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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 30-36 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the newly added claims are referring to different species of the middle panel than the original filed claims.
Species I: claim 29 (a middle panel with locking ridge of the outer sleeve);
Species II: claims 30-36 (a middle panel with a glue lap of the outer sleeve).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 30-36 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 21-26, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0036808).
Regarding claim 1: Everett discloses a method of using a packaging apparatus comprising:
sliding an inner sleeve into an outer sleeve of a packaging apparatus, see for example (Figs. 9-12; via 100 into 500);
wherein the inner sleeve comprises a locking tab of the inner sleeve (via 125), wherein the outer sleeve comprises a bottom panel of the outer sleeve, a top panel of the outer sleeve, a middle panel of the outer sleeve, a locking tab of the outer sleeve, a locking ridge of the outer sleeve, a first side panel of the outer sleeve, and a second side panel of the outer sleeve, and wherein the bottom panel of the outer sleeve is attached to the first side panel of the outer sleeve, the first side panel of the outer sleeve is attached to the top panel of the outer sleeve, the top panel of the outer sleeve is attached to the second side panel of the outer sleeve, the middle panel of the outer sleeve is attached to the second side panel of the outer sleeve, the locking tab of the outer sleeve is attached to the bottom panel of the outer sleeve, and the top panel, the first side panel, and the second side panel separate and are positioned between the middle panel and the bottom panel, see for example (Figs. 5-7 & 13; via the shown blank with its panels of the outer sleeve 500; with the locking tab/ridge 555).
engaging the locking tab of the inner sleeve with the locking ridge of the outer sleeve (Fig. 13; via 555/125), wherein the locking tab of the inner sleeve and the locking ridge of the outer sleeve are inverse cut-out of each other, see for example (Figs. 4-5; via the shown rectangular cut-outs of the locking mechanism 125 & 155).
locking the packaging apparatus responsive to engaging the locking tab of the inner sleeve with the locking ridge of the outer sleeve (Fig. 13; via locking means 555/125; while 555 is the locking ridge of the outer sleeve 500).
Everett may not suggest the exact location of the locking ridge of the outer sleeve is located on an end of the middle panel of the outer sleeve, but clearly disclosing the locking ridge and locking mechanism, see for example (Figs. 9-13, which are very similar to the filed application’s Fig. 5 and/or Fig. 18B; via the shown upper extended out section of the middle panel of sleeve 500), also see annoted figure below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Everett’s locking ridge of the outer sleeve location to be on an end of the middle panel of the outer sleeve, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: further comprising: pressing the locking tab of the inner sleeve into the outer sleeve via an aperture located in a bottom panel of the outer sleeve, see for example (Figs. 14-17; via F., the shown pressing into the outer sleeve 500); and disengaging the locking tab of the inner sleeve from the locking ridge of the outer sleeve to unlock the packaging apparatus (intended use limitations; inherently the inner sleeve 125 will be disengaged from the outer sleeve 555).
Regarding claim 3: further comprises: sliding the inner sleeve from the outer sleeve; latching the locking tab of the inner sleeve onto the locking tab of the outer sleeve; and locking the inner sleeve to the outer sleeve responsive to latching the locking tab of the inner sleeve onto the locking tab of the outer sleeve (Figs. 9-13; via locking 100 inside 500 using locking mechanism 125/555).
Regarding claim 4: wherein latching the locking tab of the inner sleeve (via 125) onto the locking tab of the outer sleeve (via 555) is responsive to the locking tab of the inner sleeve and the locking tab of the outer sleeve being angled in opposing directions, see for example (Fig. 13; via the angled 125/555).
Regarding claim 21: wherein the edge of the locking ridge of the outer sleeve and edge of the locking tab of the inner sleeve are arc-shaped and the edge of the locking ridge of the outer sleeve and edge of the locking tab of the inner sleeve are configured to oppose one another to form a first locking mechanism (via the arced corner shape of each locking mechanism 555/125 and being opposing each other).
Regarding claim 22: further comprising: accessing the locking tab of the inner sleeve when the inner sleeve is positioned inside the outer sleeve in a closed configuration via an aperture located on the bottom panel of the outer sleeve, see for example (Figs. 14-18; via the shown openings for pressing F).
Regarding claim 23: further comprising: pressing the locking tab of the inner sleeve into the outer sleeve via the aperture and disengage the locking tab of the inner sleeve from the locking ridge of the outer sleeve to unlock the packaging apparatus, see for example (Figs. 13-15; via F force).
Regarding claim 24: further comprising: preventing the inner sleeve from sliding entirely out of the outer sleeve with a second locking mechanism (intended use of the claimed “second locking mechanism; Figs. 9-13; via 135).
Regarding claim 25: further comprising: locking the inner sleeve partially inside the outer sleeve (Figs. 9-13; via using the locking mechanisms 125/155, and 135).
Regarding claim 26: further comprising: pressing a perforated top panel in a storage compartment in the inner sleeve into the storage compartment to receive and hold a storage item in place (intended use of the claimed “perforated top panel”; Fig. 5; via pressing on perforated top panel 510).
Regarding claim 28: further comprising: locking the inner sleeve in its entirety inside the outer sleeve (Fig. 13; via locking mechanism 555/125).
Regarding claim 29: further comprising: moving the locking tab of the inner sleeve connected to a bottom panel of the inner sleeve from a position in between and substantially parallel to the bottom panel of the inner sleeve and a middle panel of the outer sleeve to an angled position protruding into a first area of the outer sleeve proximate to a bottom panel of the outer sleeve and adjacent to the middle panel of the outer sleeve; engaging the locking tab of the inner sleeve with the locking ridge of the outer sleeve; and locking the packaging apparatus responsive to engaging the locking tab of the inner sleeve with the locking ridge of the outer sleeve, see for example (Figs. 9-13; via the sliding of inner sleeve 100 with locking mechanism 125 into sleeve 500 with locking mechanism 555).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0036808) in view of Chambers (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0072452).
Regarding claim 27: Everett does not disclose the claimed removing the inner sleeve from inside the outer sleeve with a pull tab. However, Chambers discloses similar method with the step of removing the inner sleeve from inside the outer sleeve using a pull tab, see for example (Fig. 1; via pull tab 134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Evrett’s inner sleeve, by having a pull tab, as suggested by Chambers, in order to simplify the pulling out and/or pushing in of the inner sleeve from/into inside the outer sleeve (paragraph 0044; “the inner sleeve 104 may have a pull tab 134 for easier insertion and removal of the inner sleeve 104 into and from the outer sleeve 102”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Office remind applicant that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning in light of the filed disclosure. Therefore, the amended claim 1 referring to “inverse cut-outs” of the locking tab and locking ridge don’t mean more than two shaped sections reversed in positions. As set forth above, it is believed that the applied art of Everett ‘808 do suggest the claimed “inverse cut-outs” of the locking mechanism, (Figs. 4-5; via the shown rectangular cut-outs of the locking mechanism 125 & 155).
Further, it appears that applicant continue to argue a specific orientation and arrangements of parts of the inner sleeve in respect to the outer sleeve and “inverse cut-outs”. Applicant highlights that “The Office must consider all claim limitations and demonstrate where those claim limitations are present in the cited references”, stressing specific arrangements needed as claimed for the panels, walls, and tab locations of the inner and/or outer sleeves. Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art would need to destroy the structures of ‘808 arrangements to come up with the filed claimed invention, which still would be more of hindsight.
However, as set forth above in the body of the rejection the Office continue to believe that ‘808 is showing a very similar locking mechanism with locking ridge section, see for example (Figs. 9-13, very similar to the filed application’s Fig. 5). Again, considering the made arguments, coming up with a specific orientation or location of elements while avoiding any possible damages, would be nothing more than a design choice to be made, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, most of the cited arts in the attached PTO-892 are related to the similar method of using a packaging apparatus with sliding an inner sleeve into an outer sleeve of a packaging apparatus as suggested by the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights