DETAILED ACTION
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 21-32 and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voelker (US 2012/0312813) in view of Dygert et al. (US 2008/0073317) and Stephenson (US 2006/0180643).
Regarding claim 21, Voelker discloses packaging comprising: a container (104) consisting of a handle (156), a shoulder (154), a spout (at 150), opposite top and bottom walls and a circumferential side wall connecting the top and bottom walls, inner surfaces of the walls defining an aperture (at 152), the handle being fixed relative to the top wall; and a carton (Fig. 1 and 24), the carton consisting of opposite top and bottom walls and a side wall extending from the top wall of the carton to the bottom wall of the carton, the carton comprising opposite top (at 102) and bottom (at 112) covers, opposite first and second side walls and opposite third and fourth side walls, the first and second side walls each extending from the top cover to the bottom cover and from the third side wall to the fourth side wall, the third and fourth side walls each extending from the top cover to the bottom cover and from the first side wall to the second side wall, the carton defining a first opening (926, 928 or 220) extending into the first side wall and top cover, and a second opening (226 or 228) extending into the side wall; and a portion (at 150) of the side wall of the container extending through the first opening (insofar as applicant discloses) such that a portion of the side wall of the container extends outwardly from one of the first, second, third and fourth side walls, and wherein the second opening is a bounded opening formed entirely within a body of the second side wall, is spaced from the first flap, the second flap, and all peripheral edges of the second side wall, and has a closed perimeter defined entirely by the material of the body of the second side wall. See Figs. 1 and 20-27. Voelker does not disclose the handle or flap.
Dygert, which is drawn to a container, discloses a handle (8) connecting the shoulder and the spout such that a portion of a proximal surface of the handle is flush with a proximal surface of a shoulder (9). See Fig. 2. Thus, it 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 to have the handle of Voelker connect to the shoulder, as disclosed by Dygert, in order to create bigger, or second, handle that can help in the handling of the container.
Stephenson, which is drawn to a carton, discloses the carton comprising a hinged flap that covers the second opening. See [0206]. Thus, it 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 to have a hinged closure flap over an opening, as disclosed by Stephenson in order to cover the opening when not in use.
Regarding claim 22, the shoulder and the spout each extend from the top wall. See Fig. 12.
Regarding claim 23, the spout is connected to an end of the handle that directly engages the spout such that the end of the handle is positioned distal to a proximal surface of the spout. See Fig. 15.
Regarding claim 24, the first opening extends into the top cover and the first side wall. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 25, the second opening extends into the second side wall and is spaced apart from the top cover. See Fig. 27.
Regarding claim 26, the third and fourth side walls are free of any openings. See Figs. 1-7.
Regarding claim 27, the second side wall includes a body and first and second foldable flaps. See Figs. 1-33.
Regarding claim 28, the foldable flaps extend from opposite sides of the body. See Fig. 11.
Regarding claim 29, the first foldable flap forms a portion of the top cover. See Fig . 11.
Regarding claim 30, the first foldable flap is free of any openings between the body and an outer edge of the first foldable flap. See Fig . 11.
Regarding claim 31, the second foldable flap forms a portion of the bottom cover. See Fig. 11.
Regarding claim 32, the second foldable flap is free of any openings between the body and an outer edge of the second foldable flap. See Fig. 11.
Regarding claim 34, the second side wall is visible through the second opening, the second side wall being opaque. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 35, a first portion of the second opening has a U-shaped configuration. See Figs. 2-3.
Regarding claim 36, a second portion of the first opening extends into the top cover and has an arcuate configuration. See Figs. 2-3.
Regarding claim 37, the second portion is disposed in a perpendicular orientation relative to the first portion. See Figs. 2-3.
Regarding claim 38, as modified above, the hinged flap is pivotable out of alignment with the second opening.
Regarding claim 39, the handle is disposed entirely within the container. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 40, a portion of the surface of the shoulder is continuous with an outer surface of the side wall of the container. See Fig. 16.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voelker, Dygert, and Stephenson as applied above in further view of Nahum-Albright (US 6,062,391).
Regarding claim 33, Voelker sufficiently discloses the claimed invention, but does not disclose a transparent side wall. Nahum-Albright, which is drawn to a carton, discloses a second side wall being transparent. See cl. 10. Thus, it 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 to have the second side wall of Voelker be transparent, as disclosed by Nahum-Albright, in order to see through the carton at contents therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/17/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a handle to better handle a container and a hinged flap over an opening in order to protect items within a carton.
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 DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
