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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/01/2024, 01/08/2025, 05/30/2025 and 06/25/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,315,312 (DE LUCA ET AL) in view of WO 2016-136369 (KASHIWAMURA).
Regarding claim 1: The ‘312 reference discloses a web for use in an embossing device where the web comprises a first substrate and a bonding element and the first substrate has weakened regions formed by cuts and the regions form the convex embossments. See Figure 3, 4 and 7 (embossing device) and col. 6, for flap cuts and cap cuts, and col. 7, line 61 for adhesive. It is recognized that the reference does not disclose the cuts are non-symmetrical. However, the ‘369 reference shows that using non-symmetrical cuts in a paper to facilitate convex portions extending from the plane while remaining attached to the substrate is known. See Figures 12-13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such non-symmetrical cuts. Substituting one pattern of cuts for another would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2: The ‘312 reference disclose the web of two substrates having cuts therein. The substrates are bonded together and embossed. See Figures 3, 4 and 7.
Regarding claims 3-4: The ‘312 reference shows a variety of different paper may be used. See Examples.
Regarding claim 5-7: The ‘369 reference shows spiral cuts. See Figures 12 and 13. The ‘312 reference shows linear cuts. See Figures 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 8: The ‘312 reference discloses the product may be folded. See Examples.
Regarding claims 9-10: The ‘312 reference discloses a heat-activatable adhesive. See col. 7, line 61.
Regarding claims 11-12: The cuts/perforations prevent the sheets from tearing during embossing. See Figure 8 end product.
Regarding claim 13: The ‘312 reference discloses a system for making a web for a packaging material. The system uses an embossing device where a first substrate, a second substrate and a bonding element are embossed and adhered together. See Figure 7. The first and second substrates have weakened regions formed by cuts and the regions form the convex embossments. See Figure 3, 4 and col. 6, for flap cuts and cap cuts, and col. 7, line 61 for adhesive. It is recognized that the reference does not disclose the cuts are non-symmetrical. However, the ‘369 reference shows that using non-symmetrical cuts in a paper to facilitate convex portions extending from the plane while remaining attached to the substrate is known. See Figures 12-13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such non-symmetrical cuts. Substituting one pattern of cuts for another would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 14-15: The weakened regions of the substrates are fit into each other during embossing. See Figure 7 and Figure 8 (untorn end product).
Regarding claim 16: The cuts are linear. See Figures 3 and 4 of ‘312.
Regarding claims 17-18: The ‘312 reference shows a variety of different paper may be used. See Examples.
Regarding claims 19-20: The ‘312 reference discloses a heat-activatable adhesive. See col. 7, line 61.
Regarding claim 21: The ‘312 reference discloses a linear embossing device. However, roll or drum embossing is well-known in the art. Substituting one known embossing method for another would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22: See ‘312 Figure 7 and col. 7 lines 27-28 for adhesive application.
Regarding claims 23-25: The ‘369 reference shows spiral cuts. See Figures 12 and 13. The ‘312 reference shows linear cuts. See Figures 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 26: Both references disclose a packaging material.
Regarding claim 27: The ‘312 reference discloses a packaging material. The packaging is formed using an embossing device where a first substrate, a second substrate and a bonding element are embossed and adhered together. See Figure 7. The first and second substrates have weakened regions formed by cuts and the regions form the convex embossments. See Figure 3, 4 and col. 6, for flap cuts and cap cuts, and col. 7, line 61 for adhesive. It is recognized that the reference does not disclose the cuts are non-symmetrical. However, the ‘369 reference shows that using non-symmetrical cuts in a paper to facilitate convex portions extending from the plane while remaining attached to the substrate is known. See Figures 12-13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such non-symmetrical cuts. Substituting one pattern of cuts for another would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 28-29: The ‘312 reference shows a variety of different paper may be used. See Examples.
Regarding claim 30: The ‘369 reference shows spiral cuts. See Figures 12 and 13.
Regarding claim 31: The ‘312 reference discloses the product may be folded. See Examples.
Regarding claims 32 and 33: The ‘312 reference discloses a method of making a packaging material. The packaging is formed using an embossing device where a first substrate, a second substrate and a bonding element are embossed and adhered together. See Figure 7. The first and second substrates have weakened regions formed by cuts and the regions form the convex embossments. See Figure 3, 4 and col. 6, for flap cuts and cap cuts, and col. 7, line 61 for adhesive. It is recognized that the reference does not disclose the cuts are non-symmetrical. However, the ‘369 reference shows that using non-symmetrical cuts in a paper to facilitate convex portions extending from the plane while remaining attached to the substrate is known. See Figures 12-13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such non-symmetrical cuts. Substituting one pattern of cuts for another would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH EVANS MULVANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1527. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/ELIZABETH E MULVANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785