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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: Reference number “36” is recited in Specification Page 7 Lines 2, 14, and 19 but is absent in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites that the closure sheet (24) has two second tear lines (34) parallel to respective first tear lines of the two first tear lines (32). This is ungrammatical, repetitive, or unclear. It is believed that the closure sheet has a pair of second tear lines which are parallel to the pair of first tear lines present on the packaging sheet (20). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhiot (US 2291050) in view of Miller (US 6698928).
Regarding Claim 1, Malhiot discloses a package comprising a packaging sheet (11) wrapped around said four longitudinal faces of an item (19) and folded to form trapezoid closure flaps (as shown in Figures 4-6) extending over two transverse faces of the article.
Malhiot also discloses a closure sheet (30) wrapped around the article (19) and packaging sheet (11), wherein the closure sheet has two opposite longitudinal sections extending over two opposite longitudinal faces of the four longitudinal faces of the pack and two opposite transverse sections extending over respective transverse faces of the two transverse faces above the respective trapezoid closure flaps as shown in Figures 12 and 13.
Malhiot does not disclose the article is a package of absorbent sanitary articles that have main faces parallel to each other and parallel to a longitudinal direction and two transverse faces orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
Miller discloses a similar package with a tear strip tab comprising lines of weakness and a pull-tab opened. Miller discloses that the bag is made of polymeric plastic film, paper, or paper composites and may be individually wrapped sanitary articles (Col. 1 Lines 52-66). As shown in Figure 3, such articles (105) are formed into a pack with parallel main faces.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the packaged article of Malhiot to be a pack of absorbent sanitary articles as disclosed in Miller as this represents the simple substitution of one known packaged article for another that would produce no unexpected results in the function of the package.
Furthermore, the orientation of the absorbent pads and the relative positioning of the packaging sheets represents an obvious variation which a person having ordinary skill in the art would implement as a rearrangement of parts or variation in size, proportion or shape that would produce no unexpected results in the function of the package. Please see MPEP 2144.04 IV Section A and MPEP 2144.04 VI Section C.
Regarding Claim 2, Miller discloses that absorbent sanitary articles are typically enclosed in individual pouches or wrappers (Col. 1 Lines 62-63).
Regarding Claim 3, Malhiot discloses that the material used in the packaging sheet may be cellophane, a known transparent material (Col. 2 Lines 40-43). Please compare with Applicant Specification Page 5 Lines 10-14.
Regarding Claim 4, Malhiot discloses the packaging sheet (11) has two first tear lines (17, 18) extending over one of said four longitudinal faces, wherein said two first tear lines are parallel to each other and transverse to said longitudinal direction.
Regarding Claim 5, Malhiot discloses closure sheet has two second tear lines (31, 32) parallel to respective first tear lines.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, please note Sosalla (US 2009/0197231) which includes a band (170) and overwrap (175) for indicia or branding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights