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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Figures 1-5 drawn to a container with divider locking notches formed from bottom flaps) in the reply filed on 04/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 7, 10, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/04/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Acevedo (US 2003/0029753 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Acevedo discloses a carton for containing an object during transport and storage and unitary blank for making comprising a front panel (18), a back panel (12), a first side panel (14), and a second side panel (24) foldably connected together (see Fig. 1); a first bottom flap (36) foldably connected (via 14c) to the first side panel; at least one divider (48) foldably connected (via 36a) to the first bottom flap; and a locking tab (48b; Examiner considers 48b to be a locking tab) foldably connected (via 48d) to the first bottom flap wherein the locking tab is configured to engage with a notch (40) on the carton.
Regarding claims 4-5, Acevedo discloses a carton further comprising a second bottom flap (30) foldably connected (via 24b) to the second side panel; and at least one divider (46b) foldably connected (via 46d) to the second bottom flap; and a second locking tab (46) foldably connected (via 30a) to the second bottom flap.
Regarding claim 6, Acevedo discloses a carton wherein the first locking tab is
configured to engage with the second locking tab (i.e. face-to-face engagement; see Fig. 13).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acevedo in view of Sumpmann et al. (US 8910856 B2; hereinafter Sumpmann).
Regarding claims 8 and 11-13, Acevedo discloses the claimed invention except for a removable portion defined by perforations. Sumpmann teaches a shipping and display container comprising a first side panel (7), wherein the first side panel includes a perforation (78) separating a removable portion of the first side panel from a remainder of the first side panel (see Figures 1-4); a front panel (5) foldably connected to the first side panel (see Fig. 3), wherein the front panel includes a perforation (77) separating a removable portion of the front panel from a remainder of the front panel; a second side panel (8) foldably connected to the front panel, wherein the second side panel includes a perforation (79) separating a removable portion of the second side panel from a remainder of the second side panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Acevedo’s container to include a circumferential path of perforations around the container in order to define a removable portion for transforming the container into a display configuration (Sumpmann; Col 2 lines 35-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4-5 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Montealegre have been fully considered and are persuasive. Montealegre lacks locking notches. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 102(a)(1)--Acevedo.
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 CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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 J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights