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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention 1, Species 1 in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office Action does not establish proper restrictions between Inventions 1 and 2 or the various Species. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement mailed 12/19/2025 sets out the restriction and election of species with the standard level of acceptable specificity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/17/2026.
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) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2006-0131011.
KR 10-2006-0131011 discloses a packaging with integrated tube comprising a tube (18) attached to a film (20) that is attached to the packaging with an opening place (24) so the user can push the tube and the opening place against each other to pierce the packaging while the film is attached to the tube and the packaging at predetermined locations so the film lets the tube to be moved partially while the film prevents the full detachment of the tube from the packaging (see Figs. 12, 13) and the opening place is part of the boundary of the packaging so the content of packaging can contact the opening place and penetrating this boundary will position the tube as such that one end of tube is inside the packaging and other end is outside, this way, the tube provides access to the content of the package after creating an opening (see Figs. 12, 13).
KR 10-2006-0131011 further discloses the tube is held by the film connected to the packaging so user can fold the packaging to push the tube and the opening place against each other to open the packaging (see Figs. 12, 13); the tube’s cross section can be various shapes, and the packaging is made of flexible material (see Figs. 7-11);
the film is a tethering mechanism (see Figs. 12, 13); the opening place is a pierceable membrane and the film can be constituted from more than one entity (see Figs. 12, 13); the tube consists of two parts which one of them can pass through the opening place while other part cannot pass through the opening place (see Figs. 12, 13);
end of tube has a sharp or pointy shape to enhance the piercing feature of the tube when compared to a tube with a smooth end (see Figs. 7); after the user open the packaging, the tube would be passed through the packaging as such the packaging is tight around the tube at the opening place (see Figs. 12, 13); the film that is used to connect the tube and packaging also covers the opening place (see Figs. 12, 13).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2006-0131011.
KR 10-2006-0131011 discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the guidance/instructions as claimed.
It has been held that when claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of information does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability.
The Examiner asserts that the KR 10-2006-0131011 assembly is the same structure claimed by applicant and the sole difference is in the content of printed material. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., indicia or instructions on the assembly to inform the use) and the substrate (e.g., assembly), which is required for patentability.
Accordingly, there being no functional relationship of the printed material to the substrate, as noted above, there is no reason to give patentable weight to the content of the printed matter, which by itself is non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made provide the KR 10-2006-0131011 assembly with indicia or instructions to inform the proper use of the tube.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights