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 § 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 4, 9 and 10 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tube head" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the tube head" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “a shaped body” in the fourth line of the claim. It is unclear if it is the same “shaped body” in claim 1, which claim 10 depends from, or if it is different. The claim is examined as best as can be understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kemmer (U.S. Pat. 3,313,455).
Regarding claim 1, Kemmer discloses a packaging tube having a receiving container (5) for directly storing a substance to be packaged or to be stored and at least one shaped body (1, 2) for providing a mechanical, static and/or dynamic sturdiness of the packaging tube;
the shaped body (1, 2) consists of a recyclable material (the body is reusable and recyclable “plastic”, col. 1, lines 11-14) and the receiving container made of a material appropriate to the substance to be packaged; and
at least two separable, form-fitting connections between the shaped body and the receiving container:
seen in Fig. 6, between crown (6) and tapered neck (7) (col. 2, lines 31-33: “the crown 6 of the head portion being tapered to receive the complementary tapered neck 7 of a collapsible tube in snug seated engagement”); and
seen in Fig. 9, between walls (20) of the shaped body and the tube wall of the receiving container (col. 3, lines 52-57);
both connections made by hand by inserting the receiving container into the shaped body and sliding loop (16) over the tail of the shaped body.
Regarding claim 2, Kemmer discloses that the connection is form-fit which is reinforced by a coupling agent (16).
Regarding claim 3, Kemmer discloses that the coupling agent is removable without residues.
Regarding claim 4, Kemmer discloses that the second separable connection is at a rear of the packaging tube, opposite the tube head, as a smooth closing seam. (seen in Fig. 9)
Regarding claim 5, Kemmer discloses that in the rear area of the packaging tube opposite the tube head, the receiving container extends in a longitudinal direction of the tube at least up to the end of the shaped body there so that the second separable connection is capable of being realized in a single and/or common connection step. (coupling agent (16) is slid onto the rear area of the packaging tube by hand)
Regarding claim 8, Kemmer discloses that the first separable connection is between a tube head (7 is the tube head, which includes cap 18) and the shaped body realizing the tube shell, the receiving container (5) being integral with the tube head.
Regarding claim 12, Kemmer discloses that the receiving container (5) includes a part of a tube head (7 is the tube head, which includes cap 18).
Regarding claim 13, Kemmer discloses that the receiving container (5) has an outlet section (covered by cap 18) integral to the rest of the receiving container in the area of an outlet area (area proximate 7).
Regarding claim 15, Kemmer discloses that the receiving container (5) extends all the way into an outlet hole (covered by cap 18) of a tube end (proximate 7).
Regarding claim 20, Kemmer discloses that the receiving container defines a part of a closure mechanism (nozzle and attached cap 18) of the tube head.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemmer as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sharp, et al. (“Sharp”) (WO 2024081240).
Regarding claim 7, Kemmer is silent in that the shaped body has an outer wrapping. Sharp discloses a shrink wrap (200) that used to wrap a container (20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teachings of Sharp to include a shrink wrap label on the shaped body which includes indicia or graphics to identify the contents or brand.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemmer as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Smith, et al. (“Smith”) (U.S. Pat. 6,127,011).
Regarding claim 14, Kemmer is silent in regards to the material of manufacture or the method of manufacture. Smith discloses a receiving container (flexible tube 11) which is made from plastic, such as polyethylene and is formed by injection molding and extrusion molding. (col. 5, lines 34-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teachings of Smith to manufacture flexible container of known materials, such as a plastic or polymer, on the basis of their suitability for the intended use and to use the well-known manufacturing method of plastic injection molding and extrusion molding. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemmer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cuddihy, et al. (“Cuddihy”) (U.S. Pub. 2007/0278232).
Regarding claim 16, Kemmer is silent in regards to a bead formed by the receiving container. Cuddihy discloses a bead (12) formed by a receiving container (10, 18), the bead being received by a body (20) creating a separable connection by form-fiting engagement between the receiving container and the body by slipping each along a longitudinal direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teachings of Cuddihy to modify Kemmer with Cuddihy’s teaching of a bead formed on Kemmer’s receiving container to ensure a seal against the shaped body to create a secondary fluid-tight seal. (abstract)
Regarding claim 21, the combination, as modified by Cuddihy, discloses that the bead is an annular bead (Cuddihy: abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 11 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 requires a third separable connection realized between the receiving container and the tube head. Prior art Kemmer discloses two separable connections, but not a third nor a separable connection between the receiving container and the tube head. It would not have been obvious to modify Kemmer, as required, barring improper hindsight analysis.
Claim 10 requires the shaped body comprising at least one part of a tube head. Prior art Kemmer discloses that the receiving container comprises a tube head and it would not have been obvious to modify Kemmer’s receiving container and shaped body so that a part of the tube head would be part of the shaped body. Claims 11 and 19 depend from claim 10.
Claims 6 and 18 are 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.
Claim 6 requires the shaped body having perforations for realizing tear strips. Prior art Kemmer discloses a shaped body (see above), but does not mention perforations or tear strips and it would not have been obvious, barring improper hindsight analysis, to modify Kemmer as required.
Claim 18 requires that the irreversible separation is by forming a tear. Kenny does not mention perforations or tear strips or the separation is by forming a tear and it would not have been obvious, barring improper hindsight analysis, to modify Kemmer as required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights