DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination, as recited in applicant’s remarks from 5 June 2026, “CLAIM OBJECTIONS”, the term “outer” means far from a central axis, “inner” means relatively closer to a central axis, “external” means outside the tube, and internal means inside the tube.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (US 2004/0026432).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura discloses a tube comprising a head at 1 and a skirt at 2 extending along a main axis (A), the head comprising, fig. 1, 2, 8(d):
- a neck at 28, and
- a shoulder at 21 extending radially between an upper end of the skirt and the neck, the shoulder being an annular piece of laminated material (at least two layers are seen in fig. 8(d)) which is distinct from the skirt,
PNG
media_image1.png
488
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an annular outer section of the shoulder 22 being attached to an upper end section of the skirt via a connecting ring 11 which is attached to the upper end section of the skirt and said annular outer section of the shoulder.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura discloses that the tube according to claim 1, wherein the connecting ring is a separate part from the neck, fig. 8(d).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Matsumura discloses, fig. 8(d) that the connecting ring comprises a first annular face above a rib at 11a onto which a face of the annular outer section of the shoulder is flat attached, and a second annular face above the rib at 11a, arranged externally around the first annular face onto which a face of the upper end section of the skirt is flat attached; the annular rib forming a dividing line between the first annular face and the second annular face, the annular rib protruding from each first annular face and second annular face.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura discloses that the annular rib is interposed between an outer peripheral edge of the shoulder and the upper end of the skirt, fig. 8(d).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura discloses the first annular face and the second annular face of the connecting ring extend in opposite directions and form an angle of 180 degrees from one another in an axial section plane, fig. 8(d).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura discloses, fig. 8(d) that the connecting ring is concealed inside the tube, hidden behind a layer 7.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura discloses that an internal face of the shoulder at 14, fig. 8(d) is flat attached against the first annular face of the connecting ring.
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura discloses that an internal face of the skirt is flat attached against the second annular face of the connecting ring, below rib at 11a, fig. 8 (d).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura discloses that the annular outer section of the shoulder is attached to the first annular face of the connecting ring by ultrasonic welding [0062].
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura discloses that the upper section of the skirt is attached to the second annular face of the connecting ring by ultrasonic welding [0075].
Regarding claim 13, Matsumura discloses that an outer rim of the neck is arranged radially at distance from an outer peripheral edge of the shoulder, fig. 2.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tome (US 2258395) in view of Thomasset et al. (US 2024/0199283).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 18, Tome discloses a tube comprising a head 11 and a skirt 10 extending along a main axis, the head comprising:
- a neck 12, and
- a shoulder (at 11’ and 13) extending radially between an upper end of the skirt and the neck, the shoulder being an annular piece of material which is distinct from the skirt, an annular outer section of the shoulder being attached to an upper end section of the skirt,
wherein said annular outer section of the shoulder (outer = away from a central axis) is attached to a connecting ring at 16 which is attached to the upper end section of the skirt, col. 2: 5-35.
Tome discloses that the dispensing head can be made from cellulose, col. 3: 50-61 but does not teach that the material is a laminate.
Thomasset is analogous art in regard to a tube having a head at 1 and a skirt at 3, fig. 15. The head is made from cellulose material and is a laminate having a layer at 4 and at 2 [0079]. The layer 4 is an internal functional layer making it possible to provide properties necessary for preservation of the packaged product and to protect the cellulose layer 2 from deterioration [0082] and is made from a polymeric material [0094-0099].
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 head of Tome to be a laminate having a polymeric inner functional layer in order to protect the cellulose layer from deterioration and to provide protective properties for the packaged product as per the teaching of Thomasset.
Regarding claim 2, Tome discloses that the ring is a separate part from the neck, fig. 1.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 8, 9, Tome discloses that the connecting ring comprises a first annular face, above a rib at 17, and a second annular face, below the rib, the rib forming a dividing line between the first and second annular faces, the annular outer section of the shoulder is flat attached to the first annular face of the connecting ring and a face of the upper end of the skirt is flat attached to the second annular face of the connecting ring.
Regarding claim 6, the first and second annular faces form an angle of 180 degrees (greater than 90 degrees) with respect to one another, in an axial section plane.
Regarding claim 7, Tome discloses the connecting ring is concealed inside the tube, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, Tome further discloses that the head is made of “strong plastic material, col. 2: 21-23 and that the locking member can be made of the same material, col. 3: 55-60.
Regarding claim 13, Tome discloses that an outer rim of the neck is arranged radially at distance from an outer peripheral edge of the shoulder, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 15, Tome discloses that the skirt is made of laminated material comprising at least one paper layer comprising cellulose fibers, col. 2, 10-20.
Regarding claim 16, Tome as modified above discloses all of claim 14, as applied above. Tome further discloses that the shoulder comprises a layer having cellulose fibers.
Tome does not disclose that the tube also comprises a laminate. Thomasset teaches that the tubular body 3 is made from a cellulose material and a functional layer. 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 tubular body of Tome to include a functional layer in order to protect the cellulose layer from deterioration and to provide protective properties for the packaged product as per the teaching of Thomasset.
The skirt and shoulder of Tome as modified above are made of the same laminated material, a cellulose layer and a functional layer.
Regarding claim 17, the references applied above teach all of claim 14, as applied above. Tome does not disclose a percent of cellulose fibers present. Thomasset teaches that the cellulose material used has a high level of recycling, higher than 85% and comprises a level of cellulose that is higher than 85%.
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 cellulose material of Tome to include an amount of cellulose higher than 85% in order to increase the recyclability of the material as per the teaching of Thomasset.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura discloses all of claim 1, as applied above. Matsumura does not disclose the material used for the ring member. However, Matsumura does disclose that the ring member be fused to the skirt (cylindrical member 10) having a thermoplastic layer [0045], [0048]. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumura to form the ring member from plastic since plastic is inexpensive and lightweight yet durable and further since plastic will strongly fuse to the disclosed layers of the skirt [0045] of Matsumura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the lid member and adhesive tape are not laminated material. Examiner points to the shoulder as 21 which is laminated with a virgin film at 29, better seen in fig. 4 than fig. 8(d). Laminate meets a broader range of layered materials than bonded flexible sheets, for example, there are laminated floors. The bonding of parts 21 and 29 form a laminated material. Although applicant’s laminate is bonded layered films, there is no particular definition for “laminate” per se.
Applicant provides a specific definition for a “flexible laminate” that can bend or be bent easily Page 5, lines 5-10 of the instant application, if the term “flexible laminate” were used, the specific definition provided in the specification would be read in the claims.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation; a laminate could be a somewhat thick material bonded to a thinner material or layered materials within the scope of the invention. For example, the cellulose laminate defined by Thomasset has a thick layer bonded to a thin layer. The claim language could be amended to clearly define over any type of laminate/layers of bonded materials, for example claiming laminated paper as disclosed or by defining the particularly claimed laminate as being laminated sheets.
With this in mind, applicant’s argument against the shoulder of Matsumura not being a laminated material as claimed is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the locking ring of Tome is not a structural connector between a separate laminated should and a skirt, the claim language reads:
“annular outer section of the shoulder is attached to a connecting ring which is attached to the upper end section of the skirt”.
The word “between” is not present in the claim language. The claim requires that both the outer section of the shoulder (outer = away from a central axis) and the upper end section of the skirt be attached to the connecting ring. Both are attached to the connecting ring by insertion of the ring 17 of the member 16 being forced into the groove 15, col. 2: 15-30 of Tome.
Tome could be overcome with simple claim amendments, for example, adding language of claim 5 which was not rejected on the grounds of Tome in view of Thomasset. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the argument in in regard to language that has not been claimed, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the connector be between the shoulder and the skirt) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that that Tome’s head is preferably made of some strong plastic material, not a cellulose-based part and that the proposed modification would result in a fundamental change of the head material and architecture and not provide resistance to corrosive materials, examiner disagrees.
First, Tome does suggest the use of cellulose for the dispensing head, col. 2: 50-55 and requires a comparatively rigid material that is not metallic, claim 1, but not explicitly a strong plastic material.
In addition, since Thomasset has a laminated protective inner layer, the protective inner layer could be chosen to provide whatever properties required such as resistance to corrosive materials and still achieve the desired functionality of Tome. For these reasons, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights