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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 13, “the exterior sidewall flaps” should be --the first, second, third or fourth exterior sidewall flaps--.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “the exterior sidewall flaps” should be --the first, second, third or fourth exterior sidewall flaps--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3-4, “the exterior sidewall flaps” should be --the first, second, third or fourth exterior sidewall flaps--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frohlicher (US 4,257,550) in view of Blazevich (US 6,464,131 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Frohlicher teaches a shipping box (Fig. 8) comprising:
a sheet (Fig. 1) comprising flaps connected by folding lines enabling the sheet to be foldable into a shape of the shipping box (Figs. 2-4), wherein, in an assembled configuration of the shipping box, the flaps include:
a bottom flap (2);
first (22) and second (36) exterior sidewall flaps connected to and arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap;
third (12a) and fourth (14a) exterior sidewall flaps connected to the first exterior sidewall flap and arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap, a first (4) of the flaps of the sheet having a first groove (26) extending along a folding line (8) connecting the third exterior sidewall flap to the first of the flaps of the sheet, the first groove housing a first protrusion (52) extending from a second (40) of the flaps of the sheet (Fig. 10); and
a lid flap (56) connected to one of the exterior sidewall flaps and arranged parallel to the bottom flap of the shipping box (Fig. 9).
Frohlicher fails to teach the first groove being positioned on the third exterior sidewall flap. Blazevich teaches a box having an analogous flap locking configuration including a groove (24) extending along a folding line connecting adjacent flaps (12, 50/54), wherein the groove is configured to house a protrusion (30) extending from another flap (52/56). Blazevich further teaches that the grooves are known in the prior art to be formed at a junction between the two adjacent flaps such that the groove extends into each of the adjacent flaps (column 2 line 66-column 3 line 21 and FIG. 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 Frohlicher by forming the first groove to additionally extend into the third exterior sidewall flap, as suggested by Blazevich, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a common structure and position for analogous locking grooves.
Regarding claim 2, Frohlicher as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 1 above, wherein the first of the flaps of the sheet is a first interior bottom flap (4) connected to the third exterior sidewall flap (12a) and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap 2 (Frohlicher: Fig. 2, 3, 4, 10); and the shipping box further includes a second interior bottom flap (6) connected to the fourth exterior sidewall flap (14a) and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap (Frohlicher: Fig. 2, 3, 4).
Regarding claim 3, Frohlicher as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 2 above, wherein a second groove (28) is arranged along a folding line (10) connecting the fourth exterior sidewall flap and the second interior bottom flap (Frohlicher: Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 4, Frohlicher as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 2 above, wherein the flaps of the sheet further include: a first interior sidewall flap (40) connected to the second exterior sidewall flap (36) and arranged along an interior surface of the third exterior sidewall flap (Frohlicher: Figs. 4 and 10); and a second interior sidewall flap (42) connected to the second exterior sidewall flap (36) and arranged along an interior surface of the fourth exterior sidewall flap (Frohlicher: Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Frohlicher as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 4 above, wherein the second (40) of the flaps of the sheet is the first interior sidewall flap (40) and the first protrusion (52) extends from the first interior sidewall flap; a second groove (28) is arranged along a folding line 10 connecting the fourth exterior sidewall flap (41a) and the second interior bottom flap (6); and a second protrusion (54) housed in the second groove extends from the second interior sidewall flap (Frohlicher: Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Frohlicher as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 1 above, wherein the lid flap (56) is a first lid flap; and the shipping box further comprises a second lid flap (78) connected to one of the first, second, third or fourth exterior sidewall flaps; and the second lid flap is arranged parallel to the first lid flap and overlaps with the first lid flap (Fig. 10), the second lid flap comprising a sealing element (flaps including tabs 94) (Frohlicher: Fig. 1-4, 6-8).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 6,840,437 B2) in view of Blazevich.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a shipping box (Fig. 4) comprising:
a sheet (Fig. 5) comprising flaps connected by folding lines enabling the sheet to be foldable into a shape of the shipping box (Fig. 6), wherein, in an assembled configuration of the shipping box, the flaps include:
a bottom flap (31);
first (30) and second (32) exterior sidewall flaps connected to and arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap;
third (36) and fourth (37) exterior sidewall flaps connected to the first exterior sidewall flap and arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap, a first (38) of the flaps of the sheet having a first groove (381) extending along a folding line (361) connecting the third exterior sidewall flap to the first of the flaps of the sheet, the first groove housing a first protrusion (351) extending from a second (35) of the flaps of the sheet (Fig. 5-8); and
a lid flap (33) connected to one of the first, second, third or fourth exterior sidewall flaps and arranged parallel to the bottom flap of the shipping box (Fig. 12).
Chen fails to teach the first groove being positioned on the third exterior sidewall flap. Blazevich teaches a box having an analogous flap locking configuration including a groove (24) extending along a folding line connecting adjacent flaps (12, 50/54), wherein the groove is configured to house a protrusion (30) extending from another flap (52/56). Blazevich further teaches that the grooves are known in the prior art to be formed at a junction between the two adjacent flaps such that the groove extends into each of the adjacent flaps (column 2 line 66-column 3 line 21 and FIG. 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 Chen by forming the first groove to additionally extend into the third exterior sidewall flap, as suggested by Blazevich, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a common structure and position for analogous locking grooves.
Regarding claim 2, Chen as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 1 above, wherein the first of the flaps of the sheet is a first interior bottom flap (38) connected to the third exterior sidewall flap and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap; and the shipping box further includes a second interior bottom flap (38’) connected to the fourth exterior sidewall flap and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap (Chen: Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Chen as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 2 above, wherein a second groove (381’) is arranged along a folding line (371) connecting the fourth exterior sidewall flap and the second interior bottom flap (Chen: FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Chen as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 2 above, wherein the flaps of the sheet further include: a first interior sidewall flap (35) connected to the second exterior sidewall flap (32) and arranged along an interior surface of the third exterior sidewall flap (Chen: Fig. 8); and a second interior sidewall flap (35’) connected to the second exterior sidewall flap (32) and arranged along an interior surface of the fourth exterior sidewall flap (37) (Chen: Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Chen as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 4 above, wherein the second of the flaps of the sheet is the first interior sidewall flap (35) and the first protrusion (351) extends from the first interior sidewall flap; a second groove (381) is arranged along a folding line (371) connecting the fourth exterior sidewall flap (37) and the second interior bottom flap (38’); and a second protrusion (351’) housed in the second groove extends from the second interior sidewall flap (35’) (Chen: Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Chen as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 1 above, wherein the flaps of the sheet further include: first (39) and second (39’) upper flaps connected to different ones of the exterior sidewall flaps (36, 37) on a side of the shipping box opposite the bottom flap, the first and second upper flaps being folded to: reduce an interior space of the shipping box, clamp an object in the shipping box, separate an interior space of the shipping box into separate parts, and/or provide a handle (Chen: Fig. 10).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Blazevich, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corso (US 5,018,663).
Regarding claim 11, Chen as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 1 above, but fails to teach a pair of lid flaps. Corso teaches an analogous container and teaches using a lid structure comprising first 62 and second 63 lid flaps connected to exterior sidewall flaps of the box, the lid flaps being arranged parallel to each other and the bottom flap, and the second lid flap comprising a sealing element 69. Corso also teaches including a handle structure 15. (Fig. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the structure of Chen to use the lid structure of Corso with the motivation of providing a lid that may be secured and provide an improved hand carrying structure, as taught by Corso (col 2 lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 13, Chen as modified by Blazevich and Corso teaches the box of claim 11 above, wherein the first (12) and second (13) lid flaps include slots 15 to engage each other (Corso: col 2 lines 68-68). Corso also teaches slots (28 and 22) for receiving fastening elements that are part of the lid structures extending from the opposing sides of the container.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frohlicher in view of Blazevich, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pascus (US 3,510,047).
Regarding claim 12, Frohlicher as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 11 above, but fails to teach the second lid flap comprising at least one tear strip. Pascus teaches an analogously formed blank and shipping box and teaches a lid that secures closed and is opened using a tear strip (26).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Frohlicher to use the lid structure of Pascus with the motivation of providing a closure that can seal to prevent the container from inadvertently opening, as taught by Pascus (Col 1 lines 29-44) as it constitutes a simple substitution to a known alternative closure structure that would provide a predictable result.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Blazevich, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Graser (US 3,258,189 A).
Regarding claim 14, Chen as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 6 above, wherein at least one of the first and second flaps is a space reduction flap (Chen: Fig. 10). Chen teaches the flap being a partition flap (col 3 lines 66-67), but Chen does not teach one or more slits defining secondary flaps. Graser teaches a partition and teaches providing one or more slits defining secondary flaps to form additional partition elements (FIG. 1-3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the structure of Chen, as suggested by Graser, with the motivation of providing additional partitions to separate contents.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Blazevich, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cai (CN 112238995 A).
Regarding claim 15, Chen as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 6 above, but fails to teach the first and second upper flaps further comprising fastening flaps to clamp objects in the shipping box. Cai teaches an analogously formed container using upper flaps and teaches providing fastening flaps (21, 22, 23) (Fig. 1) extending from the upper flaps (121, 122) for holding different sized items (see translated background) in the container (Fig. 6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the structure of Chen with the holding elements of Cai for the purpose of holding different sized items in the container.
Regarding claim 16, Chen as modified by Blazevich and Cai teaches the box of claim 15 above, wherein each of the holding elements comprises (Cai: Fig. 2) at least one hole (2221) and slits (2211, 2311).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frohlicher in view of Blazevich, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison (US 5,007,580).
Regarding claim 6, Frohlicher as modified by Blazevich teaches the box of claim 1 above, wherein the flaps of the sheet further include: first (12b) and second (14b) upper flaps connected to different ones of the exterior sidewall flaps (12a, 14a) on a side of the shipping box opposite the bottom flap (Frohlicher: Fig. 3) but fails to teach the first and second upper flaps being folded to: reduce an interior space of the shipping box, clamp an object in the shipping box, separate an interior space of the shipping box into separate parts, and/or provide a handle.
Morrison teaches an analogous shipping container using the same wall formation structure as Frohlicher and teaches providing apertures 71 (Fig. 1) the outer flaps 17, inner flaps 16, and upper flaps 15 that form such a sidewall for the purpose of providing a comfortable grip for carrying the container (col 3 lines 18-30).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the structure of Frohlicher with apertures as taught by Morrison for the purpose of providing a comfortable grip for carrying the container.
Regarding claim 17, Frohlicher as modified by Blazevich and Morrison teaches the box of claim 6 above, wherein Morrison teaches a handle aperture within the upper flaps, which makes the upper flap a handle flap (Morrison: FIG. 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowable over the prior art.
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made as presented hereinabove.
Conclusion
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