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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 02/17/2026
Claim 1 has been amended
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-12 are presented for examination
This action is Final
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al. (US 10,589,892) in view of Schoch (WO 99/02428) in view of Walters et al. (US 4,083,447).
Claim 1: Van Dijk discloses an insert for a flow wrapped packaging assembly comprising:
a bottom wall panel 1 having curved edge regions (circular perimeter) (fig. 1, 5); and
wherein said insert comprises at least one tongue 6 at a top end of the first peripheral wall panel or the second peripheral wall panel peripheral wall distal from the bottom wall (fig. 1), said at least one tongue being movable between at least one closed position in which it at least partially closes the interior volume at the top end of the insert and at least one open position in which it does not impede access to the interior volume through the open top end (fig. 3, 6).
a first peripheral wall panel 3 connected by a fold line to the bottom wall panel along the front straight edge region, the first peripheral wall panel configured to define a planar front wall portion and first part of each of an opposed pair of side walls of the insert, a dispensing aperture (fig. 1);
a second peripheral wall panel 7 connected by a fold line to the bottom wall panel edge region, the second peripheral wall panel configured to define the rear wall portion and second part of each of the opposed side walls of the insert (fig. 6);
Van Dijk fails to disclose opposing planar side edges. Schoch teaches an insert having opposing sides and straight edge regions along front and rear portions which extend between the curved edge regions (see annotated figure below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
431
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first part of the first peripheral wall panel connected to the second part of the second peripheral wall panel at respective ends to form the opposed pair of curved side walls at straight edge regions (fig. 4-5);
the first peripheral wall panel, second peripheral wall panel and opposed pair of side walls and the bottom wall defining an interior volume for containing product (fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bottom panel shape configuration of Van Dijk to include the combination of curved and straight edge portions of Schoch to accommodate articles having varying shapes.
It is noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the rounded edge to a planar/straight edge, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 214.04 IV B
Van Dijk discloses a tongue being movable between at least one closed position but fails to disclose a space left uncovered by the tongue. Walters teaches a dispensing aperture 39 defined in the planar front wall portion (fig. 8, 12);
said at least one tongue 29, 30 being movable between at least one closed position in which it at least partially closes the interior volume at the top end of the insert leaving the dispensing aperture in the planar front wall portion open and at least one open position in which it does not impede access to the interior volume through the open top end (col. 6, ll. 27-39; fig. 11, 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the panel of Van Dijk to assist in identifying the product while also providing protection,
Claim 4: Van Dijk-Schoch-Walters discloses an insert according to claim 1, wherein said bottom wall is sloped with respect to the plane of the rear wall portion of said peripheral wall (Van Dijk; fig. 3).
Claim 5: Van Dijk-Schoch-Walters discloses an insert according to claim 1, wherein said at least one tongue is connected to the distal upper end of the rear wall portion by a hinge or fold line (Van Dijk; fig. 7).
Claim 7: Van Dijk-Schoch-Walters discloses an insert as according to claim 1, wherein the dispensing aperture @21 is open at the distal upper end of the front wall portion and extends over at least 50%, or at least 60%, or at least 70% or at least 80% of the length of the front wall portion from the distal upper end towards the bottom end (Schoch; fig. 1).
Claim 8: Van Dijk-Schoch-Walters discloses an insert according to claim 1, wherein the dispensing aperture extends across substantially the whole width of the front wall portion (Van Dijk; fig. 1, 6).
Claim 9: Van Dijk-Schoch-Walters discloses an insert according to claim 1, wherein said tongue has a shape selected from the group consisting of square, rectangular, semi-circular, oblong, triangular, trapezium, oval, semi-oval, boustrophedonic, butterfly-wing shaped, bone shaped, half- bone shaped, and/or any combination thereof (Van Dijk; fig. 1).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al. (US 10,589,892) in view of Schoch (WO 99/02428) in view of Walters et al. (US 4,083,447) in view of Holley (US 2020/0277098).
Claims 10-11: Van Dijk-Schoch-Walters discloses an insert according to claim 10, but fails to disclose interlocking tab portions. Holley teaches wherein the cardboard blank comprises interlocking tab portions 56/60 configured to hold sections of the blank in their erected configuration such that the blank is erected into the insert without the use of adhesive (Holley; [0029], [0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the closure characteristics of Van Dijk to include the interlocking tab portions of Holley to allow for easy erection and collapsing of the blank.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al. (US 10,589,892) in view of Schoch (WO 99/02428) in view of Walters et al. (US 4,083,447) in view of Goldsholl (US 2,966,293).
Claim 12. Van Dijk-Schoch discloses an insert according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a corrugated material. Morton teaches wherein the insert is made from a corrugated material (col. 1, ll. 15-20; fig. 1-2, 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of Van Dijk-Schoch to include the corrugated material of Morton for easy manipulation during erecting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and applied, and a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
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 RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights