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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites (bold added for emphasis) “A shipping box…comprising: a sheet…wherein, in an assembled configuration of the shipping box…first and second exterior sidewall flaps connected to and arranged parallel to the bottom flap”. The examiner understands the first-fourth exterior sidewall flaps refer to what the specification calls structural sidewall flaps, and the specification states (0033) these are each perpendicular to the bottom when the box is assembled.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-17 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 1 recites (bold added for emphasis) “A shipping box…comprising: a sheet…wherein, in an assembled configuration of the shipping box…first and second exterior sidewall flaps connected to and arranged parallel to the bottom flap”. The specification and drawings describe a variety of embodiments, but the only flaps that are exterior panels that are arranged parallel to the bottom are lid flap, and claim 1 recites a lid flap. This renders the claim indefinite because there is no interpretation of the claim that is both supported by the specification and consistent with the naming conventions of the specification. For purpose of examination on the merits, the examiner interprets claim 1 as if the word parallel was a typographical error instead recited the first and second exterior sidewall flaps were arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap.
Claim 1 recites “a sheet comprising flaps….the flaps include…first and second exterior sidewall flaps” and then later recites “a folding line connecting the third exterior sidewall flap to a first of the flaps of the sheet, the first groove housing a first protrusion extending from a second of the flaps of the sheet”. This renders the claim indefinite because if the ‘a first/second of the flaps of the sheet’ refers to a new element of the sheet or if it refers to the first/second exterior sidewall flaps, which are flaps of the sheet that include the names first and second.
Claim 2 recites “laps of the sheet further include: a first interior bottom flap connected to the third exterior sidewall flap”. The specification and drawings describe this flap to be located on the other side of the groove. This renders the claim indefinite because this panel is already recited as ‘a first of the flaps of the sheet’ and it is unclear if this first interior bottom flap is the same flap or if it is a new element. For purpose of examination on the merits, the examiner interprets these as the same flap.
Claim 3 recites “the first groove is arranged along a folding line connecting the third exterior sidewall flap and the first interior bottom flap” when parent claim 1 recites “the first groove extending along a folding line connecting the third exterior sidewall flap to a first of the flaps of the sheet”. This is effectively a double recitation of the same limitation and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the second ‘a fold line’ should refer to a new fold line or the same fold line.
Claim 4 recites “a first interior sidewall flap connected to the second exterior sidewall flap” when parent claim 1 recites “the first groove housing a first protrusion extending from a second of the flaps”. The examiner understands that from the specification and drawings that these are the same panel, so this is effectively a double recitation of the same element and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this refers to the same element or an initial recitation of an additional element. For purpose of examination on the merits the examiner interprets this as a reference to the same element.
Claim 7 recites inner bottom flaps having a cavity to house structural bottom reinforcement flaps. The examiner understands from the specification and drawings that these are the same structure as the recited groove and protrusion already recited in parent claim 1, so this is effectively a double recitation of the same element and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this refers to the same element or an initial recitation of an additional element. For purpose of examination on the merits the examiner interprets this as a reference to the same element.
Claim 9 recites first and second reinforcement flaps. The examiner understands from the specification and drawings that these are the same structure as the recited groove and protrusion already recited in parent claim 1, so this is effectively a double recitation of the same element and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this refers to the same element or an initial recitation of an additional element. For purpose of examination on the merits the examiner interprets this as a reference to the same element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frohlicher (US 4,257,550).
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 22 and arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap, the third exterior sidewall flap 12a having a first groove 26, the first groove extending along a folding line 8 connecting the third exterior sidewall flap 12a to a first 4 of the flaps of the sheet, the first groove 26 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).
Regarding claim 2, Frohlicher teaches (Fig. 1) the flaps of the sheet further include: 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 (Fig. 10); and a second interior bottom flap 6 connected to the fourth exterior sidewall flap 14a and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Frohlicher teaches the first of the flaps of the sheet is the first interior bottom flap 4; the first groove 26 is arranged along a folding line 8 connecting the third exterior sidewall flap 12a and the first interior bottom flap 4 (Fig. 1); and a second groove 28 is arranged along a folding line 8 connecting the fourth exterior sidewall flap 14a and the second interior bottom flap 6.
Regarding claim 4, Frohlicher teaches the flaps of the sheet further include (Fig. 1): 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 12a (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 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Frohlicher teaches 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 (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Frohlicher teaches the lid flap 56 is a first lid flap; the shipping box further comprises a second lid flap 78 connected to one of the 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).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 6,840,437 B2).
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 30 and arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap, the third exterior sidewall flap having a first groove 381, the first groove extending along a folding line 361 connecting the third exterior sidewall flap to a first 38 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. 8); and a lid flap 32 connected to one of the exterior sidewall flaps and arranged parallel to the bottom flap of the shipping box (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the flaps of the sheet further include: a first interior bottom flap 38 connected to the third exterior sidewall flap and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap; and a second interior bottom flap 38’ connected to the fourth exterior sidewall flap and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the first of the flaps of the sheet is the first interior bottom flap; the first groove is arranged along a folding line connecting the third exterior sidewall flap and the first interior bottom flap; and a second groove 372 is arranged along a folding line 371 connecting the fourth exterior sidewall flap 37 and the second interior bottom flap 38’ (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the flaps of the sheet further include (Fig. 1): 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 (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.
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches (Fig. 5) 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 372 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’ (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches 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 (Fig. 10).
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michetti (US 4,765,535) in view of Carruth (US 2,220,076).
Regarding claim 1, Michetti teaches a shipping box comprising: a sheet (Fig. 1) comprising flaps connected by folding lines enabling the sheet to be foldable into a shape of the shipping box (Fig. 3), wherein, in an assembled configuration of the shipping box, the flaps include: a bottom flap 10; first and second exterior sidewall flaps 12 connected to and arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap; third and fourth exterior sidewall flaps 14 connected to the first exterior sidewall flap and arranged perpendicular to the bottom flap, the third exterior sidewall flap having a first groove 19, the first groove extending along a folding line 17 connecting the third exterior sidewall flap to a first 16 of the flaps of the sheet, the first groove housing a first protrusion 24 extending from a second 22 of the flaps of the sheet. Michetti does not teach a lid flap. Carruth teaches an analogous collapsible box (Fig. 2) formed from a sheet (Fig. 1) and teaches providing a lid flap 5 connected to one of the exterior sidewall flaps and arranged parallel to the bottom flap of the shipping box (pg. 3, left column, lines 9-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify thet structure of Michetti to include a lid flap as taught by Carruth with the motivation of covering and protecting contents of the box.
Regarding claim 2, Michetti teaches the flaps of the sheet further include: a first interior bottom flap 16 connected to the third exterior sidewall flap 14 and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap; and a second interior bottom flap 14 connected to the fourth exterior sidewall flap 14 and arranged along an interior surface of the bottom flap (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Mechetti teaches the first 16 of the flaps of the sheet is the first interior bottom flap 16; the first groove 19 is arranged along the folding line connecting the third exterior sidewall flap 14 and the first interior bottom flap; and a second groove 19 is arranged along a folding line 17 connecting the fourth exterior sidewall flap and the second interior bottom flap (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Michetti teaches each of the first and second interior bottom flaps 16 comprises a cavity 19 to house structural bottom reinforcement flaps 24 (Fig. 4).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 6,840,437 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corso (US 5,018,663).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches a lid flap 33, but Chen does not 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 is modified with the lid structure of Corso, and Corso teaches the first 12 and second 13 lid flaps include slots 15 to engage each other (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 (US 4,257,550) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pascus (US 3,510,047). Frohlicher does not teach a tear strip in the lid flaps. Pascus teaches an analogously formed blank and shipping box and teaches a lid that secures closed and is opened using a tear strip 26. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of 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 (US 6,840,437 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graser (US 3,258,189). Chen teaches at least one of the first and second flaps is a space reduction flap (Fig. 10). Chen teaches the flap is 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Chen with the motivation of providing additional partitions to separate contents.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 6,840,437 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai (CN 112238995 A).
Regarding claim 15, Chen does not teach the first and second upper flaps further comprise 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Chen with the holding elements of Cai for that purpose.
Regarding claim 15, Chen is modified the with the holding elements of Cai, and Cai teaches each of the holding elements comprises (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 (US 4,257,550) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison (US 5,007,580).
Regarding claim 6, Frohlicher teaches 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 (Fig. 3). Frolicher does not 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 Frochlicher 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Frohlicher with apertures as taught by Morrison for that purpose.
Regarding claim 17, Frohlicher is modified with the structure of Morrison, and Morrison teaches a handle aperture within the upper flaps, which makes the upper flap a handle flap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to include the examiner’s interpretation of the underlying typographical error.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The current invention is drawn to a container formed by a blank (referring to Fig. 11a of the Drawings) with a base 1.1, one set of opposing sidewalls 2,3 extending from the base, and the other set opposing sidewalls formed by overlapping panels 4.1, 4.2 extending from the sidewalls and held together by interlocking elements. As set forth in the rejections above, this general container arrangement is known. The novel feature of the claimed invention is that it uses an inner bottom flap 1.2 having a socket 1.4 to receive a reinforcing flap 4.3 that is extending from the inner wall panel 4.2. Prior art teaches using a tab in place of element 4.3 (see rejection in view of Frohlicher (US 4,257,550) above) in combination with an upper flap folding down to enclose the inner wall, forming a triple thickness wall. Accordingly, the prior art does not teach or suggest the combined limitational concepts of double thickness wall, three upper functional flaps, and bottom flaps housing reinforcement flaps as recited in claims 18-20.
Michetti (US 4,765,535) teaches using a reinforcing flap, but this reinforcing flap extends from an overlapping upper flap, and the examiner finds no basis that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such a reinforcing flap in the manner taught by the current disclosure. Michetti is applied above to claims that are non-specific about the location of a reinforcing flap. Claim 9 recites the necessary structure establish the reinforcement flap’s novel placement, and accordingly would be contain allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP D SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)272-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; hours vary approximately 0800-1900.
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.
/PHILLIP D SCHMIDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights