DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 19, 20, 30, 31, 33 have been amended. Claims 4, 5 and 17 have been cancelled. Claim 40 has been added. Claims 1-3, 6-16 and 18-40 remain pending in the application, with claims 12, 18-25 and 27-39 being withdrawn from consideration.
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 § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 26 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 5,540,381) in view of Lipinski (US 2013/0068653 A1) and Grapp (US 3,065,896).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a blank (Fig. 4), comprising:
two or more wide panels (78, 96); and
at least two narrow panels (86, 114) attached to the two or more wide panels, each of the two or more wide panels being separated from each other by at least one of the at least two narrow panels,
a first narrow panel of the at least two narrow panels, the first narrow panel having a first width that is perpendicular to a (second) longitudinal length of the blank (FIG. 4), and
a second narrow panel of the at least two narrow panels, the second narrow panel having side edges and a second width that is perpendicular to the (second) longitudinal length of the blank (FIG. 4) (column 3 line 44-column 4 line 56 and Fig. 4, 5).
Davis fails to teach the first narrow panel defining a first tear strip having a first longitudinal length that spans across the first width of the first narrow panel. Lipinski teaches an analogous blanks and sleeve for a container and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the blank with a tear strip (120) having a longitudinal length that spans across a width of a narrow panel and that is perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the blank (FIG. 1, 2) in order to easily separate sections of the sleeve to facilitate removal of the sleeve from around its respective container (paragraphs 19, 20 and FIG. 1, 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Davis by defining a first tear strip in panel 114 (panel 114 being the first narrow panel, applies to claim 13) or alternatively in panel 86 (panel 86 being the first narrow panel, applies to claims 14), wherein the first tear strip has a first longitudinal length that spans across the first width of the first narrow panel and is perpendicular to the second longitudinal length of the blank, as taught by Lipinski, in order to easily separate section of the sleeve formed from the blank to facilitate removal of the sleeve from around its respective container.
Davis also fails to teach the side edges of the second narrow panel having a pair of alignment notches aligned with each other across the second width of the second narrow panel. Grapp teaches an analogous blank having panels configured to overlap to seal the blank and a tear strip (115, 116) (FIG. 10). Grapp further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure both an upper and lower of the overlapping panels to include a tear strip (115, 116), wherein both side edges of the tear strips have alignment notches that define a tab at each of the side edges of the tear strips, wherein the notches are aligned with each other in the overlap and are also aligned with each other across a width (left to right as shown in figure 10) of the overlapping panels and the tear strip (FIG. 10), in order to ensure proper alignment of the overlapping panels, in order to facilitate tearing through both of the overlapping panels, and in order to enable grasping, tearing and opening from either of the side edges (column 5 line 68-column 6 line 74 and FIG. 10).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Davis by also providing the side edges of the second narrow panel with a pair of alignment notches aligned with each other across the second width of the second narrow panel, as taught by Grapp, in order to ensure proper alignment of the first and second narrow panels, and/or in order to facilitate tearing through both of the first and second narrow panels, and/or in order to enable grasping, tearing and opening from either of the side edges.
Regarding claim 2, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the blank is configured to be at least partially wrapped around an outer container 10 (Davis: Fig. 1), a first shape of the two or more wide panels being conformed to a second shape of two major surfaces on the outer container (Davis: Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 2 above, wherein the two or more wide panels are configured to directly contact and at least partially cover the two major surfaces, the two major surfaces opposing each other on the outer container (Davis: Figs. 1 and 3)
Regarding claim 6, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein an outer surface of the two or more wide panels includes indicia, the indicia including consumer information (Davis: col 2 lines 4-7, col 1 lines 9-48). Additionally, it has been held that where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.01 III.
Regarding claim 7, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein a first outer surface of the two or more wide panels and a second outer surface of the at least two narrow panels includes indicia, the indicia including consumer information (Davis: col 2 lines 4-7, col 1 lines 9-48). Additionally, it has been held that where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.01 III.
Regarding claim 9, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein each of the two or more wide panels is depicted as having a third width that is about twice as wide as the first width (Davis: FIG. 4) but fails to expressly disclose a third width that is about twice as wide as the first width.
The specification (0265) describes various relative sizes of panels, but doesn’t describe any special purpose for these dimensions. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). See MPEP 2144.04, I.
Davis teaches the top and bottom panels having a width based on the size of the container dimensions (col 5 lines 14-19) and Davis does not teach any particular width for the other elements, though Davis illustrates each of the two or more wide panels having a second width that is about twice as wide as the first width, and Davis illustrates a narrow panel width F2 that is approximately half the width of a top panel MW, so specifically forming the container of Davis with this relative dimension would be a minor aesthetic change and an obvious matter of design choice as applicant has not disclosed that a first width of exactly half solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with various widths.
Regarding claim 10, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 9 above, but fails to teach the first narrow panel and the second narrow panel each having a same width that is the first width. Davis teaches the top panel is symmetric about line MW (column 4 lines 16-17), and illustrates the overall top-down profile of the blank that appears to show a symmetry. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious provide narrow panels having the same width to provide a symmetric aesthetic.
Regarding claim 11, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the blank is a single web of material (Davis: Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein terminal panels on distal ends of the blank include the first narrow panel and a first wide panel of the two or more wide panels (Davis: FIG. 4). Note: the specification and drawings of the elected species describes the first narrow panel 7720 (0251) on a top end of the Drawing having a tab 7765 for joining to the other side of the blank (0285). For consistency with the disclosure, the examiner interprets a panel including such a glue tab to be on a terminal end of the blank. Davis modified with a tear strip to be located in panel 114, as described above regarding claim 1, teaches terminal panels on distal ends of the blank include the first narrow panel 114 and a first wide panel 78 of the two or more wide panels (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein terminal panels on distal ends of the blank include the second narrow panel and a first wide panel of the two or more wide panels. Note: the specification and drawings of the elected species describes the first narrow panel 7720 (0251) on a top end of the Drawing having a tab 7765 for joining to the other side of the blank (0285). For consistency with the disclosure, the examiner interprets a panel including such a glue tab to be on a terminal end of the blank. Davis modified with a tear strip to be located in panel 86, as described above regarding claim 1, teaches terminal panels on distal ends of the blank include a second narrow panel 114 of the at least two narrow panels and a first wide panel 78 of the two or more wide panels.
Regarding claim 15, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 14 above, wherein a (126) extends from a distal end of the second narrow panel, the tab being configured to be adhesively connected to the first wide panel when the blank is wrapped around an outer container (Davis: column 4 lines 36-39 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the first tear strip is defined at least in part by a pair of parallel rows of slits, a tear direction of the first tear strip being one or a single direction or bi-directional (Lipinski: paragraphs 19-20 and FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 40, Davis as modified by Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 26 above, wherein a first end and a second end of the first tear strip each define an arcuate-shaped surface between a pair of notches that are configured to grasp and initiate a tearing of the first tear strip (Lipinski: FIG. 2, rounded arcuate-shaped surface between a pair of notches that are configured to grasp and initiate tearing and Grapp: FIG. 10, first and second end of the tears strip each defining a pointed arcuate shaped surface between a pair of notches that are configured to grasp and initiate tearing).
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 13-16, 26 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arneson (US 3,372,800) in view of Oliff (US 4,453,664), Lipinski and Grapp.
Regarding claim 1, Arneson teaches a blank, comprising:
two or more wide panels (25/26/27/28, 41/42/43/44); and
at least two narrow panels (18, 20) attached to the two or more wide panels, each of the two or more wide panels being separated from each other by at least one of the at least two narrow panels (Fig. 6),
a first narrow panel of the at least two narrow panels, the first narrow panel having a first width that is perpendicular to a (second) longitudinal length of the blank (Fig. 6), and
a second narrow panel of the at least two narrow panels, the second narrow panel having side edges and a second width that is perpendicular to the (second) longitudinal length of the blank (Fig. 6) (column 3 line 11-column 5 line 5 and Fig. 6).
Arneson fails to teach the first narrow panel defining a first tear strip having a first longitudinal length that spans across the first width of the first narrow panel. Oliff teaches an analogous blank and carrier and teaches providing a first tear strip (12) in a side panel of the container, the first tear strip having a first longitudinal length that spans across a first width of the side panel and perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the blank (Fig. 3). Oliff is entirely vague about the structure of the tear strip, and the examiner merely relies on Oliff to establish that it is known in the art to apply tear strips to the precise style and application of container taught by Arneson. Lipinski teaches an analogous blanks and sleeve for a container and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the blank with a tear strip (120) having a longitudinal length that spans across a width of a narrow panel and that is perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the blank (FIG. 1, 2) in order to easily separate sections of the sleeve to facilitate removal of the sleeve from around its respective container (paragraphs 19, 20 and FIG. 1, 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Arneson by defining a first tear strip in panel 20 (panel 20 being the first narrow panel, applies to claim 13), or alternatively in panel 18 (panel 18 being the first narrow panel, applies to claims 14-16), or alternatively in both panels 18 and 20 (panel 18 being the first narrow panel, applies to claims 14-17), wherein the first tear strip has a first longitudinal length that spans across the first width of the first narrow panel and is perpendicular to the second longitudinal length of the blank, as taught by Oliff and Lipinski, in order to easily separate section of the sleeve formed from the blank to facilitate removal of the sleeve from around its respective container.
Arneson also fails to teach the side edges of the second narrow panel having a pair of alignment notches aligned with each other across the second width of the second narrow panel. Grapp teaches an analogous blank having panels configured to overlap to seal the blank and a tear strip (115, 116) (FIG. 10). Grapp further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure both an upper and lower of the overlapping panels to include a tear strip (115, 116), wherein both side edges of the tear strips have alignment notches that define a tab at each of the side edges of the tear strips, wherein the notches are aligned with each other in the overlap and are also aligned with each other across a width (left to right as shown in figure 10) of the overlapping panels and the tear strip (FIG. 10), in order to ensure proper alignment of the overlapping panels, in order to facilitate tearing through both of the overlapping panels, and in order to enable grasping, tearing and opening from either of the side edges (column 5 line 68-column 6 line 74 and FIG. 10).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Arneson by also providing the side edges of the second narrow panel with a pair of alignment notches aligned with each other across the second width of the second narrow panel, as taught by Grapp, in order to ensure proper alignment of the first and second narrow panels, and/or in order to facilitate tearing through both of the first and second narrow panels, and/or in order to enable grasping, tearing and opening from either of the side edges.
Regarding claim 2, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the blank is configured to be at least partially wrapped around an outer container (Arneson: Fig. 1), a first shape of the two or more wide panels being conformed to a second shape of two major surfaces on the outer container (Arneson: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 2 above, wherein the two or more wide panels are configured to directly contact and at least partially cover the two major surfaces, the two major surfaces opposing each other on the outer container (Arneson: Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, but fails to teach an outer surface of the two or more wide panels or a first outer surface of the two or more wide panels and a second outer surface of the at least two narrow panels including indicia including customer information. However, the office does not consider indicia including consumer information a patentable feature as it has been held that where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.01 III.
Regarding claim 8, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein each of the two or more wide panels have first major surfaces that are substantially rectangular in shape, the first major surfaces having first rounded corners (Arneson: Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the blank is a single web of material (Arneson: Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein terminal panels on distal ends of the blank include the first narrow panel and a first wide panel of the two or more wide panels (Arneson: Fig. 6). Note: the specification and drawings of the elected species describes the first narrow panel 7720 (0251) on a top end of the Drawing 79A having a tab 7765 for joining to the other side of the blank (0285). For consistency with the disclosure, the examiner interprets a panel including such a glue tab to be on a terminal end of the blank. Arneson modified with a tear strip to be located in panel 20, as described regarding claim 1 above, teaches terminal panels on distal ends of the blank include the first narrow panel 20 and a first wide panel (the container bottom) of the two or more wide panels (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein terminal panels on distal ends of the blank include the second narrow panel and a first wide panel of the two or more wide panels (Arneson: Fig. 6). Note: the specification and drawings of the elected species describes the first narrow panel 7720 (0251) on a top end of the Drawing 79A having a tab 7765 for joining to the other side of the blank (0285). For consistency with the disclosure, the examiner interprets a panel including such a glue tab to be on a terminal end of the blank. Arneson modified with a tear strip to be located in panel 18, as described regarding claim 1 above, teaches terminal panels on distal ends of the blank include a second narrow panel 20 of the at least two narrow panels and a first wide panel (the container bottom) of the two or more wide panels (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 14 above, wherein a tab (21) extends from a distal end of the second narrow panel (20), the tab being configured to be adhesively connected to the first wide panel when the blank is wrapped around an outer container (Arneson: column 3 lines 39-40 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 14 above, wherein the first narrow panel is between the first wide panel and a second wide panel, the second wide panel being one of the two or more wide panels, the first wide panel and the second wide panel being equally sized panels (Arneson: Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 26, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the first tear strip is defined at least in part by a pair of parallel rows of slits (Lipinski: Fig. 2), a tear direction of the first tear strip being one or a single direction or bi-directional (Lipinski: paragraphs 19-20 and FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 40, Arneson as modified by Oliff, Lipinski and Grapp teaches the blank of claim 26 above, wherein a first end and a second end of the first tear strip each define an arcuate-shaped surface between a pair of notches that are configured to grasp and initiate a tearing of the first tear strip (Lipinski: FIG. 2, rounded arcuate-shaped surface between a pair of notches that are configured to grasp and initiate tearing and Grapp: FIG. 10, first and second end of the tears strip each defining a pointed arcuate shaped surface between a pair of notches that are configured to grasp and initiate tearing).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that neither Lipinski nor Grapp teach or suggest alignment notches, is not persuasive.
Both the upper and lower tear strips shown in figure 10 of Grapp include notches at both ends that define a grip tab at both ends. In additional to defining grip tabs, proper alignment of the upper and lower tear strips can be achieved via the notches.
Applicant’s argument that the notches taught by Lipinski are adjacent to each other rather than being aligned with each other, is not persuasive.
Lipinski was not intended to teach notches that are aligned with each other as the limitation is taught by Grapp.
Applicant’s argument that any combination of Lipinski and Grapp does not teach or suggest a pair of alignment notches aligned with each other across a second width of the second narrow panel, is not persuasive.
It can be clearly seen in figure 10 of Grapp that the blank has panels configured to overlap when the blank is folded, where each of the panels that are configured to overlap further include a tear strip, notches and grip tabs. The tear strips, the notches and the grip tabs are respectively aligned when the blank is folded and the panels are overlapped. Further, in both the blank and when the blank is folded and the panels are overlapped, the notches on one side/edge are aligned with respective notches on the opposite side/edge. More specifically, a first notch on a left side/edge of the top of the folded blank is aligned with a respective first notch on a right side/edge of the top of the folded blank (Fig. 10). Similarly, a second notch on the left side/edge of the top of the folded blank is aligned with a respective second notch on a right side/edge of the folded blank (Fig. 10).
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 NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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, Nathan 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights