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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Spivey, SR. et al. (2017/0240329; hereinafter Spivey).
As to claim 1, Spivey discloses a packaging of containers (100; 200; 300) comprising a plurality of containers (C) and packaging material (104, 162), the packaging material is free of plastic [0056], the packaging material including a bottom piece (162) made of cardboard or paperboard [0056], the bottom piece is a bottom sheet or a bottom tray (164), and at least one first paper tape (104) including an adhesive ([0033]-[0035]). Spivey further discloses the first paper tape extends vertically around the packaging of containers from one side edge of the bottom piece to an opposing side edge of the bottom piece and is formed into a handle (111, 112) on top of the packaging of containers (when one of the end portions (115, 117) is laying on a support surface and the other end portion (115) formed the top of the packaging of containers).
As to claim 2, Spivey further discloses the containers are bottles (Fig. 3).
As to claim 5, Spivey further discloses the respective portions of the blanks (the bottom piece and the at least one first paper tape) are mounted to one another in any suitable manner such as glue or other adhesive material [0033] which is considered equivalent to a microsphere adhesive, a hot melt adhesive, a hot melt pressure sensitive adhesive, a starch-based adhesive, and a water-based pressure sensitive adhesive as claimed.
As to claim 8, Spivey discloses the containers are arranged in at least one row on a rectangular base area, and the size of the bottom piece fits to the base area.
As to claim 9, Spivey discloses the containers (C) have a height and the bottom piece is a bottom tray having side flaps (168, 169, 175, 177), and Spivey discloses the side flaps of the bottom tray extend from the bottom of the packaging of containers to at most 35% of the height.
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) 1-9 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackroyd (2022/0340329) in view of Spivey.
As to claim 1, Ackroyd discloses a packaging of containers (110; Fig. 3; [0017]) comprising a plurality of containers (C) and packaging material (105, 107), the packaging material comprising a bottom piece (107) is a bottom sheet or a bottom tray, and at least one first paper tape (103; 105; [0048]) including an adhesive [0028]. Ackroyd further discloses the first paper tape extends vertically around the packaging of containers from one side edge of the bottom piece to an opposing side edge of the bottom piece and is formed into a handle (Fig. 3) on top of the packaging of containers. Ackroyd also discloses the other claimed limitations except for the bottom piece made of cardboard or paperboard. Spivey discloses a packaging of containers (100; 200; 300) comprising a plurality of containers (C) and packaging material (104, 162), the packaging material is free of plastic [0056], the packaging material including a bottom piece (162) made of cardboard or paperboard [0056], the bottom piece is a bottom sheet or a bottom tray (164), and at least one first paper tape (104) including an adhesive ([0033]-[0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Spivey to modify the packaging of containers of Ackroyd so the packaging of containers is constructed with the bottom piece made of cardboard or paperboard since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice and also because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 2, see [0017] of Ackroyd.
As to claims 3 and 4, Ackroyd further discloses the paper tape comprises a caliper so it is heavier and more rigid than ordinary paper, or other materials having properties suitable for enabling the packaging of containers to function at least generally as described [0048]. However, Ackroyd fails to show the paper tape is made of paper having s stretchability, determined according to ISO 1924-3, of 4% to 20% or the paper tape having a weight, determined according to ISO, of 35 to 250 g/m² and/or a thickness, determined according to ISO 534, of 50 to 200 µm as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the packaging of containers of Ackroyd as modified so the paper tape is made of paper having s stretchability, determined according to ISO 1924-3, of 4% to 20% or the paper tape having a weight, determined according to ISO, of 35 to 250 g/m² and/or a thickness, determined according to ISO 534, of 50 to 200 µm because the selection of the specific material for the specific situation would appear to have been an obvious matter of design choice based upon conventional design considerations, such as for better protecting the containers and also because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
As to claim 5, Ackroyd further discloses the adhesive comprises a hot melt adhesive [0028].
As to claims 6 and 7, Ackroyd discloses the adhesive is selected from a hot melt adhesive, a high tack glue, an epoxy, a polymeric cement, etc… or combinations thereof [0028]. To the extent that Ackroyd fails to show the adhesive includes at least 40% by weight of bio-based materials, based on the total weight of the adhesive or the adhesive includes at least 40% by weight of compostable materials, based on the total weight of the adhesive as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the packaging of containers of Ackroyd as modified so the adhesive is constructed with at least 40% by weight of bio-based materials, based on the total weight of the adhesive or the adhesive is constructed with at least 40% by weight of compostable materials, based on the total weight of the adhesive because the selection of the specific mixture of adhesive such as the adhesive as disclosed by Ackroyd or as claimed would appear to have been an obvious matter of design choice based upon conventional design considerations, such as to form a rigid packaging of container for better protecting the containers and also to form a compostable packaging of containers.
As to claim 8, see Fig. 2 of Ackroyd.
As to claim 9, it appears that Ackroyd discloses the containers (C) have a height and the bottom piece is a bottom tray having side flaps (173, 175, 177, 179), and the side flaps of the bottom tray extend from the bottom of the packaging of containers to at most 35% of the height (Fig. 6).
As to claims 14 and 15, Ackroyd further discloses the blank may be constructed from paperboard having a caliper so it is heavier and more rigid than ordinary paper or cardboard and the blanks further include a clay coating [0048] which is considered equivalent to the first paper tape is fiber-reinforced as claimed. To the extent that Ackroyd fails to show the first paper tape is fiber-reinforced or at least 90% by weight of the packaging material is comprised of paper fiber-based material as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the packaging of containers of Ackroyd as modified so the packaging of containers is constructed with the first paper tape is fiber-reinforced or at least 90% by weight of the packaging material is comprised of paper fiber-based material as claimed for better protecting the containers and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andersen et al. (6,499,596; hereinafter Andersen).
As to claim 12, the packaging of containers of Ackroyd as modified further fails to show the bottom piece is a bottom sheet and the containers are glued to the bottom sheet by means of an adhesive. Andersen teaches a packaging of containers (10) comprising a bottom sheet (12) and a plurality of containers (14) are glued to the bottom sheet by means of an adhesive (13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Andersen to modify the packaging of containers of Ackroyd as modified so the packaging of containers is constructed with the bottom piece is a bottom sheet and the plurality of containers are glued to the bottom sheet by means of an adhesive for better securing the containers to the bottom sheet.
As to claim 13, the packaging of containers of Ackroyd as modified comprises the packaging material consists of the bottom sheet, the first paper tape with adhesive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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.
/LUAN K BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736