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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0043323) in view of Tode (WO 2022050390).
Claims 1, 2 and 7
Thomas discloses a packaging (30) accommodating a tobacco product (see [0079]), and comprising a region (defined by surface of sealing sheet 36) in at least a part of an interior surface thereof (see figure 5), the region being imparted with antibacterial properties/treatment (see [0053] and [0059]). Thomas further discloses the packaging is a hard package made of a heavy paper/paperboard (see [0051] and [0052]). Thomas does not disclose the packaging comprising a layer containing an additive having antibacterial performance and/or antiviral performance disposed on an outer surface of the packaging, wherein the additive is at least one selected from the group consisting of silver ion-based. titanium oxide-based, calcium hydroxide-based, halogen-based, copper ion-based, peroxide/ozone-based, amine-based, phenol-based, isothiocyanate-based, isothiazoline-based, biguanide-based, pyridine-based, epoxide-based, and surfactant-based substances. However, Tode discloses paper container (see page 10) comprising an antiviral film (10a) including an antiviral layer (12) disposed on the exposed/outer surface of the antiviral film (see pages 2 and 3) including a metal compound as an anti-virus agent comprising any of silver sulfate, silver iodide, silver chloride, silver bromide, or silver sulfide (see page 4) which all are silver ion-based. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an antiviral film disposed on the outer/exposed surface of the packaging as taught by Tode to prevent the spreading of virus and/or bacteria to the user when contact with the packaging.
Claim 5
Tode appears to disclose the antiviral layer (12) disposed on 100%, or at least 60% or more, of the outer surface of the antiviral film (10a) and therefore the container (see figure 1). After Thomas is modified by Tode, the antiviral layer will be disposed on an entire outer surface of the package.
Claims 6 and 8
Thomas discloses a packaging production method for producing a packaging (30) that accommodates a tobacco product (see [0079]) and that has a region (defined by surface of sealing sheet 36) in at least a part of an interior surface thereof (see figure 5), the region being imparted with antibacterial properties/treatment (see [0053] and [0059]). Thomas further discloses the packaging is a hard package made of a heavy paper/paperboard (see [0051] and [0052]). Thomas does not disclose the packaging comprising a layer comprising a printing ink or varnish containing an additive having antibacterial performance and/or antiviral performance disposed on an outer surface of the packaging, wherein the additive is at least one selected from the group consisting of silver ion-based. titanium oxide-based, calcium hydroxide-based, halogen-based, copper ion-based, peroxide/ozone-based, amine-based, phenol-based, isothiocyanate-based, isothiazoline-based, biguanide-based, pyridine-based, epoxide-based, and surfactant-based substances. However, Tode discloses paper container (see page 10) comprising an antiviral film (10a) including an antiviral layer (12), applied as a coating/varnish layer disposed on the exposed/outer surface of the antiviral film (see pages 2 and 3) including a metal compound as an anti-virus agent comprising any of silver sulfate, silver iodide, silver chloride, silver bromide, or silver sulfide (see page 4) which all are silver ion-based. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an antiviral film disposed on the outer/exposed surface of the packaging as taught by Tode to prevent the spreading of virus and/or bacteria to the user when contact with the packaging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
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).
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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights