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 15 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.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, the claims depend from canceled claims 14.
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) 1, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janhonen (U.S. Patent No. 4627223) in view of Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 4828894) and Hadala (U.S. Pub. No. 20090288980).
Regarding Claim 1, Janhonen discloses a wrap for a product 1/2 (Figure 1), the wrap comprising: a first film 1(figure 1); and a tubular second film 2 (Figure 1 and 2) comprising: a first portion at least partially attached to the first film (figure 1); and a second portion extending from the first portion opposite to the first film (Figure 1), wherein the second portion is detached from the first film (Figure 1); wherein the first portion and the second portion of the tubular second film are configured to at least partially receive the product therebetween (Figure 2). Janhonen does not disclose the wrap comprises at least 90% polyethylene, by weight. However, Hadala teaches being at least 90% polyethylene by weight (paragraph 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen to include the above as taught by Hadala, in order to include a durable material (see Taylor for a plastic cardboard Column 2, lines 54-61).
Regarding Claim 4, Janhonen discloses the first film 1 (Figure 1) comprises a first transverse width (figure 1 and 2), wherein the tubular second film 2 (Figure 1) comprises a second transverse width (Figure 1 and 2), and wherein the first transverse width is in the range of 80 % and 120 % of the second transverse width (figure 1 and 2, column 2, lines 27-30).
Regarding Claim 5, Janhonen discloses an adhesive layer that laminates the first portion of the tubular second film to the first film (Column 2, lines 21-27).
Regarding Claim 1, Janhonen (embodiment 2) discloses a wrap for a product 1’/2b (figure 3 and 4), the wrap comprising: a first film 1’ (Figure 3 and 4); and a tubular second film 2b (Figure 3 and 4) comprising: a first portion at least partially attached to the first film (Figure 3); and a second portion extending from the first portion opposite to the first film (Figure 3), wherein the second portion is detached from the first film (Figure 3); wherein the first portion and the second portion of the tubular second film are configured to at least partially receive the product therebetween (Figure 4). Janhonen does not disclose the wrap comprises at least 90% polyethylene, by weight. However, Hadala teaches being at least 90% polyethylene by weight (paragraph 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen to include the above as taught by Hadala, in order to include a durable material (see Taylor for a plastic cardboard Column 2, lines 54-61).
Regarding Claim 2, Janhonen (embodiment 2) discloses the second portion comprises a first segment and a second segment partially or fully disconnected from the first segment (figure 3; column 2, lines21-30).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janhonen (U.S. Patent No. 4627223) in view of Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 4828894), Hadala (U.S. Pub. No. 20090288980) and Daelmans et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20110094193).
Regarding Claim 3, Janhonen, Taylor and Hadala teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the tubular second film extends along a longitudinal axis, and wherein the second portion further comprises a line of weakness at least partially extending along the direction of the longitudinal axis. However, Daelmans et al. teaches the tubular second film extends along a longitudinal axis (figure 2), and wherein the second portion further comprises a line of weakness at least partially extending along the direction of the longitudinal axis (figure 2, paragraph 19 and 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen, Taylor and Hadala to include the above, as taught by Daelmans et la., in order to assist in opening the wrapping to access the product.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janhonen (U.S. Patent No. 4627223) in view of Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 4828894), Hadala (U.S. Pub. No. 20090288980) and Yamashita et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6218017).
Regarding Claim 6, Janhonen, Taylor and Hadala teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the first portion of the tubular second film is attached to the first film by thermal lamination. However, Yamashita et al. discloses the first portion of the tubular second film is attached to the first film by thermal lamination (figure 17; column 56, lines 27-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen, Taylor and Hadala to include the above, as taught by Yamashita et al., in order to provide a strong attachment between films.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janhonen (U.S. Patent No. 4627223) in view of Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 4828894), Hadala (U.S. Pub. No. 20090288980) and Rasmussen (U.S. Pub. No. 20070257402).
Regarding Claim 7, Janhonen, Taylor and Hadala teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except the first portion of the tubular second film is attached to the first film by spot lamination. However, Rasmussen teaches the first portion of the tubular second film is attached to the first film by spot lamination (paragraph 92). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen, Taylor and Hadala to include the above, as taught by Rasmussen, in order to provide a strong attachment between films.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janhonen (U.S. Patent No. 4627223) in view of Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 4828894), Hadala (U.S. Pub. No. 20090288980) and 3M (Scotch-Weld structural adhesive film AF42-AF46).
Regarding Claim 9, Janhonen, Taylor and Hadala teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the first film and the first portion of the tubular second film together comprise a tensile strength between 160 N/25mm and 190 N/25mm in a transverse direction as measured according to ASTM D882-12. However, 3M teaches a tensile strength between 160 N/25mm and 190 N/25mm in a transverse direction as measured according to ASTM D882-12 (page 2 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen, Taylor and Hadala to include the above, as taught by 3M, in order to have the desired tensile strength.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janhonen (U.S. Patent No. 4627223) in view of Brinkmeyer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220380072).
Regarding Claim 10, Janhonen discloses a package comprising: and a wrap comprising: a first film 1’ (figure 3); and a second film 2b (Figure 3) comprising: a first portion at least partially attached to the first film (Figure 3); and a second portion extending from the first portion opposite to the first film (Figure 3); wherein the first portion and the second portion of the second film at least partially receive the timber product therebetween (figure 3 and 4, when combined with Brinkmeyer et al.). Janhonen does not disclose a timber product. However, Brinkmeyer et al. teaches a timber product (paragraph 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen to include the above, as taught by Brinkmeyer et al., in order to protect the products during shipping.
Regarding Claim 11, Janhonen discloses each of the first film and the first portion of the second film is continuous and free of any through-apertures (figure 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janhonen (U.S. Patent No. 4627223) in view of Brinkmeyer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220380072) and Ankerman (U.S. Patent No. 4474842).
Regarding Claim 12, Janhonen and Brinkmeyer et al. teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a printed pigment layer disposed on the second portion of the second film. However, Ankerman teaches a printed pigment layer disposed on the second portion of the second film (column 1, lines 40-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen and Brinkmeyer et al. to include the above, as taught by Ankerman, in order to prevent slipping on the package.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janhonen (U.S. Patent No. 4627223) in view of Brinkmeyer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220380072) and Kendall (U.S. Patent No. 3809223).
Regarding Claim 13, Janhonen discloses wrapped product (Figure 2) comprising: a wrap comprising a first film 1 (figure 1) and a second film 2 (Figure 1), the first film attached to and extending over a first portion of the second film (Figure 1) and a second portion of the second film extending from the first portion (Figure 1); wherein the first portion and the second portion of the second film encompass the timber product (figure 2; when combined with Brinkmeyer et al.). Janhonen does not disclose a timber product and the timber product is stacked to a cuboidal shape and the wrap covers five of the six faces of the cuboidal shape. However, Brinkmeyer et al. teaches timber (paragraph 39) and Ankerman teaches the timber product is stacked to a cuboidal shape and the wrap covers five of the six faces of the cuboidal shape (figure 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janhonen to include the above, as taught by Brinkmeyer et al. and Ankerman, in order to protect the product while tightly package the product for shipping.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm est.
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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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 J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
