DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Application Status
This action is responsive to the submission filed 10/30/2025.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are currently pending.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickerson US 4,317,536 in view of Dalrymple US 5,855,317 and Rohde US 3,531,041.
Regarding claim 1:
Dickerson teaches a method of manufacturing a tray, the method comprising: assembling the tray (FIG. 1) comprising a top panel (12), two top end panels (26/22/26), and two top side panels (14/18), the two top end panels each comprising three top end panel extensions (26, 22, 26) and the two top side panels each comprising two top side panel extensions (14, 18), wherein the two top side panels are longer than the two top end panels (i.e., 14/18 are longer than 26/22/26), wherein assembling the tray comprises: folding a first top end panel extension of the three top end panel extensions such that the first top end panel extension is approximately perpendicular to the top panel; folding a second and third top end panel extension of the three top end panel extensions such that the second and third top end panel extensions are approximately perpendicular to the first top end panel extension; and folding the two top side panel extensions around the second and third top end panel extensions (all steps envisaged in FIG. 2).
Dickerson does not teach assembling the bottom comprising a bottom panel, two bottom end panels, and two bottom side panels, the two bottom end panels each comprising two bottom end panel extensions and the two bottom side panels each comprising three bottom side panel extensions, wherein assembling the bottom comprises: folding a first bottom side panel extension of the three bottom side panel extensions such that the first bottom side panel extension is approximately perpendicular to the bottom panel; folding a second and third bottom side panel extension of the three bottom side panel extensions such that the second and third bottom side panel extensions are approximately perpendicular to the first bottom side panel extension; and folding the two bottom end panel extensions around the second and third bottom side panel extensions; and assembling the tray by inserting the bottom into the top.
Dalrymple discloses a related simple tray comprising a top and bottom, disclosing “These cartons are typically used in connection with a matching lid of identical construction but of approximately 1/8" greater length and width so that the base and lid telescope together.” (col. 5, lines 47-50).
Since Dickerson’s tray, when viewed as a bottom (in light of Dalrymple’s suggestion of identical construction between the top and bottom) comprises a bottom panel (12), two bottom end panels (14/18), and two bottom side panels (26/22/26), the two bottom end panels each comprising two bottom end panel extensions (14, 18) and the two bottom side panels each comprising three bottom side panel extensions (26, 22, 26), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Dickerson, in view of Dalrymple’s suggestion, to use the same template for both the bottom and top, as claimed and to assemble the bottom by folding a first bottom side panel extension of the three bottom side panel extensions such that the first bottom side panel extension is approximately perpendicular to the bottom panel; folding a second and third bottom side panel extension of the three bottom side panel extensions such that the second and third bottom side panel extensions are approximately perpendicular to the first bottom side panel extension; and folding the two bottom end panel extensions around the second and third bottom side panel extensions (as shown by Dickerson in FIG. 2); and assemble the tray by inserting the bottom into the top, as suggested by Dalrymple, since this would simplify the production of tops and bottoms by having them folded from the same type of blank. While neither reference specifically discloses wherein the two bottom side panels are longer than the two bottom end panels, it would have been obvious to try for a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the construction of the bottom by transposing the bottom by making the ends (14/18) the sides (26/22/26) and vice versa, such that the two bottom side panels are longer than the two bottom end panels, since there are only two possible configurations of arranging the bottom to fit with the top. This might allow the bottom to be strengthened at its ends which may be beneficial when storing certain types of goods.
Dickerson and Dalrymple do not teach wherein the three top end panel extensions each define a rectangular shape (i.e., extensions 26 of Dickerson have a curved corner).
However, Rohde discloses a tray (see FIGS. 2-5) of nearly identical construction wherein the analogous three top end panel extensions (107/106/107) each define a rectangular shape, the tray then folded in the same way as Dickerson.
Given that only Dickerson’s base tray 11 is proposed to be used, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tray of Dickerson by using rectangular shapes for each of the three top end panel extensions, as taught by Rohde, since this would provide more contact surface area in the folded state, leading to a more rigid structure. Furthermore, it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 II A). In this case, since the curved corners of Dickerson are only useful for the opening of the folded tray, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to omit the curved portions in favor of rectangular corners, when such an opening procedure was not desired (e.g., when only a permanently folded tray structure is desired, as is the case in the proposed Dickerson and Dalrymple combination).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, and Rohde teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the two top side panel extensions include at least one tab (32) and the top panel defines at least one hole (34).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, and Rohde teaches the method of claim 2, as discussed above, further comprising inserting the at least one tab into the at least one hole (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, and Rohde teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the two bottom end panel extensions include at least one tab (32) and the bottom panel defines at least one hole (34).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, and Rohde teaches the method of claim 2, as discussed above, further comprising inserting the at least one tab into the at least one hole (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in an assembled configuration, the two top side panel extensions wrap around the second and third top end panel extensions to maintain a structure of the two top end panels and the two top side panels.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, and Rohde, as applied above, and further in view of Chambers US 2021/0107712.
Regarding claim 6-7 and 9-10:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, and Rohde teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising manufacturing a packaging apparatus including manufacturing an outer sleeve and an inner sleeve of the packaging apparatus; inserting the packaging apparatus into the tray; inserting the outer sleeve into the bottom of the tray; and inserting the inner sleeve into the outer sleeve within the bottom of the tray.
Chambers, however, discloses manufacturing a re-lockable, environmentally friendly packaging apparatus (abstract; FIG. 2A/B, 100/200) including an outer sleeve (202) and an inner sleeve (204) of the packaging apparatus.
Since Dickerson’s tray is used as a container for holding contents (abstract), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of the combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, and Rohde by manufacturing the re-lockable, environmentally friendly packaging apparatus including an outer sleeve and an inner sleeve, as taught by Chambers, and inserting the packaging apparatus into the tray, keeping it safe for shipping purposes. Since there are only three possible ways to insert the packaging apparatus into the tray (e.g. (1) as a combined inner/outer sleeve unit; (2) outer sleeve first, then inner; and (3) inner sleeve first, then outer), it would have been obvious to try for a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to first insert the packaging apparatus into the tray by inserting the outer sleeve into the bottom of the tray; and then inserting the inner sleeve into the outer sleeve within the bottom of the tray, as can clearly be envisaged in FIGS. 2C and 2D of Chambers.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, and Chambers, as applied above, and further in view of Sugimura et al. US 5,876,502.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, and Chambers teaches the method of claim 6, as discussed above, wherein manufacturing the outer sleeve and the inner sleeve of the packaging apparatus comprises: assembling the outer sleeve, the outer sleeve comprises a first glue lap (Chambers, 392) and an outer sleeve bottom panel (312), wherein assembling the outer sleeve comprises: applying glue on the first glue lap ([0044]); and folding the first glue lap onto the outer sleeve bottom panel such that the glue adheres the first glue lap to the outer sleeve bottom panel ([0044]), wherein the first glue lap and the outer sleeve bottom panel form a locking ridge (322; [0050]); assembling the inner sleeve, the inner sleeve comprises a locking tab (316) configured to interface the locking ridge of the outer sleeve to secure the inner sleeve within the outer sleeve, the locking ridge and the locking tab at least partially define a locking mechanism ([0050] last sentence); and assembling the packaging apparatus by inserting the inner sleeve into the outer sleeve (FIG. 4A).
While the combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, and Chambers does not explicitly teach assembling the outer(inner) sleeve using a first(second) machine, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to use first and second machines to assemble the outer and inner sleeves, respectively, since the two sleeves require different folding and adhering requirements.
While the combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, and Chambers also does not teach applying at least two glue lines on the first glue lap, Sugimura discloses applying three equidistant glue lines to a similar flap to be glued (col. 10, lines 37-41), disclosing the glue lines may be of different lengths (col. 11, lines 41-46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of the combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, and Chambers, by providing three equidistant glue lines to the Chambers glue lap, as taught by Sugimura, since this would provide a way to strongly adhere the glue lap to the outer sleeve bottom panel. See annotated FIG. 3A below for an interpretation of Sugimura’s glue lines applied to Chambers’ glue lap.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
979
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the at least two glue lines comprise three glue lines including a first glue line, a second glue line, and a third glue line (Sugimura, col. 10, lines 37-41; Na in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 12, as discussed above, wherein the first glue lap includes a first portion and a second portion (Chambers, the glue lap can be arbitrarily sub-divided into portions).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 13, as discussed above, wherein the first glue line is positioned on the first portion (first glue line defines first portion).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 14, as discussed above, wherein the second glue line and the third glue line are positioned on the second portion (second and third glue lines define second portion).
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 15, as discussed above, wherein the first portion has a first portion length (length of g1) and the second portion has a second portion length (length of g2/g3).
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 16, as discussed above, wherein the first portion length is greater than the second portion length (see annotated FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 17, as discussed above, wherein the first portion has a first end and a second end, and wherein the first glue line extends from the first end to the second end (see annotated FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 17, as discussed above, wherein the second portion has a first end and a second end, and wherein the second glue line and the third glue line extend from the first end to the second end (see annotated FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of Dickerson, Dalrymple, Rohde, Chambers, and Sugimura teaches the method of claim 15, as discussed above, wherein the first glue line is separated from the second glue line by a first glue line distance and the second glue line is separated from the first glue line by a second glue line distance, and wherein the first glue line distance is equal to the second glue line distance (see annotated FIG. 3A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument is the Office’s proposed omission of the roundedness of the side flaps of Dickerson would be improper because the remaining elements would not be able to perform the same function as before. Examiner respectfully disagrees and takes the position that box-type trays (i.e., boxes) are ubiquitous and have a wide variety of uses. While Dickerson does provide means for opening and closing the tray 11 (shown in FIG. 2), Examiner takes the position that the remaining elements of the invention (e.g., the various panels and tray as a whole) would still perform the same function as before (i.e., holding contents) if the side flap roundedness were omitted, in favor of a design like Rohde’s. Examiner maintains that since the curved corners of Dickerson are only useful for the opening of the folded tray, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to omit the curved portions in favor of rectangular corners when such an opening procedure was not desired (e.g., when only a permanently folded tray structure is desired, as is the case in the proposed Dickerson and Dalrymple combination). In this case, Dickerson’s tray would still act as a tray for storing goods.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731