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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 8/11/2025. Claims 1-10 and 14-15 are pending in the application. Claims 11-13 are cancelled. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. US 9,376,246 B2.
With regards to claim 1, Jones discloses a device comprising: an outer cover 110 having a generally extended rectangular shape and being open at one end, comprising: an opening 46 disposed along an edge or surface of the outer cover; a relief cut (at 54) on one side; and an inner lip (end of 30) along at least one interior edge of the open end; and an inner box 70 having a single interior compartment 78a and comprising: a base portion 72 having a generally extended rectangular shape and being open at one end (shown in Fig. 2A); a primary flap 74 extending away from the generally rectangular shape along a first edge of the open end in an unfolded configuration; and a secondary flap 80ab extending away from the generally rectangular shape along at least a second edge of the open end when disposed in an unfolded configuration; wherein, when the secondary flap is folded flat against an outer surface of the inner box and the inner box is disposed inside the outer cover, the secondary flap engages with the inner lip to prevent the inner box from being removed entirely from the outer cover. (Col 4:50-62 and 6:14-31)
With regards to claim 2, Jones discloses when the primary flap 74 is folded flat against an outer surface of the inner box 70, and the inner box is disposed inside the outer cover 110, and a portion of the outer cover in the region of the relief cut is not depressed inward, the primary flap engages with an interior portion of the outer cover (at 64; shown in Fig. 5 and 5A) to prevent the inner box from being partially removed from the outer cover; and when the portion of the outer cover in the region of the relief cut (at 52/54) is depressed inward, the inner box is partially removable from the outer cover.
With regards to claim 3, Jones discloses when the inner box 70 is partially removed a first amount from the outer cover 110, the primary flap 74 engages with the interior portion of the outer cover to prevent the inner box from being further removed from the outer cover and the interior portion of the outer cover prevents the portion of the outer cover in the region of the relief cut from being depressed inward; and when the inner box is partially removed a second amount less than the first amount or disposed within the outer cover to the greatest extent possible, the portion of the outer cover in the region of the relief cut (at 54) is not prevented from being depressed inward to disengage the primary flap from the interior portion.
With regards to claim 4, Jones discloses when the inner box 70 is partially removed from the outer cover 110, the opening 46 disposed along the edge or surface of the outer cover provides access to the interior of the device.
With regards to claim 5, Jones discloses the device is comprised entirely of recyclable material. (Col 6:56-65 and 10:45-52; It is known in the art that paper, paperboard and plastics are recyclable.)
With regards to claim 6, Jones discloses the device comprises of paper or paperboard. (Col 6:56-65)
With regards to claim 14, Jones discloses the inner box is unremovable from the outer cover without causing damage to the device. (see stopping mechanism 30/74, which would be damaged when inner box is fully removed)
With regards to claim 15, Jones discloses the relief cut forms a button (at 50) which, when depressed, allows the inner box to be removed at least partially from the outer cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues Jones does not disclose the inner box forms a single interior compartment, because it is a blister package that contains multiple product-holding blisters. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jones does disclose the inner box 70 forms a single interior compartment 78a. The reference of Jones forms a plurality of single interior compartments. The claim does not recite the inner box has “only” one interior compartment and the claims preamble includes the claim language of “comprising” that allows the prior art to include more structure than claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the inner box forms only one interior compartment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 JENINE PAGAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736