DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 8-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frobenuis (CH 291936).
Regarding claim 8, Frobenuis teaches a supporting structure, which is for positioning at least one work piece (illustrated as an ampule), the at least one work piece having a head portion, the head portion having a maximum outer diameter, the supporting structure comprising: a plate-shaped body (Fig. 1), comprising: a first supporting area 18 comprising at least one first through hole 18", wherein a maximum diameter of the at least one first through hole is smaller than the maximum outer diameter of the head portion (Fig. 2-3); and a second supporting area 17 connected to the first supporting area and substantially perpendicular to the first supporting area, the second supporting area comprising at least one second through hole (formed by flaps 20 folding inward; Fig. 2), wherein the at least one second through hole is in communication with the at least one first through hole to form an accommodating space; wherein when the work piece is disposed in the accommodating space (Figs. 2-3), the head portion of the work piece protrudes from the at least one first through hole and is positioned on the first supporting area; wherein a diameter of the at least one first through hole 18" gradually decreases from the maximum diameter (the center area of the circular portion; Fig. 1) toward the at least one second through hole (the width of the hole narrows toward the fold line having the second through hole on the other side).
Regarding claim 9, Frobenuis illustrates the work piece is disposed in the accommodating space through the at least one second through hole (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Frobenuis illustrates the at least one work piece comprises a body portion, the body portion comprises a maximum outer diameter, and a horizontal diameter of the at least one second through hole is greater than the maximum outer diameter of the body portion of the at least one work piece (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, the at least one work piece comprises a body portion (portion of the work piece which is above wall 18 in Figure 2), and a length of the body portion is greater than a vertical diameter of the at least one second through hole (see Figure 2 showing the body being longer than the longest diameter on the second through hole).
Regarding claim 14, Frobenuis teaches the second supporting area 17 further comprises a restricting wall 20 located at one side of the at least one second through hole (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, limitations directed at orientation (considering something a top or bottom, for example) in product claims are interpreted as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the structure taught by Frobenuis is applied by rotating it as if surface 14 were a top surface.
Frobenuis teaches a packing box, comprising: a packing box main body (Figure 1); and a supporting structure located in the packing box main body, and the supporting structure comprising: a plate-shaped body (Figure 1), comprising: a first supporting area 18 comprising at least one first through hole 18”; and a second supporting area 17 substantially vertically disposed (the whole box can be placed in any orientation including one that places wall 17 in a vertical orientation) in the packing box main body and connected to the first supporting area, wherein the second supporting area is substantially perpendicular to the first supporting area (see Figures 2 and 3) and comprises at least one second through hole (formed by flaps 20 folding inward; Fig. 2), and the at least one second through hole is in communication with the at least one first through hole to form an accommodating space.
Regarding claim 16, Frobenuis teaches the supporting structure and the packing box main body are integrally formed (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Frobenuis teaches (since 14 is applies as a top) the packing box main body comprises four sides 12, 13, 13, 17, and one of the four sides is the second supporting area 17 of the supporting structure (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Frobenuis teaches a number of the at least one first through hole
and a number of the at least one second through hole are plural (Figs. 1-3).
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobenuis (CH
291936) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lincrusta (FR 2,347,279 A2).
Regarding claim 19, Frobenuis illustrates there is a gap distance between two of the second through holes adjacent thereto (Fig. 1). Frobenuis does not teach a particular gap distance and Frobenuis does not illustrate the gap distance is greater than a horizontal diameter of each of the second through holes. Lincrusta teaches an analogous structure for holding ampules and Lincrusta illustrates a gap distance between adjacent holding elements (Fig. 1) that is greater than a horizontal diameter of the holding elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Frobenuis to use a wider spacing between items to provide additional space for a user to access individual items and/or provide a desired aesthetic.
Regarding claim 20, Frobenuis teaches the at least one first through hole comprises: a supporting portion (the circular portion); and a passage portion (the linear portion) being in communication with the supporting portion and the at least one second through hole, wherein a diameter of the passage portion is smaller than a maximum diameter of the supporting portion; wherein the horizontal diameter of the at least one second through hole is greater than the maximum diameter of the supporting portion (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that Frobenuis does not discloses “a diameter of the at least one first through hole gradually decreases from the maximum diameter toward the at least one second through”. Applicant notes that the neck section of the through hole is not a continuous tapered structure and therefore does not meet the limitation as claimed. However, the claim does not recite anything about a continuously tapered structure. The claim does not require that the entire portion of the through hole between the maximum diameter and second through hole gradually decreases or is continuously tapered. Examiner maintains that the circular portion of hole 18” gradually decreases from its maximum diameter toward the second through hole – see the lower half of hole 18”.
Regarding claim 15 and the rejection over Frobenuis, the prior action makes a clear typo by identifying the first supporting area as item 19 instead of the correct item 18. In view of the entirety of the action, specifically through the rejection of claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 20, the first support area of Frobenuis is identified as the area/wall 18 with first through hole 18”. See also the rejection of claim 20 (which depends from claim 15) which clearly identified the first through as the keyhole 18” including a circular portion and passage portion. As such, Examiner maintains that the prior rejection was proper and Frobenuis discloses the packing box as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are allowed.
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 COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm EST.
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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights