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 .
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) 1-4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, Jr. (US 4474324, hereinafter ‘Forbes’) in view of Pinkstone (US 9156579).
Forbes discloses packaging comprising a first body (35) that forms a container having a wall (15, 16) and a second body (34) that forms a lid having a wall (15, 18), the said lid having an inner dimension larger than the outer dimension of the container and sliding over at least part of an outer surface of the container (Fig. 7), defining a sliding length when the packaging is being opened or closed, a clearance being created by the difference in the dimensions enabling the opening and the closing, the sliding length and the outer dimension of the container having a predetermined ratio H/D which is greater than 1, H being the sliding length and D being the outer dimension of the container (see all Figs.; height clearly larger than D across 15 resulting in claimed ratio); except does not expressly disclose the moisture-barrier properties as claimed, only disclosing coated paperboard.
However, Pinkstone teaches a similar packaging wherein the container and the said lid have moisture-barrier properties at the respective walls (col. 5, ll. 1-15) allowing opening and closing without adversely affecting the moisture-barrier properties of the packaging as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the moisture barrier material taught by Pinkstone as the coating material taught by Forbes, in order to provide moisture barrier properties to the packaging as taught by Pinkstone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the moisture barrier material taught by Pinkstone as the coating material taught by Forbes, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Forbes as modified above further discloses the container and the lid each comprise a bottom (see Forbes Figs. 1); the at least one functional layer that forms the inner -7surface of the lid slides over the structural layer that forms the outer surface of the container (Pinkstone col. 5, ll. 1-15); the lid comprises a flared end to enable inserting the lid on one or more of the container and the end of the container on which the lid is push-fitted comprises a narrowing (see Forbes Fig. 6); an air outlet or air inlet system configured to to open and close the packaging (recesses in sidewalls of Forbes formed by 30, 32, etc.); the packaging has one of a circular, oval, oblong and rectangular cross section (Forbes Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 18, Forbes as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the exact dimensions as claimed.
However, it is noted that varying the dimensions of product packaging has long been considered part of the general knowledge of those having ordinary skill in the art since prior to the invention by applicant.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the lid/body clearance between 0.02mm and 0.5mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the diameter and sliding length of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, Jr. (US 4474324, hereinafter ‘Forbes’) in view of Pinkstone (US 9156579) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kosuke et al (JP 2021137982, hereinafter ‘Kosuke’).
Forbes as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose both the structural and functional layers as claimed.
However, Kosuke teaches constructing a container having a structural layer (1) and a functional layer (2) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the materials taught by Kosuke to construct the packaging taught by Forbes as modified above, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Forbes as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particular materials of construction as claimed.
However, it is noted that cellulose, HDPE, and PP have all been known materials in the packaging art since long before the invention by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the claimed materials to construct the packaging taught by Forbes as modified above, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Forbes as modified above further results in a device wherein the structural layer of the container (Kosuke 1) is trapped between a first functional layer (Kosuke 2) that forms the outer surface of the container and a second functional layer (Kosuke 20) that forms the inner surface of the container.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, Jr. (US 4474324, hereinafter ‘Forbes’) in view of Pinkstone (US 9156579) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shepard (US 5348180.
Forbes as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the tamper-evident system as claimed.
However, Shepard teaches providing a similar container with a tamper-evident system (20) evidencing the first time the packaging is opened.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the tamper-evident system taught by Shepard to the container taught by Forbes as modified above, in order to evidence any premature removal of the lid as taught by Shepard (Abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, Jr. (US 4474324, hereinafter ‘Forbes’) in view of Pinkstone (US 9156579) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koob (US 2013/0153586).
Forbes as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the membrane seal as claimed.
However, Koob teaches providing a similar container with a membrane seal (para 0013) as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the membrane seal taught by Koob to the container taught by Forbes as modified above, in order to securely enclose the contents as taught by Koob (para 0013, 0014).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, Jr. (US 4474324, hereinafter ‘Forbes’) in view of Pinkstone (US 9156579) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Medico et al. (US 2013/0313283, hereinafter ‘Medico’).
Forbes as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above and further including the container and/or the lid are formed from tubular bodies (Figs. 1, 2) except does not expressly disclose the particular means of construction as claimed.
However, Medico is one of myriad reference teaching container construction from a sheet, the ends of which are welded or adhesively bonded and form a joining zone (Abstract, @4); the ends of the sheet are butt-welded via reinforcing strips, or welded or adhesively bonded by overlapping the ends (Abstract, see Fig. 2).
Because Forbes as modified above and Medico both teach container construction techniques, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the overlapped and welded seams taught by Medico for the generic container construction taught by Forbes as modified above to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the container wall material to itself.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights