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 § 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.
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 21-22 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the median region" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation are not readily understood.
Claim 22 fails to cure the deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheffer (US 2003/0141356 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-9, and 21, Sheffer discloses a paperboard container having in-fold panels engaged between expanding walls during erection comprising a blank of sheet material folded along a longitudinal length to form a front wall (25), a bottom wall (22/27), a back wall (25), a first side wall (42) and opposing second side wall (42; see Figures 1-3), the package defining a cavity; said front wall defining a display opening (52) for displaying product contained within the cavity; said first and second side walls each comprise spaced inner (44) and outer side panels (Examiner notes that inner side panels 44 are spaced from outer side panels 42 by reinforcing shelf panel 46); and a reinforcing portion (46) disposed between each said inner and said outer side panels to reinforce the spacing between the inner and outer side panels (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 3-4, Sheffer discloses a paperboard container and blank for making wherein said outer side panel is foldably connected to said inner side panel along said longitudinal length, said inner side panel including a connecting flap (88) foldably connected to said outer side panel and remote from said outer side panel (see Fig. 3), and an adhesive for connecting said connecting flap of said inner side panel to said bottom wall when said blank is folded along said longitudinal length (see Par. 0061).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 10, Sheffer discloses a paperboard container and blank for making wherein said front wall comprises an outer front panel foldably connected to an inner front panel along said longitudinal length (see Fig. 1; Examiner notes that the inner front panel is unlabeled in Sheffer’s figures) and wherein said adhesive (see Fig. 3; Examiner notes that the shaded regions depict glued connection points) connects said outer front panel to said inner front panel when said blank is folded along said longitudinal length.
Regarding claim 7, Sheffer discloses a paperboard container and blank for making wherein one of said outer side panels is foldably connected to a side connecting flap panel, where said adhesive connects said side connecting flap to said outer back panel to form said package in a first flattened position (see Figures 1 and 3; Examiner considers the blank to be the container’s flattened position); and a second preform position where said package is open (see Fig. 2).
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) 11-14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheffer in view of Sheffer (CA 2283877 C; hereinafter Sheffer ‘877).
Regarding claims 11-14 and 22, Sheffer discloses the claimed invention except for side handles. Sheffer ‘877 teaches a reinforced stackable container and blank for making comprising inner and outer side panel hand holes (handle opening 37 in outer side 25d and inner side 25b; see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Sheffer to include handle holes in the sides in order to provide the container a means for lifting (Sheffer ‘877; Page 9 lines 18-28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 with regards to Claims 1-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach a reinforcing portion disposed between an inner and outer side panel to reinforce spacing between the two panels.
-Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that element 46 spaces inner and outer panels (42 and 44) from one another (see Figures 1-2).
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-6, filed 09/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-14 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Sheffer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Sheffer lacks side handles. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Sheffer in view of Sheffer ‘877.
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 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