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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/17/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 13, 21, 24-25 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435) in view of in view of Parker (6,237,760).
As to claim 1, Cho discloses a package for a delivery system (Figure 8 for delivery a bundle of cigarette), the package comprising: an outer container (390) comprising an access (access as the hinge lid with front portion 393C open and closed to access the content within); an inner container (371, Figure 13) comprising a wrapper (metallic foil wrapper) configured to surround at least one delivery system, the wrapper being folded to form the inner container, wherein the wrapper comprises a first layer comprising a paper based material layer with a barrier coating, wherein the barrier coating is a metallized layer (column 5, lines 3-4 teaches that the inner metallic foil wrapper 371 is comprised of a layer of paper and metallic material layer); and wherein the inner container is free from an inner frame (no inner frame being mention in the specification). However, Cho does not disclose the wrapper is sealed at its overlapping edge, the wrapper is sealed by adhered together overlapping edges of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container, the wrapper comprises a continuous section of adhesive extending along each of the overlapping edges of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container, and the wrapper comprises a continuous section of adhesive extending around the whole perimeter of the inner surface of the wrapper. Nevertheless, Parker discloses a wrapper (1) made of paper material, the wrapper is form of a sheet (24) that is sealed at its overlapping edge (column 5, lines 32-45), the wrapper is sealed by adhered together overlapping edge of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container (column 5, lines 32-45 further teach all overlapping parts are sealed together by glue) and the wrapper comprises a continuous section of adhesive extending along each of the overlapping edges of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container (as shown in Figure 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrapper of Cho with adhesive apply on the inner surface of the wrapper and to seal led overlapping edge of the wrapper that forms a hermetic seal as taught by Parker in order to maintain the freshness of the cigarette within the hermetic seal to preserve the aroma of the cigarette prior opening the wrapper.
As to claim 9, Cho further discloses wherein the metallized layer of the barrier coating is provided on the paper layer (column 5, lines 3-4 teaches that the inner metallic foil wrapper 371 is comprised of a layer of paper and metallic material layer)
As to claim 13, Cho further discloses an inner frame (397) located within the outer container (390) and outside of the inner container.
As to claims 21 and 24, Cho as modified by Parker, Parker further discloses the wrapper comprises a continuous section of adhesive extending along each of the overlapping edges of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container (as shown in Figure 26) and the overlapping edges of the wrapper form a hermetic seal.
As to claims 25 and 28, Cho further discloses a tamper evident means located on the wrapper (adhesive 175 form on the wrapper opening 378, the tamper evident means on the wrapper adhered to the removable portion 396 of the frame and further firmly bonds to the inner surface of the front portion 393C of the lid, as one person opens the lid, it will simultaneously open the inner wrapper which indicate that the wrapper being compromise).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435) in view of in view of Parker (6,237,760), further in view of Focke et al (6,595,353).
As to claims 4 and 11, Cho as modified does not specifically disclose the barrier coating further comprises a plastic film or a varnish coating or the wrapper further comprises a layer comprising a plastic film coating or a varnish coating. Nevertheless, Focke discloses a cigarette package comprise paper layer (18), metallic layer (20) and outer plastic layer (19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrapper of Focke with additional plastic layer on the outside of the paper layer as taught by Focke in order protect the cigarette inside the wrapper from moisture or water damage.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435) in view of in view of Parker (6,237,760), in view of Sigrist et al (5,819,924).
As to claims 14 and 19, Cho as modified does not disclose at least one of the following: each component of the package is formed from at least the first layer of paper based material, and wherein the paper based material has a paper weight of less than 70 gsm and the wrapper has a water vapor permeability of less than 8g/m2/24hr measured at 30oC and 90% relative humidity. Nevertheless, Sigrist discloses a cigarette package wrapper (40) made with paper material (column 4, lines 49-50) the paper has 50 gsm with minimum of approximately 25 gsm for one single paper layer (column 5, lines 12-17) and the wrapper has a moisture permeability of 0.5 g/m2/24hrs. (column 5, lines 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the wrapper material of Cho with light paper weight and low water vapor permeability that is less than 8g/m2.24 hrs as taught by Sigrist in order to reduce the usage of material while maintain the freshness and aroma of the cigarette within the wrapper. With regarding to the specific condition of the measured at 30oC and 90% relative humidity,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrapper has a paper weight of less than 70 gsm and the wrapper has a water vapor permeability of less than 8g/m2/24hr measured at 30oC and 90% relative humidity because the selection of the specific weight of the paper test under specific temperature at 30oC and 90% relative humidity would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435) in view of Parker (6,237,760), further in view of Focke et al (6,595,353) and Biza et al (2017/0356135).
As to claims 16-18, Cho as modified does not disclose the wrapper further comprises a first clay layer on an inner surface of the first layer, and a second clay layer on an outer surface of the first layer, one of metallized layer and a plastic film coating or varnish layer is applied on the inner surface of the first clay layer, the other of the metallized layer and the plastic film coating or varnish layer is applied on the inner surface of the metallized layer or the plastic film coating or varnish layer on the inner surface of the first clay layer.
Nevertheless, Focke discloses a cigarette package comprise paper layer (18), metallic layer (20) and outer plastic layer (19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrapper of Focke with additional plastic layer on the outside of the paper layer as taught by Focke in order protect the cigarette inside the wrapper from moisture or water damage.
Biza discloses a coated substrate, the substrate is paper ([0009], the coating that is applied to the substrate with a first coating comprises inorganic particulate material such as kandite clay, ball clay, etc ([0011]), the substrate can have multiple layers with coating form on both surface of the paper substrate [0112] or have other intermediate layers between each surface and the first and second coating ([0112], [0113] and [0122]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrapper of Cho with clay layer on the surfaces of the paper substrate or between the layers as taught by Biza in order to strengthen the structural integrity of the wrapper and to reduce or prevent the permeation of water and/or oil through the wrapper.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435) in view of Parker (6,237,760), further in view of Block et al (2003/0116614).
As to claims 25-27, Cho as modified does not disclose a tamper evident means, the tamper evident means is located on the base and lid, the lid having a portion of a front lid wall flap attached to a front wall of the base and the portion of the front lid wall flap comprises a line of weakening. Block discloses a hinge lid pack for rod-shape smoking articles with a hinged portion lid (100), a tamper evidence mean (perforation 60, 70 and 90), the tamper evidence means that location on the base and the lid (the perforation is between the lid front wall and the base front wall), the lid having a portion of the front lid wall flap attached to a front wall of the base (Figure 1), the portion of the front lid wall flap comprises a line of weakness (92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer container of Cho the front wall of the lid attached to the front wall of the base that can be separate via perforation as taught by Block in order to provide a tamper evidence closure prior open the outer container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Parker does not remedy the deficits of Cho” (Remark, page 3) and “Parker therefore does not teach or suggest modifying Cho so that Cho's inner wrapper, rather than Cho's outer wrapper, is sealed at overlapping edges by a continuous section of adhesive along each overlapping edge while the inner container remains free from an inner frame” . Such argument is not found persuasive.
In examiner’s office action, examiner cited Figure 8 pf Cho, which comprises a hinged lid pack 390, an inner container (371, Figure 13) comprising a wrapper (metallic foil wrapper) configured to surround at least one delivery system, the wrapper being folded to form the inner container, wherein the wrapper comprises a first layer comprising a paper based material layer with a barrier coating, wherein the barrier coating is a metallized layer.
Reference Park being introduce to cure the deficit of Cho, Parker discloses a wrapper (1) made of paper material, the wrapper is form of a sheet (24) that is sealed at its overlapping edge (column 5, lines 32-45), the wrapper is sealed by adhered together overlapping edge of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container (column 5, lines 32-45 further teach all overlapping parts are sealed together by glue) and the wrapper comprises a continuous section of adhesive extending along each of the overlapping edges of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container (as shown in Figure 26).
It is clear that the Secondary reference Park is to modify the “inner wrapper” of Cho since both of inner wrapper of Cho and the wrapper of Park are both flexible material. Examiner would not consider to modified the rigid “outer hinged pack” of Cho to modify with a flexible wrapper of Park.
With regarding to applicant’s argument that “The office action’s proposed combination improperly separates Park sealing language from the physical structure in which Parker discloses that sealing. Parker teaches continuous sealing in an inner wrapper having a frame located within the inner wrapper, whereas amended independent claim 1 requires the wrapper to be folded to form the inner container and sealed at overlapping edges by a continuous section of adhesive, with the inner container being free from an inner frame. Parker provides no reason to apply its sealing configuration to Cho's inner wrapper while preserving the frame-free inner container required by amended claim 1.” Such argument is not found persuasive.
It is clear that the Cho reference comprises an outer container (390); an inner container (371, Figure 13) comprising a wrapper (metallic foil wrapper) and wherein the inner container is free from an inner frame (no inner frame being mentioned in the specification). Cho reference does not disclose the wrapper is sealed at its overlapping edge, the wrapper is sealed by adhered together overlapping edges of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container, the wrapper comprises a continuous section of adhesive extending along each of the overlapping edges of the wrapper when the wrapper is folded to form the inner container, and the wrapper comprises a continuous section of adhesive extending around the whole perimeter of the inner surface of the wrapper.
Examiner use the secondary reference Park to cure the deficiency of Cho to provide a continuous section of adhesive extending along each of the overlapping edges of the wrapper to provide a hermetic seal to the inner wrapper. Examiner does not rely on, nor modify the Primary reference Cho with an inner frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Orlando E Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights