DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 10, 14-16 and 22 have been amended. Claims 11 and 23 have been cancelled. Claims 1-10, 12-22, 24 and 25 remain pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 20, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyden (US 542,751 A).
Regarding claim 1, Boyden teaches a product display device comprising:
a base (A);
a product display member (B) protruding from the base (Fig. 2, 5);
wherein said base and said product display member comprise a substrate (Fig. 1-5),
wherein the product display member is curved (Fig. 2, 5), and
wherein a lower side of the product display member is configured to attach a product to be displayed (Fig. 5) (page 1 lines 43-70 and Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, wherein the base further comprises a slit (page 1 lines 44-47 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 2 above, wherein the base comprises a folding line (C) and the slit comprises a cut of perforated line that defines the product display members contour and wherein the product display member is created by pushing the base along the cut or perforated line and folding along the folding line (page 1 lines 44-63 and Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, wherein the product display device further comprises at least one additional side panel (Fig. 1, 2 5).
Regarding claim 6, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 5 above, wherein said at least one additional side panel comprises four side panels (Fig. 1, 2, 5).
Regarding claim 8, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, wherein said substrate comprises a single sheet of cardboard (page 1 lines 43-44).
Regarding claim 9, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, wherein said substrate comprises a multi-layered paper product (page 1 lines 43-44, cardboard is a multi-layered paper product).
Regarding claim 13, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, wherein said product display device comprises a recyclable material (page 1 lines 43-44, cardboard is a recyclable material).
Regarding claim 14, Boyden teaches a method of displaying a product comprising:
providing a substrate (Fig. 1);
cutting said substrate to form at least one rectangular shape (Fig. 1);
forming a base from said substrate (Fig. 1, 2, 5);
defining at least one product display member in said substrate (Fig. 1, 3, 4);
extending the at least one product display member from a plane formed by the base (Fig. 2, 5);
curving the at least one product display member (Fig. 2, 5); and
adding a product to a lower side of the at least one product display member (Fig. 2, 5) (page 1 lines 43-70 and Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 20, Boyden teaches the method of claim 14 above, wherein said substrate comprises a single sheet of cardboard (page 1 lines 43-44).
Regarding claim 21, Boyden teaches the method of claim 14 above, wherein said single substrate comprises a multi-layered paper product (page 1 lines 43-44, cardboard is a multi-layered paper product).
Regarding claim 25, Boyden teaches the method of claim 14 above, wherein providing the substrate comprises providing a recyclable material (page 1 lines 43-44, cardboard is a recyclable material).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 2017/0112264 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a product display device comprising:
a base (32);
a product display member (42) protruding from the base (Fig. 1, 2);
wherein said base and said product display member comprise a substrate (Fig. 1, 2);
wherein the product display member is curved (Fig. 2); and
wherein a lower side of the product display member is configured to attach a product to be displayed (Fig. 1) (paragraphs 30-54 and Fig. 1-11).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, wherein said base further comprises a slit (71) (paragraph 33 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the product display device of claim 2 above, wherein the product display member protrudes from the base through the slit (paragraphs 30-33 and Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, wherein the product display device further comprises at least one additional side panel (Fig. 1-4, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the product display device of claim 5 above, wherein said at least one additional side panel comprises four side panels (Fig. 1-4, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches a method of displaying a product comprising:
providing a substrate (Fig. 2, 3);
cutting said substrate to form at least one rectangular shape (Fig. 2, 3);
forming a base from said substrate (Fig. 2, 3);
defining at least one product display member in said substrate (Fig. 2, 3);
extending the at least one product display member from a plane formed by the base (Fig. 2, 3);
curving the at least one product display member (Fig. 2, 3);
adding the product to a lower side of the at least one product display member (Fig. 2, 3) (paragraphs 30-54 and Fig. 1-11).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches the method of claim 14 above, wherein the method further comprises adding at least one slit (71) to said base, wherein extending the at least one product display member is performed by crossing through said at least one slit (paragraphs 30-33 and Fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches the method of claim 15 above, wherein the at least one product display member comprises two product display members and the base includes two slits, each of which receives one of the product display members (Fig. 2, 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyden, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Rielly (US 4,043,450 A).
Regarding claim 7, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 5 above, but fails to teach said at least one additional side panel being defined by score lines and bends. Rielly teaches an analogous product display device formed of cardboard, wherein the product display devices comprises a base (30) and at least one side panel (32). Rielly further teaches that analogous side panels are known in the prior art to be defined by score lines and bends (34) so that the product display device is configured to frictionally fit in a storage box (column 3 lines 19-45 and FIG. 1, 3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Boyden by alternatively configuring the product display device with side panels defined by score lines and bends, as taught by Rielly, so that the product display device is alternatively configured to frictionally fit in a storage box.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyden, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Patterson (US 5,193,671 A).
Regarding claim 10, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the lower side of said product display member being laminated so that the lower side is configured to removably retain the product to be displayed through an adhesive.
Patterson teaches an analogous display container having an inner support and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide laminated surfaces in such containers and supports to provide an aesthetic appearance (column 4 lines 1-12).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Boyden by laminating said product display member, including the lower side of said product display member, as taught by Patterson, in order to provide an aesthetic appearance. It is noted that as a result of laminating the product display member, the lower side would be configured to removably retain the product to be displayed through an adhesive.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyden, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ruiz et al. (US 10,588,389 B1, hereinafter Ruiz).
Regarding claim 12, Boyden teaches the product display device of claim 1 above, but fails to teach an external box which removably receives the substrate. Ruiz teaches an analogous product display device (300/400) comprising a base and a product display member protruding from the base, wherein a lower side of the product display member is configured to attach a product to be displayed (FIG. 4, 5). Ruiz further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the product display device with an external box which removably receives the product display device so that the product display device can be both stored and displayed (FIG. 1, 3-7).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Boyden by configuring the product display device to be removably received in an external box, as taught by Ruiz, in order to store and display the product display device.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyden, as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Rielly.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Boyden teaches the method of claim 14 above, but fails to teach delineating by folding at least one side panel in said substrate and subdividing said substrate into four side panels. Rielly teaches an analogous product display device and method, wherein the product display device is formed of cardboard and comprises a base (30) and at least one side panel (32). Rielly further teaches the method comprising providing a substrate, forming a base, delineating by folding (34) at least one side panel in said substate and subdividing said substrate into four side panels so that the product display device is configured to frictionally fit in a storage box (column 3 lines 19-45 and FIG. 1, 3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Boyden by alternatively configuring the substrate with four side panels, wherein the four side panels formed by subdividing said substrate and are delineated by folding in the substate, as taught by Rielly, so that the product display device is alternatively configured to frictionally fit in a storage box.
Regarding claim 19, Boyden as modified by Rielly teaches the method of claim 18 above, wherein each panel is formed by scored lines and bends (Reilly: column 3 lines 19-45 and FIG. 3).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyden, as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Patterson.
Regarding claim 22, Boyden teaches the method of claim 14 above, but fails to teach laminating the lower side of said product display member so that the lower side is configured to removably retain the product to be displayed through an adhesive.
Patterson teaches an analogous display container having an inner support and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to laminate surfaces in such containers and supports to provide an aesthetic appearance (column 4 lines 1-12).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Boyden by laminating said product display member, including the lower side of said product display member, as taught by Patterson, in order to provide an aesthetic appearance. It is noted that as a result of laminating the product display member, the lower side would be configured to removably retain the product to be displayed through an adhesive.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyden, as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Ruiz.
Regarding claim 24, Boyden teaches the method of claim 14 above, but fails to teach adding an external box which removably receives the substrate. Ruiz teaches an analogous product display device (300/400) comprising a base and a product display member protruding from the base, wherein a lower side of the product display member is configured to attach a product to be displayed (FIG. 4, 5). Ruiz further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the product display device with an external box which removably receives the product display device so that the product display device can be both stored and displayed (FIG. 1, 3-7).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Boyden by adding an external box and configuring the product display device to be removably received in the external box, as taught by Ruiz, in order to both store and display the product display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 13, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights