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) 1-2 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevalier (US 6032853 A) in view of Tsoukalis (US 11905081 B2).
Regarding claims 1-2, Chevalier discloses a container and blank for making comprising a panel sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface (see Fig. 7 embodiment blank) bounded by a top edge, a bottom edge, a left side edge and a right side edge, the panel sheet including a first score line (143; see Fig. 7) proximate the top edge, wherein a seal flap (142) is defined between the first score line and the top edge (see Fig. 7); a second score line (141) located an intermediate distance between the top edge and the bottom edge, wherein a back panel (140; Examiner considers 140 to be a “back” panel) is defined between the first score line and the second score line and between a first portion of the left side edge and a first portion of the right side edge, wherein the first portion of each of the left side edge and right side edge encompass the seal flap and the back panel (see Fig. 7); a third score line (Examiner notes the third score line is the score line between elements 106 and 107) proximate the second score line and opposite the back panel, wherein a top panel (107; Examiner considers 107 to be a “top” panel) is defined between the second score line and the third score line; a fourth score line (Examiner notes the fourth score line is the score line between elements 106 and 108) proximate the bottom edge, wherein a front panel (106; Examiner considers 106 to be a “front” panel) is defined between the third score line and the fourth score line, wherein a bottom panel (108; Examiner considers 108 to be a “bottom” panel) is defined between the fourth score line and the bottom edge (see Fig. 7); a fifth score line (Examiner notes the fifth score line is the score line between elements 106 and 109) collinear with the first portion of the left side edge, wherein an extended left side edge is defined between the fifth score line and a second portion of the left side edge, wherein the extended left side edge encompasses the top panel, front panel and bottom panel, and wherein the third score line and the fourth score line traverse the extended left side edge; a sixth score line (148) proximate the fifth score line and extending from the third score line to the fourth score line, wherein a left side panel (109) is defined between the fifth score line and the sixth score line, and wherein a left side flap (150) is defined between the sixth score line and the second portion of the left side edge; a seventh score line (Examiner notes the seventh score line is the score line between elements 106 and 110) collinear with the first portion of the right side edge, wherein an extended right side edge is defined between the seventh score line and a second portion of the right side edge, wherein the extended right side edge encompasses the top panel, front panel and bottom panel, and wherein the third score line and the fourth score line traverse the extended right side edge; and an eighth score line (149) proximate the seventh score line and extending from the third score line to the fourth score line, wherein a right side panel (110) is defined between the seventh score line and the eighth score line, and wherein a right side flap (151) is defined between the eighth score line and the second portion of the right side edge, wherein the panel sheet is configured to be folded at each of first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth score lines to form a closed three-dimensional construction (see Figures 7-19). Chevalier lacks teaching of a printed display.
Tsoukalis teaches a pizza box toy and game delivery container and blank for making wherein said blank comprises a printed display (see Fig. 18 and Col 13 lines 25-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Chevalier’s container to have a printed display in order to provide information and/or entertainment to an end user, as taught by Tsoukalis.
Regarding claims 5-7, Chevalier, as modified above discloses a container wherein the panel sheet further includes a first corner flap (Chevalier; 111) disposed at a junction of the top panel and the left side panel; a second corner flap (Chevalier; 113) disposed at a junction of the left side panel and the bottom panel; a third corner flap (Chevalier; 114) disposed at a junction of the bottom panel and the right side panel; and a fourth corner flap (Chevalier; 112) disposed at a junction of the right side panel and the top panel. Examiner notes that each of the four corner flaps have an irregular pentagonal shape and bisecting fold line.
Regarding claims 8-11, Chevalier, as modified above discloses a container comprising at least one adhesive strip (Chevalier; Col 4 line 65- Col 5 line 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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