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
The amendment filed 02/09/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: changing from edges to walls and edges to projections throughout the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 remain pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The plurality of pegs as recited in claims 9,10 and 20
The interaction/connection between two upstanding attachment projections and two undercut walls from claim 2.
Double groove side panel from claim 15
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 5 it is unclear what part of the attachment panel the bottom wall structure is. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant states that reference numeral 15 has been added to figures 2-3 and 6 to identify the pegs. The structure now called 11/15 is not a peg. A peg is a short cylindrical piece which is not shown in the figures. As such the objection is not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would understand the that the upstanding walls 17 are configured to be applied fittingly over the two upstanding attachment projections 18 without a detailed illustration, examiner disagrees. The partial cross sections showing 17 in Fig. 3 and showing 18 in Fig.5 both show bottom walls connecting the outer portions to the portions holding 17 and 18 respectively. Thusly it is unclear how 18 is capable of fitting over the top of 17 as the bottom wall will prevent that. As such the objection is not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the double groove is illustrated in Fig. 9 but no reference numeral is given for groove and as applicant has added new matter by changing edges to walls it is unclear if what is meant by groove is a channel between the walls or a groove in the edge of the wall. As such the objection is not withdrawn.
Applicant states they “confirm that the bottom wall is part of the attachment panel” , this does not offer clarification as to what part of the attachment panel the bottom wall is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-7, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “attachment projections” and “undercut walls”, there is no support for the use of projections and wall in the specification as originally filed. The specification as originally filed recites attachment edges and undercut edges. This materially changes the substance as it is no longer directed to edges and instead to a wall or projection.
Claims 3-6, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 have also made similar amendments of previously reciting “edge” and replacing it with “projections” and “walls”. Which has no support in the specification as originally filed and is thusly considered new matter.
Claims not specifically mentioned are included due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, 14-16 and 18-19 recite “a semi-finished product”, this is unclear. Applicant states “that “semi-finished product” is merely a term name that does not provide any structural or material requirements”. Does the applicant mean no additional structural requirements beyond what is subsequently claimed? Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “semi-finish product” in claims 1, 9, 14-16 and 18-19 is used by the claim to be a nonce term/name, while the accepted meaning is “a partially completed product”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 2 recites “the side panels contain two upstanding attachment projections”, this is unclear. The amended figure 3 labels the bottom wall as 8 which means the attachment projections 17 are lateral projections when the side panel is in box formation as shown in Fig. 6. What is the frame of reference for the upstanding projections? Is this when the side panel is laying on its outside face? Or if the upright finished position?
Claim 2 recites “two undercut wall which are configured to be applied fittingly over the two upstanding attachment projections”, this is unclear. As stated above the use of upstanding is unclear, and in is unclear how the undercut wall will be applied fittingly over the projections as there is a bottom wall portion in Fig. 5 what will prevent that. Additionally, this relationship is not clearly shown in the figures to offer clarity.
Claim 3 recites “upstanding”, this is unclear. What frame of reference is used so that the wall is upstanding? Is it a projecting wall or a sidewall connected to the edge of the wall? In the finished box position or when laying on the wall of the side panel?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "upstanding wall” " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should claim 4 be dependent from claim 3 which recites two or more upstanding walls? Is this then each of the upstanding walls contains at least two passages?
Claim 4 recites “the upstanding wall which adjoins an upperside of the box in the mounted condition”, this is unclear. Does the applicant mean the portion of the semi-finished product that forms the sleeve of the box? Does this mean the passages and thusly side panel are oriented such that the passage are towards the top of the box? How are the upstanding wall and the upperside of the boxy adjoined as the passages are connected to attachment panel and not the panel of the semi-finished product?
Claim 5 recites “two upstanding attachment projections of the side panels border the inner walls” and “the two upstanding attachment projections being located on a side of the inner wall away from the groove”, this is unclear. If the projections border the inner wall that would be around all the side to “border” it. Does the applicant mean the projections border one side of the wall?
Claim 7 recites “that a side edge of the side panels, in the mounted condition of the side panels and the sleeve, that is located along the upperside of the sleeve, is free from a groove”, this is unclear. How is an edge free from a groove? Does the applicant mean the side wall? The side protrusion?
Claim 14 recites “the semi-finished product includes a first part and a second part”, this is unclear. Does the applicant mean the semi-finished product has two sheets as recited in claim 1? Or the one sheet semi-finished product is in two parts?
Claim 15 recites “the side panels are executed with a double groove which is configured to mount a double back side of the”, this is unclear. Should claim 15 be dependent from claim 14? Does this mean the double groove is configured to mount a back side from a two part semi-finished product? Does only the back side have a double portion? What happens to the double front portion?
Claim 18 recites “contains two or more sheets which are configured to be attached to each other, whereby the attachment between sheets forms a weakening”, this is unclear. How are two sheets attached by a weakening? The weakening as disclosed by the specification are fold lines/grooves and divide a single sheet into separate panels/portions which are folded to create the sleeve. Does the applicant mean each of the two or more sheets has portions connected by weakening that can each be folded to create the sleeve? Or that the two sheets are overlapping each other at certain weakening? This is generally unclear.
Claim 19 recites “extends outwardly” and “upstanding”, what is the frame of reference? How is the wall upstanding? Does the applicant just mean in projects away from the inside surface or does it project upwardly, so that is it upstanding?
Claim 19 recites “an attachment projection extends outwardly from a distal end of the inner wall along the first side edge and the second side edge of each of the two side panels”, this is unclear. Is there an additional attachment projection on the second side edge of each side panels? Or is this the distal end of the inner walls along the first and second side edges of each side panel? Or the inner wall along the first side edge and the inner wall of the second side each of each of the two side panels?
Claims not specifically mentioned are included due to their dependencies.
Examiner is unable to determine what structures are required to meet the claimed limitation as many of the claimed structures are not shown in the figures nor is the relationship/interaction between the attachment panels and the side panels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered. Applicants remarks are directed towards the changes made in the claims. Remarks made by the applicant are addressed in the sections to which they apply to above.
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 Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights