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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated January 28, 2026, claims 1-3 were amended and new claims 6-8 were presented. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments do not address the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see Remarks at pp. 4-5). Thus, the rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections of the claims over Scott have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Scott did not explain the ‘blister’ and pass the examination; similarly, the present application did not explain the ‘frame’ may pass the examination” (Remarks at p. 5), the examiner disagrees. It is unclear what specific limitation Applicant is addressing. However, the examiner maintains that the first and second blister sections 40, 46 of Scott read on the claimed “two frames” under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant appears to be arguing that one of ordinary skill would understand that a “blister” as disclosed in Scott is not the same as a “frame” as claimed here (Remarks at pp. 5-6, 8-9), the examiner disagrees. First, the provided definitions of “Bubble” and “Cover” and “Blister” are not all relevant to the prior art, and none of these terms are in the claim. The provided definitions of “frame” do not seem to be relevant, and/or are not consistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Looking at the whole, the shapes are also quite different. Note that the arched shape of the Scott, resembling a handle, is not an isolated arch, but rather an arch connected to other parts, forming a single component” (Remarks at pp. 6-7), the examiner disagrees. Nothing in the claims requires an “isolated arch.” Applicant has identified any reason why the “arched shape” of Scott would not read on the “bent” shape recited in the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Frames can be seen in many places in daily life, making them easier to understand. For example, when people say ‘I am standing under a door frame,’ they think that I can move forward or backward because the door frame is open at both ends” (Remarks at p. 7), the examiner disagrees. First, the term “frame” in the present application does not appear to be a door frame. Second, other uses of “frame,” such as “picture frame” do not require being able to move through said frame. Thus, the blister portions of Scott disclose a “frame” as interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Scott’s 40 and 46 cannot be interpreted as two frames because they are not separate structures, but merely the shape of a single frame” (Remarks at p. 8), the examiner disagrees. The claim does not require “separate structures.” Scott discloses two blister portions 40, 46, that combine to form a bent handle as claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “According to the examination principle: ‘The disclosure of a general (superior) concept does not affect the novelty or utility model that is defined by a specific (subordinary) concept’” (Remarks at pp. 8, 10), the examiner disagrees. First, Applicant has not provided a citation for this purported quote. Second, it is incorrect. The terms “general” and “specific” appear to be referring to genus-species situations. While this is not particularly relevant to the current case, a general concept can anticipate a more specific concept (MPEP 2131.02).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “One cannot associate the arched shapes of Scotts 40 and 46 with two arches joined together” (Remarks at p. 8), the examiner disagrees. Applicant has identified any reason why the arched frames of Scott would not read on the bent frames recited in the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “when Scott applied, although his arched handle could change, there was no specific content on how it could change. The blister could be controlled, but the shape of the change was not specified, so there was no control” (Remarks at p. 8), the examiner disagrees. It is unclear what claim limitation this is arguing. The disclosure of Scott read on the claim limitations as presented.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “the statement ‘Decoration without specific content cannot control decoration with specific content’ means that while you can say you can decorate an object, if the decoration is empty talk without specific content, then you cannot arbitrarily use other people’s patent or inventions. You can only use decoration content or methods that others have used, or decoration content or methods that you have invented yourself. This is common knowledge that examiners, applicants, and agents must know” (Remarks at p. 8), the examiner disagrees. First, Applicant has not provided any citation for the quotation, so it is unclear where this “statement” is from. It is further unclear what Applicant is arguing.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “The claims are not required to provide explanations of the terms; the meanings of the terms obtained from the claims will not be present in the claims themselves, as they are not a dictionary” (Remarks at p. 9), the examiner disagrees. The claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention (35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (MPEP 2111). Here, the specification does not provide any specific definition for terms such as “frame,” and thus the term is interpreted as reading on the teachings of Scott.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “When a handle is used on a large, sturdy basket, a person can certainly pass through, let along objects” (Remarks at p. 9), the examiner disagrees. First, it is unclear which specific limitation this refers to. Second, Applicant’s own handle does not appear to permit an object to “pass through,” as there is a curtain arranged between the frames.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “’root’ can vividly describe that the length of the frame is longer than the width” (Remarks at p. 9), the examiner disagrees. It is unclear what claim limitation Applicant is referring to, as nothing in the claim mentions “roots.”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “The key is that two frames (1) sandwich a curtain (2), here ‘two’ means two shapes, which should be understood as A. two separate frames; not as B. a frame that looks like two frames” (Remarks at p. 9), the examiner disagrees. Nothing in the claims requires the “two frames” be separate structures. Second, Scott discloses a first blister section 40 forming a frame, and a second blister section 46 forming a separate frame (see para. [0020]), and thus Scott reads on the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “The blister [of Scott] is molded as a single piece” (Remarks at p. 10), the examiner disagrees. Applicant has not pointed to anything in Scott to support this assertion.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “there is no specific content on how to place the display card. Therefore, it is necessary to explain the difference between the display card and the backdrop. Besides knowing that they are different, it also explains that the display card can only be placed in the way that cards are placed in daily life, such as sticking it to the blister” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. Scott expressly discloses the display card 60 “is also disposed in the blister package” (para. [0021]). Figures 1-3 clearly show that the display card is between the two blister sections 40, 46.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Please clarify that Scott’s display card appears on the blister in the attached diagram, i.e., on the blister, not on the curtain” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. The display card 60 of Scott is interpreted as the claimed “curtain.” This interpretation of “curtain” is consistent with the specification and dependent claims, which further explain that the curtain may include “1. a soft curtain, 2. a hard curtain, 3. a thin foam plastic curtain, and 4. a mesh curtain” (see e.g., claim 3; see also para. [0007]).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “Like the blister, the curtain-style design uses a method of inference or comprehension based on common things or common knowledge in real life” (Remarks at p. 11), the examiner disagrees. The claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention (35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (MPEP 2111). Here, the specification does not provide any specific definition for terms such as “frame,” and thus the term is interpreted as reading on the teachings of Scott.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “I believe that no one considers the phrase ‘the handle is a small, flat decorative item (3) with a slight thickness, which fits well with the shape of the top of the handle and is connected to it’ in claim 1 to be a grammatically incorrect sentence” (Remarks at p. 12), the examiner disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite the quoted language in this statement.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “the characteristic of ‘fitting seamlessly with and connecting to the top shape of the handle’ is definite, as no other decorative flower basket handle has a small flat ornament at its top” (Remarks at p. 12), the examiner disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite anything be “fitting seamlessly.”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Scott does not disclose “the lower part of the two combined frames (1), i.e. the installation part (4), is only half the thickness of the original frames” and “You cannot imagine the content of someone else’s patent application out of thin air” (Remarks at p. 13), the examiner disagrees. First, as stated below, this element in the claims is unclear in view of the claim language, specification, and figures. Applicant did not amend the language to clarify this limitation, or provide an explanation of what this means. Second, Scott discloses an “installation part” as claimed, and the art rejection below explains how Scott is interpreted with respect to this limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “According to US Patent Act, the most important feature of a dependent claim should be placed after the general claim 1 and at the beginning of the dependent claim; or a keyword should be used to indicate that it is the main dependent claim” (Remarks at p. 15), the examiner disagrees. It is unclear what portion of the US Patent Act Applicant is referring to here.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “it is explained that, compared with the prior art, they all have the same structure…The Scott 40 and 46, under the control of the blister, form a hollow frame shape, which is what makes them stand out. Without the blister, the 40 and 46 are just a frame shape, which is the shape of a traditional flower basket handle, and there is no comparative significance” (Remarks at p. 15), the examiner does not understand the argument Applicant is attempting to present.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period is missing at the end of claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the curtain type flower basket handle is bent” in lines 4-5. It is unclear what is meant by “bent.” Applicant contends that “bent” means “not straight” (Remarks at p. 14). However, Applicant has previously stated that “Where there is a bend, the size is uncertain, the size of the decorative structure flower basket is uncertain, as long as it does not affect the installation, like the handle it is fine” (October 28, 2025 Remarks at p. 8). Thus, the definition for “bent” provided by Applicant makes the scope of the claim unclear. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the curtain type flower basket handle is curved,” which appears to be consistent with Applicant’s figures.
Claim 1 recites “a thickness of the installation part is half a thickness of each of the two frames” in lines 8-9. It is not clear whether the two frames each provide half of the thickness of the installation part, or whether the installation part is somehow half of the thickness of the frames. The installation part 4 is identified in Figure 2, but the thickness of this portion is not clear.
Claim 1 recites “the curtain type flower basket handle is a small flat decoration with a slight of a thickness” in lines 5-6. It is unclear whether the entire curtain type flower basket handle forms a small flat decoration, or whether the small flat decoration is a part of the claimed handle.
Claim 1 recites “the curtain type flower basket handle is a small flat decoration with a slight of a thickness, that is, a handheld part, is fittingly connected to a top of the curtain type flower basket handle” in lines 5-7. It is unclear what is meant by “slight of a thickness.” Does this mean a small thickness? It is further unclear what is meant by “a handheld part.” Is this referring to the handle, or the small flat decoration? Is this further defining the “thickness”?
Claim 3 recites “the curtain is installed with one or two or more of the following materials: 1. a soft curtain, 2. a hard curtain, 3. a thin foam plastic curtain, and 4. a mesh curtain” at lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by “installed with.” Are these materials forming the curtain, or are these materials separate from the curtain?
Claim 6 recites “the two frames, the curtain, and the small flat decoration are modified by one of a plurality of modification methods or by one or two or more methods” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the “modified” limitation is referring to the manufacturing process, or something that is done to the final handle (see MPEP 2173.05(p)).
Claim 7 recites “a mounting part (4) below the two frames (1), excluding the curtain” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the “mounting part (4)” is different from the “installation part (4)” recited in claim 1. The specification does not mention a “mounting part” as claimed.
Claim 7 recites “a mounting part (4) below the two frames (1), excluding the curtain” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by “excluding the curtain.” Does this mean that the mounting part is below the curtain? Or that the mounting part is below the two frames but not below the curtain?
Claim 8 recites “the small flat decoration (3) is connected to the top of the handle in a harmonious way” in lines 1-2. The term “harmonious way” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “harmonious” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as what would be considered “harmonious” may vary depending upon the person assessing the appearance.
Claims 2, 3, and 6-8 are also rejected as indefinite through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “a main point of the curtain type flower basket handle is the two frames (1) sandwich a curtain (2) having one layer.” Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which recites “characterized by two frames (1) sandwich a curtain 92) having one layer.” Thus, claim 2 does not add any additional structure, and does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2005/0011792 to Scott (hereinafter, “Scott”).
Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses a curtain type flower basket handle (blister package 24 forms a handle for container 12, Fig. 1; paras. [0003], [0005]), is characterized by two frames (blister sections 40, 46 having perimeter portions 42, 48, Figs. 2-3; para. [0020]) sandwich a curtain having one layer (display card 60, Fig. 3; para. [0021]); wherein the two frames (blister sections 40) with the same lengths combined together (see Fig. 1); wherein the curtain type flower basket handle (blister package 24) is bent (see bent surface in annotated Fig. 1 below); wherein the curtain type flower basket handle (blister package 24) is a small flat decoration (annotated Fig. 1) with a slight of a thickness (the small flat decoration has a small thickness, see Fig. 1), that is, a handheld part (the small flat decoration is capable of being handheld), is fittingly connected to a top of the curtain type flower basket handle (see annotated Fig. 1); a lower part (annotated Fig. 1) of the two frames (blister sections 40) that are combined is an installation part (annotated Fig. 1), and a thickness of the installation part is half a thickness of each of the two frames (installation part is formed by the two frames, see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Scott Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Scott further discloses a main point of the curtain type flower basket handle is the two frames (blister sections 40, 46) sandwich a curtain (display card 60) having one layer (see Fig. 3; para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Scott further discloses the curtain (display card 60) is installed with one or two or more of the following materials: 1. a soft curtain, 2. a hard curtain, 3. a thin foam plastic curtain, and 4. a mesh curtain (display card 60 is hard or soft; see Figs. 1-3, para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Scott further discloses the two frames (blister sections 40, 46), the curtain (display card 60), and the small flat decoration (annotated Fig. 1) are modified by one of a plurality of modification methods or by one or two or more methods (these elements were manufactured and then assembled, see e.g., Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Scott further discloses the two frames (blister sections 40, 46) that combine the handle (Fig. 1) and the curtain (display card 60) have a mounting part (portion 20, Figs. 1-2) below the two frames (see Fig. 2), excluding the curtain (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Scott further discloses the small flat decoration (annotated Fig. 1) is connected to the top of the handle (see Fig. 1) in a harmonious way (see Fig. 1).
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 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 LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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 Jenness can be reached on 571-270-5055. 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733