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
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 9/22/2025, wherein claims 16 were amended. Claims 16-30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) s 16, 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Bensman (US 9469024 B2).
With respect to claim 16, Bensman discloses a container for consumer goods, the container comprising: a box portion (12) and a lid portion (42), which together define a compartment configured to contain consumer goods; a tray (base portion of 14) disposed within the compartment and configured to support at least some consumer goods, the tray comprising a first portion (74/lower portion of 14) residing in the box portion and a second portion (upper portion of 14) residing above the box portion, wherein the lid portion (42) is movable relative to the box portion (12) between a closed position (figure 1) in which the tray is covered and an open position (figure 2) in which the tray is uncovered, and wherein the second portion (upper portion of 14) of the tray extends into the lid portion (42) when the lid portion is in the closed position, and engages with an inner surface (inner surface of 39) of the lid portion to help retain the lid portion in the closed position; and a retention mechanism (72) disposed between the first portion of the tray and the box portion, the retention mechanism being configured to oppose movement of the tray relative to the box portion in response to the lid portion being moved from the closed position to the open position, wherein the box portion and the lid portion are formed of one or more laminar blanks. (lamina means a thin layer, plate, or scale of sedimentary rock, organic tissue or other material (Oxford Languages). It can be viewed that the lid and box portion are composed of multiple combined layers/plates).
Examiner Note: A narrower view of “wherein the box portion and the lid portion are formed of one or more laminar blanks” can result in a product-by-process limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
342
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
306
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 21, Bensman discloses the container according to claim 16, wherein the retention mechanism (72) comprises a protrusion (72) on a tray front wall and a corresponding engagement edge (90, portion 94) on the box portion.
With respect to claim 22, Bensman discloses the container according to claim 21, wherein the protrusion (72) extends from a bottom edge of the tray front wall.
With respect to claim 23, Bensman discloses the container according to claim 21, wherein the box portion comprises a box portion front wall (front wall with respect to 22a), and wherein the corresponding engagement edge (portion of 94) is on an inner surface of the box portion front wall.
With respect to claim 24, Bensman discloses the container according to claim 23, wherein the inner surface of the box portion front wall is defined by a first box portion front wall panel and a second box portion front wall panel. (Appears to be nomenclature and allow the wall to having multiple features, can consider the backside of 90 (with bend 94) the first box portion front wall and a backside of 22a the second box portion front wall).
Examiner Note: The first box portion front wall can be further limited to only consider the angled engaging surface of 94 if desired.
With respect to claim 25, Bensman discloses the container according to claim 24, wherein the first box portion front wall panel (backside of 90, specifically 94) extends across only a portion of the inner surface of the box portion front wall.
With respect to claim 26, Bensman discloses the container according to claim 24, wherein the engagement edge (94) is an edge of the first box portion front wall panel (upper surface of 22a’s inner surface).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16-20, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohagen (US 5882097 A) and Boye (US 20080023023 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Kohagen discloses a container for consumer goods, the container comprising: a box portion (10) and a lid portion (12), which together define a compartment configured to contain consumer goods; a tray (64) disposed within the compartment and configured to support at least some consumer goods, the tray comprising a first portion (portion below 72) residing in the box portion and a second portion (72) residing above the box portion, wherein the lid portion is movable relative to the box portion between a closed position (figure 1) in which the tray is covered and an open position (figure 2) in which the tray is uncovered, and wherein the second portion (72) of the tray extends into the lid portion when the lid portion is in the closed position, and engages (column 3 lines 42-45) with an inner surface of the lid portion to help retain the lid portion in the closed position, wherein the box portion and the lid portion are formed of one or more laminar blanks (lamina means a thin layer, plate, or scale of sedimentary rock, organic tissue or other material (Oxford Languages). It can be viewed that the lid and box portion are composed of multiple combined layers/plates).
Examiner Note: A narrower view of “wherein the box portion and the lid portion are formed of one or more laminar blanks” can result in a product-by-process limitation.
Kohagen failed to disclose of a retention mechanism disposed between the first portion of the tray and the box portion, the retention mechanism being configured to oppose movement of the tray relative to the box portion in response to the lid portion being moved from the closed position to the open position. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers with trays Boye taught of a container that uses friction fit to retain its tray (page 3 [0030]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tray and box portion of Kohagen to include a friction fit relationship as taught by Boye in order to allow for better stability and retention of the tray member within the box portion, this inherently would oppose movement of the tray relative to the box portion in response to the lid portion being moved.
PNG
media_image4.png
398
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
522
340
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Kohagen further discloses wherein the first portion of the tray is removable from
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 17, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Kohagen further discloses wherein the lid portion is connected to the box portion by a hinge line extending across a back wall of the box portion. the box portion when the lid portion is in the open position.
With respect to claim 19, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Kohagen further discloses wherein the lid portion engages with the tray by friction. (column 3 lines 42-45, understood to cause frictional engagement)
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 19, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Kohagen further discloses wherein the friction occurs between a tray front wall and a lid portion front wall. (nomenclature, can consider 72 and 100 sides as “front”)
With respect to claim 28, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Kohagen further discloses further comprising further consumer goods received in a space in a compartment beneath the tray. (inherent storage capability)
With respect to claim 30, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein a depth of the tray is between 0.1 and 0.5 millimetre greater than an inner depth of the lid portion to form an interference fit between the lid portion and the tray. However, Kohagen teaches of an engagement between the inner portion of the lid and the tray. Kohagen already teaches of an interference fit through the engagement of the lid and tray portion but does not specify the dimensions of the interference fit. The specific interference fit of 0.1 to 0.5 milimetres can be seen as a change in shape and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 16, 21, 27, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner (US 10793172 B2) in view of Bensman (US 9469024 B2).
With respect to claim 16, Brunner discloses a container for consumer goods, the container comprising: a box portion (12) and a lid portion (156), which together define a compartment configured to contain consumer goods; a tray (30, tray portion) disposed within the compartment and configured to support at least some consumer goods, the tray comprising a first portion (bottom of 30) residing in the box portion and a second portion (top of 30) residing above the box portion, wherein the lid portion is movable relative to the box portion between a closed position in which the tray is covered and an open position in which the tray is uncovered (inherent), and wherein the second portion of the tray extends into the lid portion when the lid portion is in the closed position; and a retention mechanism (72/90) disposed between the first portion of the tray and the box portion, the retention mechanism being configured to oppose movement of the tray relative to the box portion in response to the lid portion being moved from the closed position to the open position, wherein the box portion and the lid portion are formed of one or more laminar blanks. (lamina means a thin layer, plate, or scale of sedimentary rock, organic tissue or other material (Oxford Languages). It can be viewed that the lid and box portion are composed of multiple combined layers/plates).
Examiner Note: A narrower view of “wherein the box portion and the lid portion are formed of one or more laminar blanks” can result in a product-by-process limitation.
PNG
media_image6.png
660
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
484
462
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Brunner failed to disclose of wherein the second portion of the tray engages with an inner surface of the lid portion to help retain the lid portion in the closed position. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Bensman taught of a latching component that (39) that exists on the lid attaches the lid to the tray. The inner surface of the latch can be considered the surface facing the interior of the tray. Brunner already teaches of latches; however, it is unclear whether the latches attach to the lid or the tray. It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the latch attached to the lid since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. Either the latch is part of the tray or part of the lid. Thus, making the latch part of the lid would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 21, the references as applied to claim 21, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Brunner further teaches wherein the retention mechanism comprises a protrusion (90) on a tray front wall and a corresponding engagement edge (69 with 70) on the box portion.
With respect to claim 27, the references as applied to claim 21, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Brunner further teaches the container according to claim 21. wherein the engagement edge (indentation of 72) of the retention mechanism forms part of a slot in the container.
With respect to claim 29, the references as applied to claim 27, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Brunner further teaches wherein the slot is defined by a debossed portion (recessed portion of 72) of an inner surface of the box portion front wall.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6412630 B2, US 20030106928 A1, US 20060208050 A1, US 20090191317 A1, US 20130334234 A1, US 9382062 B2, US 10017291 B2, US 10077151 B2, US 20190062023 A1, US 10894658 B2, US 20210031969 A1, US 11365022 B2, US 20240262594 A1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9/22/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735