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 12/22/2025. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending in the application. Claim 3 is cancelled.
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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recite the limitation “the void space defined by of each ventilation bridge has an area between 90 and 140 mm2”. It is assumed the limitation should be “the void space defined by each ventilation bridge has an area between 90 and 140 mm2”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 has a period (.) after the word “part” on line 13 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
PNG
media_image1.png
277
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
293
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by REIFERS et al. US 3,207,409.
With regards to claim 1, REIFERS discloses a packaging unit comprising: a bottom part 12 with product receiving compartments 34 and a number of cones 40 that are provided between the compartments, and the bottom part comprising a bottom surface (at 48), two side surfaces, a back surface, and a front surface; a cover part 20 comprising a top surface 22, two side surfaces 24, a back surface (opposite the front), and a front surface 28; a hinge 18 configured for hingedly connecting the bottom part with the cover part; and a plurality of ventilation bridges (shown above) provided in a spaced arrangement along both a length and width on the bottom surface of the bottom part, wherein each ventilation bridge of the plurality of the ventilation bridges is provided between two adjacent compartments and forms a void space in the bottom surface between the two adjacent compartments, each ventilation bridge comprising two sidewalls and a top wall, wherein the two sidewalls extend upward from the bottom surface and include an upper arcuate portion adjacent the top wall; wherein the plurality of ventilation bridges define a plurality of continuous flow paths for the flow of air through the bottom part; wherein the plurality of continuous flow paths comprises a first continuous flow path and a second continuous flow path, wherein the first continuous flow path extends through the front surface and the back surface of the bottom part and the second continuous flow path extends through the two side surfaces.
With regards to claim 7, REIFERS discloses the bottom part 12 comprises at least two rows of product receiving compartments 34, wherein of the plurality of ventilation bridges (shown above) comprises a ventilation bridge positioned between each set of adjacent product receiving compartments in each row of product receiving compartments and a ventilation bridge between product receiving compartments in adjacent rows of the at least two rows of product receiving compartments.
With regards to claim 11, REIFERS discloses the packaging unit is made from a molded fiber material. (Col 2:23-30)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2, 5-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REIFERS et al. US 3,207,409.
With regards to claim 2, although the drawings are not to scale, it is
readily apparent that REIFERS (Fig. 2 and 3) discloses the two sidewalls of each ventilation bridge (shown above) comprises a lower angled portion and an upper arcuate portion, wherein the lower angled portion extends upward from the bottom surface at a substantially constant inward angle and the upper arcuate portion extends from the lower angled portion with an increasing angle of curvature to the top wall. The drawings are to be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2125
However, to the extent it may be argued to not be so, it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the sidewalls of each ventilation bridge comprises a lower angled portion and an upper arcuate portion, in order to allow the ventilation bridge conform to the product and create spacing between each product.
To modify the ventilation bridge with the configuration as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the ventilation bridge and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
With regards to claim 5, REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths (shown above) but it does not specifically disclose it has a width between 15 and 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one ventilation bridge have a width between 15 and 25 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05
With regards to claim 6, REIFERS discloses the void space defined by each ventilation bridge (shown above) but it does not specifically disclose it has an area between 90 and 140 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the void space defined by each ventilation bridge have an area between 90 and 140 mm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05
With regards to claim 8 REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths but it does not specifically disclose a total combined width of the ventilation bridges in each row of product receiving compartments is between 0.3 and 0.5 times a length of the bottom part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a total combined width of the ventilation bridges in each row of product receiving compartments be between 0.3 and 0.5 times a length of the bottom part, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regards to claim 9, REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths but it does not specifically disclose a width of each ventilation bridge is between 0.15 and 0.35 times a width of the bottom part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a width of each ventilation bridge between 0.15 and 0.35 times a width of the bottom part, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regards to claim 10, REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths but it does not specifically disclose a height of each ventilation bridge is between 0.11 and 0.40 times a height of the bottom part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a height of each ventilation bridge between 0.11 and 0.40 times a height of the bottom part, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REIFERS et al. US 3,207,409 in view of Ott et al. US 4,883,195, previously presented.
With regards to claim 4, REIFERS discloses the claimed invention (ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths; shown above) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose it has a height between 5 and 10 mm.
However, Ott teaches that it was known in the art to have a packaging unit have a ventilation bridge 18 have a height (h) 0.25 inches. (equivalent to 6.35 mm)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilation bridge in REIFERS by having the height between 5 and 10 mm as taught by Ott for the purposes of raising the product off of the container bottom surface.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REIFERS et al. US 3,207,409.
With regards to claim 12, REIFERS discloses a bottom part 12 with product receiving compartments 34 and a number of cones 40 that are provided between the compartments, and the bottom part comprising a bottom surface (at 48), two side surfaces, a back surface, and a front surface; a cover part 20 comprising a top surface 22, two side surfaces 24, a back surface (opposite the front), and a front surface 28; a hinge 18 configured for hingedly connecting the bottom part with the cover part; and a plurality of ventilation bridges (shown above) provided in a spaced arrangement along both a length and width on the bottom surface of the bottom part, wherein each ventilation bridge of the plurality of the ventilation bridges is provided between two adjacent compartments and forms a void space in the bottom surface between the two adjacent compartments, wherein the plurality of ventilation bridges define a plurality of continuous flow paths for the flow of air through the bottom part; wherein the plurality of continuous flow paths comprises a first continuous flow path and a second continuous flow path, wherein the first continuous flow path extends through the front surface and the back surface of the bottom part and the second continuous flow path extends through the two side surfaces.
REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths but it does not specifically disclose a height of each ventilation bridge is between 0.11 and 0.4 times a height of the bottom part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a height of each ventilation bridge between 0.11 and 0.4 times a height of the bottom part, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)
With regards to claim 13, REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths but it does not specifically disclose the height of the at least one ventilation bridge is approximately 0.21 times the height of the bottom part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the height of the at least one ventilation bridge be approximately 0.21 times the height of the bottom part, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)
With regards to claim 14, REIFERS discloses each ventilation bridge (shown above) includes two outer sidewalls and a top wall extending between the two outer sidewalls, wherein the two outer sidewalls are angled inward and form an arcuate shape with the top wall.
With regards to claim 15, REIFERS discloses each ventilation bridge (shown above) has a U-shape and comprises a sidewall extending upward from the bottom surface, a top wall spanning across the sidewall, a void space below the top wall.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REIFERS et al. US 3,207,409.
With regards to claim 16, REIFERS discloses a packaging unit comprising: a bottom part 12 with a first row of product receiving compartments 34, a second row of product receiving compartments 34, and a number of cones 40 that are provided between the compartments of the first and second rows, and the bottom part comprising a bottom surface (at 48), two side surfaces, a back surface, and a front surface; a cover part 20 comprising a top surface 22, two side surfaces 24, a back surface (opposite the front), and a front surface 28; a hinge 18 configured for hingedly connecting the bottom part with the cover part; and a plurality of ventilation bridges (shown above) provided in a spaced arrangement along both a length and width on the bottom surface of the bottom part, wherein the plurality of ventilation bridges comprises a ventilation bridge positioned between each two adjacent compartments in each of the first row and each two adjacent compartments in the second row and a ventilation bridge positioned between each two adjacent compartments of the first and second rows; wherein the plurality of ventilation bridges define a plurality of continuous flow paths for the flow of air through the bottom part; wherein the plurality of continuous flow paths comprises a first continuous flow path and a second continuous flow path, wherein the first continuous flow path extends through the front surface and the back surface of the bottom part and the second continuous flow path extends through the two side surfaces.
REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths but it does not specifically disclose a total combined width of the ventilation bridges in the first row of product receiving compartments is between 0.3 and 0.5 times a length of the bottom part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a total combined width of the ventilation bridge in the first row of product receiving compartments between 0.3 and 0.5 times a length of the bottom part, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)
With regards to claim 17, REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths but it does not specifically disclose the total combined width of the ventilation bridges in the first row of product receiving compartments is approximately 0.4 times the length of the bottom part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the total combined width of the ventilation bridges in the first row of product receiving compartments approximately 0.4 times the length of the bottom part, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)
With regards to claim 18, REIFERS discloses ventilation bridges forming a plurality of continuous flow paths and the void space (under the bridges) but it does not specifically disclose each ventilation bridge includes a height approximately between 5 and 10 mm and a width approximately between 15 and 25 mm, and a total void space area approximately between 90 and 140 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have each ventilation bridge have a height approximately between 5 and 10 mm, a width approximately between 15 and 25 mm, and a total void space area approximately between 90 and 140 mm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
With regards to claim 19, REIFERS discloses the plurality of ventilation bridges (shown above) forms a continuous flow path opening extending along an entire length of the bottom surface (at 48).
With regards to claim 20, REIFERS discloses the plurality of ventilation bridges (shown above) forms at least one continuous flow path opening extending along an entire width of the bottom surface (at 48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 have been considered but are moot because of a new ground of rejection.
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 SPICER 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 SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights