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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 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.
As to claim 1, applicant recites “at least one product, in particular of the tobacco processing industry” which the phrase “in particular” recites a broad range or limitation followed by linking terms (e.g., preferably, maybe, for instance, especially, in particular) and a narrow range or limitation within the broad range or limitation is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will not considered the limitation “in particular of the tobacco processing industry” Clarification is required.
As to claim 15, applicant recites the phrase, “…can be widened…” is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “can” are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “can” are consider to be optional limitations.
Claims 2-14 are all rejected under 112(b) an their dependency to rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bordegoni (WO2022059042, cited prior art).
As to claim 1, Bordegoni discloses a sealed break-open pack (1) comprising: at least one product (6); a rigid sheet (2, semi-rigid plastic material, page 4, lines 4-5); a flexible sheet (3, flexible plastic material), which is arranged on top of and is fixed to the rigid sheet (2) so as to define a pocket (4) housing the product (6); and a pre-weakened area (incision area 5), which is obtained in the rigid sheet (2) in order to guide, following a "U"-shaped folding of the rigid sheet (2), a controlled breaking of the rigid sheet (2) in the pre- weakened area (5, the incision area 5 is in the form of U-shape, page 5, lines 17-18) so as to cause the formation of an output opening for the product (6) through the rigid sheet (Figures 3-4); wherein the pre-weakened area (6) comprises a non-through incision (the incision 5 is a not through incision, page 6, lines 5-6), which is "U"-shaped and is obtained through a surface of the rigid sheet (2, inner surface of the first sheet 2 of the semi-rigid plastic material); and wherein the incision (5) partially surrounds the product (6) housed in the pocket (4, as shown in Figure 3).
As to claim 2, Bordegoni further discloses the incision (5) surrounds the product (6) housed in the pocket (4) so that, by folding the rigid sheet (2) in a "U"-shape, the rigid sheet (2) becomes split (Figure 3), breaking along the incision (5), into an inner portion (lower portion of rigid sheet), which remains in contact with the product (6), and an outer portion (upper portion of the rigid sheet 2 as shown in Figure 3), which is distant from the product (6).
As to claims 11-12, Bordegoni further discloses the incision (5) is continuous, namely has no interruptions along its entire extension (page 6, lines 19-22) and the incision (5) has a constant depth along its entire extension (page 6, line 7).
As to method claims 14-15, all recited structures of the package are disclosed by Bordegoni (WO2022059042) as discussed in the rejections of claims 1-2 above. The method for the production of the sealed break-open pack from such a package is rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the obvious method of making the package of Bordegoni.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordegoni (WO2022059042, cited prior art) in view of Siegel et al (6,543,209).
As to claim 3, Bordegoni further discloses the rigid sheet (2) has two first pre-weakened folding lines (16, the incision is not an through incision, which assist the bending of the outer portion, which can also considered as a pre-weakened folding line ), which guide the "U"-shaped folding (15) of the rigid sheet (2), are aligned with one another, the arranged on opposite sides of the incision (5) and originated from the both end of the area of an outer edge of the rigid sheet (2, Figure 1). However, Bordegoni does not specifically disclose the pre-weakened folding line (16) originated from an end of the incision (5) in order to end in the area of an outer edge of the rigid sheet (2, Figure 1). Nevertheless, Siegel discloses a blister package with a semi-rigid backing (16) and mounted to a clear plastic member (14), the backing further comprises incisions (32 and 33) on the backing (16) and two linear folding line originated from the an end of the incision (32 and 33) and extend to an the both end of the area of an outer edge of the rigid sheet (Figure 3). 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 linear incision (16) of Bordegoni that originate from an end of the incision to end in the area of an outer edge of the rigid sheet as taught by Siegel in order to provide a guiding line to make sure that the folding of the linear incision line started at the end of the U-shape incision to prevent misaligned bending at the fold line.
As to claim 4, Bordegoni as modified further discloses the first pre-weakened folding lines (16) consist of a weakening, without any cut, of the material making up the rigid sheet (2, according Bordegoni, the incision 5 and 16 are all obtained by plastic deformation, which means a permanent change in the shape by deformation and not by any cuts).
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordegoni (WO2022059042, cited prior art) in view of Kuchenbecker (4,119,203).
As to claims 5-6, Bordegoni further disclose the rigid sheet (2) has a main part, on which the flexible sheet (3) is fixed in order to define the pocket (4). However, Bordegoni does not disclose a reinforcement part, which is connected to the main part along at least a second folding line, is folded by 180 degrees against the main part on the opposite side of the pocket and overlaps the main part on the opposite side of the pocket and the reinforcement part of the rigid sheet is glued to the main part of the rigid sheet. Kuchenbecker discloses a blister package (Figure 1) comprises a main part (10) and a flexible sheet (20) fixed in order to define the pocket (Figure 2), a reinforcement part (12), which is connected to the main part (10) along at least a second folding line (13), is folded by 180 degrees against the main part on the opposite side of the pocket and overlaps the main part on the opposite side of the pocket and the reinforcement part of the rigid sheet is glued to the main part of the rigid sheet (adhered to the back side). 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 rigid sheet of Bordegoni with a foldable panel attached to the backside of the rigid sheet as taught by Kuchenbecker in order to provide reinforcement to the thin card stock and also permit printing on both sides of the card with single pass printing before the panel is folded over and adhered to the backside of the card (column 1, 65-68 to column 2, lines 1-3).
As to claim 9, Bordegoni as modified further discloses that the reinforcement part (12) only folded at the lower portion with a short panel, the modified structure will not interference and overlap the incision of Bordegoni.
Claims 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordegoni (WO2022059042, cited prior art) in view of Keating Jr. (3,289,831).
As to claims 5, 7-8 and 10, Bordegoni further disclose the rigid sheet (2) has a main part, on which the flexible sheet (3) is fixed in order to define the pocket (4). However, Bordegoni does not disclose a reinforcement part, which is connected to the main part along at least a second folding line, is folded by 180 degrees against the main part on the opposite side of the pocket and overlaps the main part on the opposite side of the pocket and the reinforcement part of the rigid sheet is glued to the main part of the rigid sheet, the rigid sheet has two second folding lines, which are aligned with one another and are separated by a through cut, the reinforcement part of the rigid sheet has a through opening that is U-shaped and surrounds the incision. Nevertheless, Keating discloses blister package with semi-rigid sheet (10) and a flexible sheet (12), the rigid sheet comprises a main part (10) and a reinforcement part (28), which is connected to the main part along at least a second folding line (31), is folded by 180 degrees against the main part on the opposite side of the pocket and overlaps the main part on the opposite side of the pocket (Figure 2 shows that the panel 30 is folded behind the main part (10), the rigid sheet (10) has two second folding lines (31) which are aligned with one another and are separated by a through cut (40), the reinforcement part of the rigid sheet has a through opening that is U-shaped and surrounds the an opening (as shown in Figures 6, the upper portion of the tab 30 after assemble shows an U-shape opening above the broken line 34’). 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 rigid sheet of Bordegoni with a foldable panel attached to the backside of the rigid sheet as taught by Keating in order to provide reinforcement to the thin card stock and also provide a movable flap over the incision and to cover the incision prior the incision is bend and open.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordegoni (WO2022059042, cited prior art) in view of Burattini (8,225,932).
As to claim 13, Bordegoni further discloses the incision is constant depth, but does not disclose the incision has a depth that is equal to 50% of a thickness of the rigid sheet. Burattini discloses a break open single dose sealed package comprises a rectangular sheet (2) of semi-rigid plastic material and a sheet (3) of flexible plastic material) sealed to define a sealed pocket (4), the semi-rigid rectangular sheet further comprises incision (6) cut into the semi-rigid rectangular sheet (2) in order to break at the predetermine location (Figure 2), the incision has a depth that is roughly equal to 50% of the thickness of the rigid sheet (Figure 5). 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 rigid sheet of Bordegoni with the incision has a depth that is roughly 50% of the thickness of the rigid sheet as taught by Burattini in order to break the incision with about half of the force that need to break the entire package in order to provide precision opening at the incision. With regarding to the specific depth of the incision.
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 depth of the incision that is equal to 50% of the thickness of the rigid sheet because the selection of the specific depth such as the distance as disclosed by Bordegoni as modified or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well and inasmuch as applicant's specification does not state that using these specific distance as claimed solves any particular problem or yields any unexpected results.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
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