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 .
Response to Amendment
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 14, 16-18 have been amended,
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 22-23 were cancelled ,
Claims 13, 19-21, 24-28 were previously presented,
Therefore, claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-21, 24-28 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-21, 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, applicant recites “the closure “ which is lack of proper antecedent basis. In claim 1, applicant recites “being sealed by the closure of its openings” which is not clear to the examiner what openings applicant is referring to. For example, without properly claiming the structure of the closure, it is not clear now the closure can sealed the opening of the wrapper.
Applicant present an argument filed on 01/21/2026 trying to explain:
“the closure is not a feature of the pack that requires antecedent basis but a description of the state of the openings (i.e., the gap between all of the overlapping flaps of the wrapper are closed to prevent the free-flow of the air into and out of the wrapper)”
Such argument is not found persuasive. Applicant clearly argues that “the closure” is part of the overlapping flaps of the wrapper, which referred to a feature of the pack that requires antecedent basis. Applicant is suggest to provide greater explanation to the structure of the wrapper and how the wrapper being sealed by the “overlapping flap”.
In claim 9, applicant recites “the wrapper further comprises a layer comprising a metallized layer”, which is not clear whether applicant is claiming the same “metallized layer” as claimed in claim 1 or a completely different “metallized layer”. For the purpose of examination, examiner presumes that applicant is claiming the same “metallized layer”. Clarification is required.
Claims 4, 11, 13-14, 16-21, 24-28 are also rejected under 112(b) due to their dependency to rejected claim 1.
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, 25 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435).
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 by the closure of its openings (as shown in Figure 11 and 13, the upper portion of the wrapper are closed by overlapping the flaps to sealed its opening), 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). With regarding to the sealing of the inner wrapper, Cho is silent about how to sealed the inner wrapper. However, Cho does discloses the joints formed by the tucking, folding and enclosing of the outer wrapper 381 are airtightly sealed by the action of heating and/or pressing and/or bonding metallic material applied to the surfaces thereof (column 5, lines 65-67). 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 inner wrapper of cigarette package of Cho with the same airtight sealed by the action of heating and/or pressing and/or bonding the material as taught in the specification in order to provide an airtight sealed to the inner wrapper to preserve the aroma of the cigarette.
As to claim 9, Cho further discloses that the wrapper further comprises a second layer comprising 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)
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 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 Focke et al (6,595,353).
As to claim 4, Cho does not specifically disclose the barrier coating further comprises a plastic film 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 Sigrist et al (5,819,924).
As to claims 14 and 19, Cho 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. 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). The wrappers 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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435) in view of Focke et al (6,595,353) and Biza et al (2017/0356135).
As to claims 16-18, Cho 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 20-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435) in view of Parker (6,237,760).
As to claims 20-21 and 24, 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, the sealed overlapping edges of the wrapper form a hermetic seal, such that the inner package is hermetically sealed before its first opening. 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) and the overlapping edges of the wrapper form a hermetic seal. 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.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (6,244,435) in view of Block et al (2003/0116614).
As to claims 25-27, Cho 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 an tamper evidence closure prior open the outer container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-21, 24-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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 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