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 without traverse of Group III (claims 1, 9-12 and 16) in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 2-8, 13-15 and 17-18 are hereby withdrawn from consideration.
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 11/05/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1 is too faint (i.e. grayscale) for publication or reproduction. Each of the figures mentioned above need to be replaced with black and white drawings. See MPEP §608.02(VII)(B).
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, 9-12 and 16 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 the phrases in each claim and each instances, “...substantially...” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 9, applicant recites “the top edge of the front portion” is lack of proper antecedent basis since claim 1 never mention “a top edge”.
As to claim 10 applicant recites “the bottom edge of the tear tape” is lack of proper antecedent basis since claims 1 and 9 never mention “a bottom edge”.
As to claim 10, applicant recites the phrases in each claim and each instances, “...substantially...” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 11-12 and 16 are also rejected under 112 (b) as they are depended on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Scharre (3,333,683) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scharre (3,333,683) in view of Cho (6,244,435).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Scharre discloses packet for smoking articles (Figure 7), comprising an outer casing (36, Figure 7) comprising a main body and a lid, wherein the main body comprises: a front panel; a rear panel; a bottom panel; a first side panel; and a second side panel which cooperatively define a main compartment having an opening opposite to the bottom panel (as annotated in above Figure 7), and wherein a hinge is formed between the lid and the rear panel of the main body such that the lid is moveable between an open position (Figure 7) and a closed position (not shown); a substantially cuboidal pouch (Figure 2) comprising: a front major portion; a rear major portion; a top minor portion; a bottom minor portion; a first side portion; and a second side portion, wherein the pouch is received within the main compartment such that the pouch protrudes from the main compartment through the opening (Figure 7), wherein the pouch is completely contained within the outer casing when the lid is in the closed position, and wherein the pouch comprises a cellulose-based wrapper (the material use to make the pouch of aluminum and paper laminate 10, paper is the cellulose based material) ;and a tear tape (31) attached to the pouch and arranged to extend around (partially around) the pouch in a transverse direction with respect to the length of the pouch (as shown in Figure 1 and 2) such that the tear tape is positioned above the hinge (as shown in Figure 7, the tear strip is position above the hinge), wherein the tear tape is configured to be pulled by a user to separate a top section of the pouch from a bottom section of the pouch, and wherein the top section of the pouch includes at least part of the top minor portion, the front major portion, the rear major portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion of the pouch, and wherein the bottom section of the pouch includes at least part of the bottom minor portion, the front major portion, the rear major portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion of the pouch (as shown in Figure 2, the top of the tear strip is slightly below the fold line).
If applicant does not agree that the tear tape “extend around the pouch) or the top of the tear strip is spaced from the top fold line because of the Figure 1 of Scharre. Cho discloses a cigarette package (Figure 2). The cigarette package further comprises a soft pack of cigarettes (abstract) made of middle flexible paper material), the soft pack further comprises tear tape (153) that is spaced away from the upper fold line (155) and the tear tape (153) extend around the entire perimeter of the soft pack cigarette package. 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 tear strip of Scharre that surround the entire perimeter of the soft pack as taught by Cho in order to control the tear around the perimeter of the upper soft package for a perfect horizontal tear at the upper portion of the soft package.
With regarding to the location of the tear strip. 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 tear strip of Scharre to slightly below the horizontal fold line as taught by Cho so the top portion of the pouch will remain covered to the upper portion of the cylindrical cigarette article for a short time after tear the tear tape. Furthermore, It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144 (VI)(C).
PNG
media_image2.png
403
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claims 9-12, Scharre or Scharre as modified further discloses an inner frame disposed between the pouch and the outer casing, wherein the inner frame comprises a front portion arranged adjacent to the front panel of the main body, and wherein the top edge of the front portion of the inner frame is positioned below the tear tape (as annotated in Figure 7 above), the top edge of the front portion of the inner frame is arranged substantially level with the bottom edge of the tear tape (as shown in Figure 7 above), the front portion of the inner frame further comprises a cut-out in its a top edge thereof, which wherein the cutout extends a distance below the bottom edge of the tear tape (as annotated in Figure 7 above) and the inner frame is a folded element further comprising a first side portion and a second side portion, wherein the first side portion and the second side portion of the inner frame are arranged adjacent to the first side panel and the second side panel of the main body respectively (as shown in Figure 7 above with annotation to the inner frame).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Scharre (3,333,683) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scharre (3,333,683) in view of Cho (6,244,435), further in view of Sebastian et al (9,968,129).
As to claim 16, Scharre or Scharre as modified does not specifically discloses the material of the inner frame comprises a cellulose-based material. Nevertheless, Sebastian discloses a cigarette package (102), the cigarette package comprises the first body portion (104) the second body portion (106), and the inner frame 114 may be formed from a paper material (paper or paperboard). 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 inner frame of Scharre with paper material (cellulose based material) as taught by Sebastian for the ease of recycling the cigarette package.
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