Continued Prosecution Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (12,208,952; hereinafter Schultz) in view of Cannon et al. (2023/0086331; hereinafter Cannon) and/or Kiefer (5,564,569) and/or Ludwig et al. (8,646,244; hereinafter Ludwig).
As to claim 1, Schultz discloses a container (210; Figs. 8-12) for packaging at least one product, the container comprising a front portion (216; Figs. 11-12) including a front wall (270) defining a first foot region at a lower end thereof (a lower region disposed adjacent to an end flange 236 as shown in Fig. 11) and a rear portion (214) including a rear wall (220), a bottom wall (224) connected to the rear wall, a first side wall (222; Fig. 10) connected to the rear wall and the bottom wall, and a second side wall (222; Fig. 10) disposed opposite to the first side wall and being connected to the rear wall and the bottom wall. Schultz further discloses each of the first side wall and the second side wall is disposed between the front wall and the rear wall such that a receptacle (218; Fig. 10) is defined between the first and second side walls which is at least partially received the at least one product, a second foot region (236; Figs. 10-11) connected to the bottom wall, the first foot region and the second foot region are attached to each other to form a foot (Fig. 11) that extends downwardly from the bottom wall (224) away from the receptacle, and a first support and second support (264) each opposite the foot, each of the first support and second support comprises at least a portion of the first side wall and rear wall or the second side wall and rear wall, and the container is configured such that upon seating the foot and the plurality of supports on a horizontal planar surface (Fig. 11) the container is inclined obliquely to the horizontal planar surface, and the front portion and the rear wall are inclined at different angles to the horizontal planar surface (column 9, lines 36-40 and Fig. 11; Schultz discloses the bottom tray end flange/second foot region 236 and the bottom edge/first foot region of the front portion 216 extend past the feet/first and second supports 264 to lean the container 210 back at a predetermined resting angle which is considered equivalent to the container is inclined obliquely as claimed; also Schultz further discloses the rear wall 120 of the rear portion and the bottom wall 124 of the rear portion formed an acute angle of only 85° or greater than 90° (Figs. 5-6 & column 7, lines 11-16) and the angle formed between the front portion 216 and the bottom wall 124 of the rear portion is about 90° which is considered equivalent to the front portion and the rear wall are inclined at different angles to the horizontal planar surface as claimed). As indicated above, Schultz discloses the bottom tray end flange/second foot region (236) and the bottom edge/first foot region of the front portion (216) extend past the feet/first and second supports (264) to lean the container (210) back at a predetermined resting angle (column 9, lines 36-40 and Fig. 11) which indicates an angle of inclination of the front portion relative to the horizontal planar surface is less than 90 degrees. However, Schultz fails to show the angle of inclination of the front portion relative to the horizontal planar surface is between 75 and 82 degrees as claimed, Cannon teaches a container (100) for packaging at least one product, the container comprising a front portion (10) and a rear portion (20), and an angle of inclination of the front portion relative to the horizontal planar surface is between 75 and 82 degrees (Fig. 1E & [0078]). Kiefer teaches a container (Figs. 1-4) for packaging at least one product (3), the container comprising a front portion (1) and a rear portion (2), and Kiefer further teaches an angle (A; Fig. 3) of inclination of the front portion relative to the horizontal planar surface is between 75 and 90 degrees or approximately 80 degrees (column 2, lines 61-62 & column 3, lines 12 which is considered equivalent to 75 and 82 degrees as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Cannon and/or Kiefer to modify the container of Schultz so the container is constructed with the angle of inclination of the front portion relative to the horizontal planar surface is between 75 and 82 degrees for better displaying the at least one product while the container is displaying on the horizontal planar surface.
To the extent that Schultz fails to show the front portion and the rear wall are inclined at different angles to the horizontal planar surface as claimed, Ludwig teaches a container (Fig. 1 or 9) comprising a front portion (901) including a front wall (outer surface of the frame 901) and a rear portion (100a) including a rear wall (102) and the container is configured such that upon sealing the front portion to the rear portion, the container is inclined obliquely to a horizontal planar surface and the front portion and the rear wall inclined at different angles to the horizontal planar surface (column 7, lines 56-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Ludwig to modify the container of Schultz so the container is constructed with the front portion and the rear wall inclined at different angles to the horizontal planar surface because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 2, Schultz discloses the first foot region is substantially coextensive in area with the second foot region (Fig. 11).
As to claim 3, Schultz discloses the container as above having most of the limitations of the claim except for the first foot region is greater in length and width than the second foot region.
Kiefer teaches the container (Figs. 1-4) as above, the container comprising the front portion (1) including a front wall defining a first foot region at a lower end thereof (a lower region disposed adjacent to a lower flap 9 as shown in Fig. 1) and the rear portion (2) including a rear wall (4), a bottom wall (8) connected to the rear wall, and a second foot region (the lower flap 9 disposed adjacent a lower edge 9 as shown in Fig. 1) connected to the bottom wall. The first foot region and the second foot region are attached to each other to form a foot that extends downwardly from the bottom wall away from the receptacle. Kiefer further teaches the first foot region is greater in length and width than the second foot region (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Kiefer to modify the container of Schultz so the container is constructed with the first foot region is greater in length and width than the second foot region because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 4, Schultz discloses the foot is substantially perpendicular to the bottom wall (Fig. 11).
As to claim 5, Schultz further discloses a first side connecting portion (234) connected to the first side wall and a second side connecting portion (234) connected to the second side wall as claimed.
As to claim 6, Schultz further discloses a top wall (224; Fig. 8) disposed opposite to the bottom wall and connected to the rear wall, the first side wall and the second side wall, and a top connecting portion (236) connected to the top wall, and the top connecting portion is attached to the front wall.
As to claim 7, Schultz discloses each of the first and second side walls extends substantially perpendicular to the rear wall and bottom wall.
As to claim 8, Schultz further discloses a third support (264; Fig. 10) comprises a portion of the rear wall (Fig. 8) and being spaced apart from the first and second supports.
As to claim 9, the container of Schultz is capable to contain at least two products therein (column 1, lines 19-20).
As to claim 10, Schultz further fails to disclose a fourth support as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Schultz so the container is constructed with a fourth support instead of only three supports for better supporting the container on the horizontal planar surface and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 11, the container of Schultz capable to contain at least three products therein (column 1, lines 19-20).
As to claim 12, Schultz further discloses the front wall (270) comprises at least one front cutout extending therethrough (274) as claimed.
As to claims 13-14, Schultz further fails to show the rear wall comprises at least one rear cutout extending therethrough and at least partially aligned with the at least one front cutout. Ludwig further teaches the rear wall (102) comprises at least one rear cutout (a perforated tear opening 192; Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Ludwig to further modify the container of Schultz as modified so the container is constructed with the rear wall includes at least one rear cutout extending therethrough and at least partially aligned with the at least one front cutout and a surface area of the at least one front cutout is greater than a surface area of the at least one rear cutout to allow visual access to the products disposed within the container to provide more convenience for the user.
As to claim 15, Schultz discloses the front wall, the rear wall, the bottom wall, and the second foot region form a single unitary component such that the second foot region (236) is foldably connected to the lower end of the front wall.
As to claims 16 and 17, Schultz further discloses the front portion and the rear portion comprise discrete components and the discrete components are made of paper-based material (Fig. 1 & column 4, lines 53-54) which is considered equivalent to carton board as claimed.
As to claim 18, the container of Schultz is capable to contain the at least one product which is selected from the group consisting of an air-freshening refill/cartridge for a dispenser, air-freshening dispensers, single-use air-freshener products and combination thereof since the at least one product is not positively recited in claim 1.
As to claim 19, Schultz discloses the second foot region (236) comprises a first end and an opposing second end, the first end of the second foot region comprises a first bottom end angle and the bottom end of the first side connecting portion comprises a first bottom end angle. The first end angle and the first bottom end angle are complementary (Figs. 10-11).
As to claim 20, see Fig. 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all pending claims have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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.
/LUAN K BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736