discloses a packaging box comprising a plurality of containers of consumer goods (D; see Fig. 3); and a wrapper (1) wrapped around the plurality of containers to form a bundle housing comprising a bundle front wall (3), a bundle back wall (5), a bundle top wall (2), a bundle bottom wall (4), a first bundle side wall (7), and a second bundle side wall (9), wherein the wrapper comprises a first tearing portion (j/k along 3 and 8) and a second tearing portion (j/k along 5 and 9), 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 Fig. 2; Examiner notes that the right most end of the tear strips comprise a tab extension that would overlap when the carton is erected), the tear strip extending along the bundle front wall, the first bundle side wall, and the bundle back wall (see Figures 1-3). Aoki discloses the claimed invention except for an end segment of the tear strip having a trapezoidal shape.
Phillips teaches a shipping and display container comprising a circumferential tear strip wherein a first end segment of the tear strip has a trapezoidal shape (see Figures 2 and 4; Examiner considers 26’ to have a generally trapezoidal shape). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Aoki’s tearing portions to have end segments defined by a trapezoidal pull tab in order to ease the initiation of tearing (Phillips; Col 4 lines 55-60).
Regarding claims 28-30 and 32, Aoki, as modified above, discloses a shipping and display container wherein the first tearing portion is delimited by at least one line of weakness (Aoki; i/j see Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 31, Aoki, as modified above, 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 (Phillips; trapezoidal end segments 26).
Regarding claims 33-34, Aoki, as modified above, 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 (Aoki; see Fig. 1B).
Claim(s) 38-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Philips, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Boekeloo et al. (US 2016/0176601 A1; hereinafter Boekeloo).
Regarding claims 38-43, Aoki, as modified above, 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 Aoki’s 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 Aoki in view of Philips and Boekeloo, as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Keller et al. (US 10131482 B2; hereinafter Keller).
Regarding claims 44-45, Aoki, 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 Aoki’s 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 2-8, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 24-37 and 46 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Phillips have been fully considered and are persuasive. Phillips lacks overlapping end segments of first and second tear portions, as claimed. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Aoki in view of Phillips.
Conclusion
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