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 5 and 15-16 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.
Claim 5 lines 1-2 set forth “two elastic protruding portions”. Examiner notes that Claim 1 from which Claim 5 depends already sets forth two elastic protruding portions, so it is unclear if the elastic protruding portions of Claim 5 are the same elements from Claim 1 or two more additional elastic protruding portions.
Claims 15-16 fail to cure the deficiencies.
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, 5-10, and 15-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer et al. (US 2021/0016939 A1; hereinafter Palmer).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 17-19, Palmer discloses a biodegradable child resistant packaging container comprising an outer box (1), wherein the outer box is provided with a first accommodating cavity and an outer box opening (notch 4; see Fig. 5) in communication with the first accommodating cavity, and a first abutting portion arranged on an inner wall of the outer box (see Fig. 6; Examiner considers the distal edge of element 6 to be an abutting portion); and an inner box (2), accommodated in the first accommodating cavity, wherein the inner box is slidable in and out of the first accommodating cavity through the outer box opening (see Par. 0033), and an elastic protruding portion (7; Examiner notes that Palmer discloses two separate elastic spring tabs) is arranged on an outer wall of the inner box; when the inner box is accommodated in the first accommodating cavity, the elastic protruding portion abuts against the first abutting portion (see Fig. 6), so that the inner box and the outer box are in a locked state (see Par. 0032-0035); when the elastic protruding portion is pressed by using an external force, the elastic protruding portion moves to the first accommodating cavity and is staggered with the first abutting portion, so that the inner box and the outer box are in an unlocked state; wherein the outer box comprises an outer box side wall, an inner wall of the outer box side wall is provided with a recessed portion (located beneath through hole element 5 as seen in cross-section depiction of Fig. 6) wherein the outer box further comprises a separating plate (6), and the separating plate is arranged between the outer box and the inner box (see Fig. 6), and a length of the separating plate is less than a length of the outer box side wall, and the recessed portion is formed by a region on the outer box side wall that is not covered by the separating plate (see Figures 4A and 6).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Palmer discloses a child resistant container wherein two elastic protruding portions are arranged on the outer wall of the inner box, the two elastic protruding portions are arranged facing away from each other (7; see Fig. 8), and two first abutting portions are arranged on the inner wall of the outer box; and when the inner box is accommodated in the first accommodating cavity, the two elastic protruding portions respectively abut against the two first abutting portions (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Palmer discloses a child resistant container wherein the inner box is provided with a second accommodating cavity (3A and 3B; see Fig. 7), the packing box further comprises an inner lining accommodated in the second accommodating cavity, the inner lining is provided with an inner cavity, and the
inner cavity is configured to accommodate an article (see Par. 0043).
Regarding claim 7, Palmer discloses a child resistant container wherein the elastic protruding portion comprises an elastic piece, one end of the elastic piece is connected to the outer wall of the inner box (i.e. the hinge portion), and an other end of the elastic piece is relatively away from the outer wall of the inner box (i.e. the distal portion).
Regarding claims 9-10, 15-16, and 20-23, Palmer discloses a child resistant container wherein a second abutting portion is further arranged on the inner wall of the outer box side wall, the second abutting portion is closer to the outer box opening than the first abutting portion, and the second abutting portion is configured to abut against the elastic protruding portion, to restrict a movable range of the inner box in a pull-out direction (see Figures 10-11 and Par. 0044-0046).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9-10, and 13-14 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Albrecht have been fully considered and are persuasive. Albrecht lacks the claimed separating plate. 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)--Palmer.
Conclusion
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