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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/27/2026 has been entered.
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 1/27/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevalier US 4,823,954 in view of Lyons US 5,683,029, all previously presented.
With regards to claim 1, Chevalier discloses a wrap around container comprising: a substantially rectangular panel (Fig. 1) including a device receiving portion (at 1b) at one end of the panel, a fixing portion (at 1a) at the opposite end of the panel, and an intermediate portion 1 in between the device receiving portion and the fixing portion, wherein the fixing portion has a main fixing portion body and a pair of ears 12/13 which each extends from opposite sides of the main fixing portion body when the ears are in an unfolded state, each side being on a longitudinal edge of the rectangular panel, and each ear comprising an ear frame, wherein the intermediate portion is arranged to be wrapped over the device receiving portion so that the main fixing portion body lies over an outer surface of one of the device receiving portion and the intermediate portion, and each ear is arranged to be folded onto the outer surface of the intermediate portion (shown in Figs. 3 and 4).
The wrap around container of Chevalier is capable of holding an electronic device depending on the type of device to be held, since this limitation is considered an intended use.
Chevalier discloses an ear having an ear frame but it does not specifically disclose an ear tab configured to fit within the ear frame wherein the ear tab has a base which is integral with the ear frame and the ear tab fixed to the outer surface of the intermediate portion to close the container; an edge of the ear tab away from the ear tab base being frangibly connected with the ear frame, wherein the intermediate portion has a main body and two tabs which are configured to fit within the main body of the intermediate portion wherein each tab has a base which is integral with the main body, an edge of the tab of the intermediate portion away from the tab base being frangibly connected with the main body of the intermediate portion; and wherein each tab is configured to permit the intermediate portion to be ripped from the tab to an opposing longitudinal edge of the intermediate portion if the container is tampered with, and each ear tab being configured to be fixed to a respective said tab of the intermediate portion when the ear tabs are fixed to the outer surface of the intermediate portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Lyons teaches that it was known in the art to have an ear tab 176 configured to fit within an ear frame 168 wherein the ear tab has a base which is integral and would inherently allow the ear frame and the ear tab to be fixed to the outer surface of the intermediate portion to close the container; an edge of the ear tab away from the ear tab base being frangibly connected (at 180) with the ear frame, wherein the intermediate portion has a main body and two tabs 172 which are configured to fit within the main body of the intermediate portion wherein each tab has a base which is integral with the main body, an edge of the tab of the intermediate portion away from the tab base being frangibly connected (at 180) with the main body of the intermediate portion; and wherein each tab is configured to permit the intermediate portion to be ripped from the tab to an opposing longitudinal edge of the intermediate portion if the container is tampered with (shown in the annotated drawing above), and each ear tab being configured to be fixed to a respective said tab of the intermediate portion when the ear tabs are fixed to the outer surface of the intermediate portion.
The inventions of Chevalier and Lyons are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items to be shipped or mailed. Each container includes ears to allow sealing and opening of the container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ears in Chevalier by providing ear tabs frangibly connected to ear frames and tabs on the intermediate portion as taught by Lyons for the purposes of allowing the user to easily grasp the ear to tear and open the container.
Lyons further teaches at least one end of the base of the ear tab 176 has a cut that appears to extend diagonally outwardly from the base and away from the distal end of the ear tab when the ear tab is within the ear frame.
With regards to claim 2, Chevalier discloses the main fixing portion body (at 1a) is arranged to be fixed to the outer surface of one of the device receiving portion and the intermediate portion after wrapping of the intermediate portion to close the container.
With regards to claim 3, Chevalier discloses the main fixing portion body (at 1a) is fixed to the outer surface of one of the device receiving portion and the intermediate portion by adhesive.
With regards to claim 4, Chevalier discloses the wrapping of the container can be adjusted depending on the article to be held therefore, the intermediate portion 1 can be arranged to be additionally wrapped under the device receiving portion.
With regards to claim 5, Chevalier discloses the fixing portion (at 1a) is arranged to be fixed to an outer surface of the intermediate portion.
With regards to claim 6, Lyons further teaches a distal end of the ear tab 176, when in the ear frame 168, is towards the distal end of the ear.
With regards to claim 9, Lyons further teaches a distal end of each ear tab 176 is substantially aligned with a distal end of a respective said tab 172 of the intermediate portion when the ear tab is fixed to the respective said tab of the intermediate portion.
With regards to claim 10, Lyons further teaches at least one end of the base of the tab 172 of the intermediate portion has a cut extending outwardly from the base and away from the distal end of the tab when the tab is within the main body of the intermediate portion.
See claim 1, for diagonal cut teaching.
With regards to claim 13, Lyons further teaches the ear tab 176 is fixed to the outer surface of the intermediate portion by adhesive.
With regards to claim 14, Chevalier discloses a base portion of each ear but it does not specifically disclose the ear tapers outwardly towards the main fixing portion body on a side of the ear closest to the intermediate portion when the wrap around container is in an unfolded state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the ear taper outwardly towards the main fixing portion body since it was known in the art that doing so would form an alternative shaping of the ear (as shown with structures 6 and 7 of Chevalier).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevalier US 4,823,954 in view of Lyons US 5,683,029 and further in view of Chesworth US 2016/0001953 A1, all previously presented.
With regards to claim 15, Chevalier discloses a pair of flaps 4/5 extending from opposite sides of the device receiving portion (at 1b) of the panel, each side being on a respective said longitudinal edge of the rectangular panel, and each flap being arranged to be folded into a closed position where the flap is over at least a part of the device receiving portion and an upper surface of a device when placed on the device receiving portion, the intermediate portion (at 1) being arranged to wrap at least over the flaps in the closed position and the fixing portion (at 1a) being arranged to be fixed to an outside of the container after wrapping of the intermediate portion to close the container but it does not specifically disclose cushioning means extending over at least part of the device receiving portion and onto the surface of each flap facing the device receiving
portion when in the closed position so as to form a cushioning barrier between a device placed on the device receiving portion and the device receiving portion and the closed flaps.
However, Chesworth teaches that it was known in the art to have a wrap around container have cushioning means 50 extending over at least part of a device receiving portion 43 and onto the surface of each flap 32/33 facing the device receiving portion when in the closed position so as to form a cushioning barrier between a device placed on the device receiving portion and the device receiving portion and the closed flaps.
The inventions of Chevalier and Chesworth are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items to be shipped or mailed. Each container includes a receiving portion and flaps to hold the articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified device receiving portion and flaps in Chevalier by providing cushioning means as taught by Chesworth for the purposes of providing more protection and prevent damage to the articles to be held.
With regards to claim 16, Chesworth further teaches the cushioning means 50 is configured to be peelable from the container when the container is open. (Para. 0042 and claim 1)
With regards to claim 17, Chesworth appears to disclose the cushioning means 50 comprises macerated paper.
Alternatively, the product cushioning means being formed by macerated paper encompassed in the claim would have been obvious in view of the apparatus of Chesworth, for the purpose providing an alternate way of forming the cushioning means.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevalier US 4,823,954 in view of Lyons US 5,683,029, all previously presented.
With regards to claim 18, Chevalier discloses a wrap around container comprising: a substantially rectangular panel (Fig. 1) including a device receiving portion (at 1b) at one end of the panel, a fixing portion (at 1a) at the opposite end of the panel, and an intermediate portion (at 1) in between the device receiving portion and the fixing portion, wherein the fixing portion has a main fixing portion body and a pair of ears 12/13 which each extends from opposite sides of the main fixing portion body when the ears are in an unfolded state, each side being on a longitudinal edge of the rectangular panel, and each ear comprising an ear frame, and wherein the intermediate portion is arranged to be wrapped over the device receiving portion so that the main fixing portion body lies over an outer surface of one of the device receiving portion and the intermediate portion.
The wrap around container of Chevalier is capable of holding an electronic device depending on the type of device to be held, since this limitation is considered an intended use.
Chevalier discloses an ear having an ear frame but it does not specifically disclose an ear tab which is configured to fit within the ear frame wherein the ear tab has a base which is integral with the ear frame, an edge of the ear tab away from the ear tab base being frangibly connected with the ear frame, wherein the intermediate portion has a main body and two tabs which are configured to fit within the main body of the intermediate portion wherein each tab has a base which is integral with the main body, an edge of the tab of the intermediate portion away from the tab base being frangibly connected with the main body of the intermediate portion, and wherein each tab is configured to permit the intermediate portion to be ripped from the tab to an opposing longitudinal edge of the intermediate portion if the container is tampered with and each ear is arranged to be folded onto the outer surface of the intermediate portion and the ear tab fixed to the outer surface of the intermediate portion to close the container, each ear tab being configured to be fixed to a respective said tab of the intermediate portion when the ear tabs are fixed to the outer surface of the intermediate portion.
As stated above, Lyons teaches that it was known in the art to have an ear tab 176 which is configured to fit within the ear frame 168 wherein the ear tab has a base which is integral with the ear frame, an edge of the ear tab away from the ear tab base being frangibly connected (at 180) with the ear frame, wherein the intermediate portion has a main body and two tabs 172 which are configured to fit within the main body of the intermediate portion wherein each tab has a base which is integral with the main body, an edge of the tab of the intermediate portion away from the tab base being frangibly connected (at 180) with the main body of the intermediate portion, and wherein each tab is configured to permit the intermediate portion to be ripped from the tab to an opposing longitudinal edge of the intermediate portion if the container is tampered with (shown in the annotated drawing above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ears in Chevalier by providing ear tabs frangibly connected to ear frames and tabs on the intermediate portion as taught by Lyons for the purposes of allowing the user to easily grasp the ear to tear and open the container
With regards to claim 19, Chevalier discloses the main fixing portion body (at 1a) is arranged to be fixed to the outer surface of one of the device receiving portion (at 1b) and the intermediate portion after wrapping of the intermediate portion to close the container. (Fig. 6)
With regards to claim 20, Chevalier discloses the main fixing portion body (at 1a) is fixed to the outer surface of one of the device receiving portion (at 1b) and the intermediate portion by adhesive 26.
With regards to claim 21, Chevalier discloses the intermediate portion 1 is arranged to be additionally wrapped under the device receiving portion (with 4/5).
With regards to claim 22, Chevalier discloses the fixing portion (at 1a) is arranged to be fixed to an outer surface of the intermediate portion 1.
With regards to claim 23, Lyons further teaches a distal end of the ear tab, when in the ear frame, is towards the distal end of the ear. (shown above)
With regards to claim 24, Lyons further teaches a distal end of each ear tab is substantially aligned with a distal end of a respective said tab of the intermediate portion when the ear tab is fixed to the respective said tab of the intermediate portion. (shown above)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Chevalier nor Lyons discloses the limitation “each tab is configured to permit the intermediate portion to be ripped from the tab to an opposing longitudinal edge of the intermediate portion if the container is tampered with”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above in the annotated drawing above, Lyons does show when the tab is pulled the ripping does move toward an opposing longitudinal edge. Possibly providing more specific or distinct details or features regarding the limitations may overcome the art of record. For instance, as the claims are currently presented the longitudinal edges are not associated with tabs, it only requires “each tab is configured…to be ripped from the tab to an opposing longitudinal edge”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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 E. Avilés 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights