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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 10017291 B2; hereinafter Smith) in view of Geeraert et al. (US 9758286 B2; hereinafter Geeraert).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8-15, and 20, Smith discloses a child resistant locking packaging wherein the container comprises a first part (12), wherein the first part comprises a first compartment, and wherein the first compartment is accessible through a first opening (24; see Fig. 4); and wherein the container comprises a second part (14), wherein the second part is positioned so that it prevents access through the first opening when the container is not in use (see Fig. 1), but is moveable to allow access to the first opening when the container is in use (see Fig. 2); wherein the container comprises a locking means wherein the locking means comprises a first locking component (18) on the first part and a second locking component (16/23) on the second part, wherein the first locking component engages the second locking component to prevent movement of the second part to allow access to the first opening until the first locking component and second locking component are disengaged from one another by a user (see Col 10 line 48- Col 11 line 29); and wherein the first part comprises an interior surface and an exterior surface, wherein the interior surface faces the first compartment; and wherein at least part of the interior surface of the first part is constructed from paper-based material (see Col 9 lines 26-40); wherein the first part is a box comprising at least a base and sidewalls (see Figures 3-4; Examiner notes that the first part is a six sided box), whereby the first opening is located in a specific sidewall (see Fig. 4); wherein the second part is a removable lid (14; Examiner considers element 14 to be a removable cover, or lid), wherein the second part, in a closed position, blocks access to the first opening and when in a closed position the first locking component is engaged with the second locking component, and when in an open position the first locking component and second locking component are disengaged and the second part is removable to allow access to the first opening. Smith lacks teaching that the child resistant packaging contains detergent pouches.
Geeraert teaches a container housing soluble unit dose detergent pouches (see Fig. 4; and Col 1 lines 36-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to use Smith’s child resistant packaging to safely house soluble unit dose detergent pouches, as taught by Geeraert, to prevent children from accessing, as taught by Smith.
Regarding claims 2-3, Smith, as modified above, teaches a child-resistant packaging wherein the box comprises at least about six sides, whereby at least about two specific sides of the at least about six sides are larger in surface area than any other sides, whereby the specific sidewall corresponds to one of the specific sides. Examiner notes that Smith’s dispensing opening of the inner box extends into three of the box’s six sidewalls; two sides of which having the largest surface areas. Examiner considers the base of Smith’s inner box to be located along flap 46.
Regarding claim 5, Smith, as modified above, teaches a child-resistant packaging wherein the first opening is located in a region of the specific sidewall adjacent to the base. Examiner considers the base of Smith’s inner box to be located along flap 48.
Regarding claim 6, Smith, as modified above, teaches a child-resistant packaging wherein the first opening is a reclosable opening. Examiner considers Smith’s dispensing opening 24 to be reclosable via the cover 14.
Regarding claim 7, Smith, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the opening spanning an area of at least about 25 cm2. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have Smith’s dispensing opening span at least about 25 cm2 depending upon a size of contents to be dispensed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Smith, as modified above, teaches a child-resistant packaging wherein the first locking component is a tab that protrudes from the exterior surface of the first part and wherein the second part comprises an abutment with which the first locking tab is able to releasably engage (Smith; 16/18; see Figures 7-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-16, and 20 under USC 102(a)(2)—in view of Ng Pak Leung have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Smith in view of Geeraert.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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 J 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights