DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the portion of the side wall of the container extending through the first opening must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 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. A portion of the side wall of the container extending through the first opening is new matter.
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 (926, 928 or 220) 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. 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 3/4/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that his disclosure clearly discloses a portion of the side wall of the container extending through the first opening - the Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s Fig. 1 shows element 18a in what can be interpreted to be within the carton and not extending through the first opening. It should be noted that applicant’s specification also fails to mention any such limitation. Even if, arguendo, applicant’s Fig. 1 discloses “a portion of the side wall of the container extending through the first opening,” it is the Office’s position then that Voelker discloses “a portion of the side wall of the container extending through the first opening.” See Voelker, Fig. 1, at ref. no. 150.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
Prosecution Insights