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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “the inside” should be --an inside--.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 2-3, “the height” should be --a height--.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the upper edge” should be --an upper edge--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the upper edge” should be --an upper edge--.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “the side edges” should be --side edges--.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the tabs are” should be --the at least one tab is--.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the tabs are” should be --the at least one tab is--, and
In line 2, “themselves” should be --itself--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-14, 18 and 19 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 5 recites the limitation “the insert” and “the collar” in lines 1 and 2. However, as the insert and the collar are introduced in claim 3 and claim 5 is dependent from claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the insert and the collar will be considered as defined in claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the insert” in line 1. However, as the insert is introduced in claim 3 and claim 6 is dependent from claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the insert will be considered as defined in claim 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the insert” in line 2. However, as the insert is introduced in claim 3 and claim 8 is dependent from claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the insert will be considered as defined in claim 3.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the insert” in line 1. However, as the insert is introduced in claim 3 and claim 9 is dependent from claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the insert will be considered as defined in claim 3.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the collar” in line 1. However, as the collar is introduced in claim 3 and claim 10 is dependent from claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the collar will be considered as defined in claim 3.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitations “the collar” and “the insert”. However, as the collar and the insert are introduced in claim 3 and claims 11 and 12 are dependent from claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the collar and the insert will be considered as defined in claim 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the side wall cuff” in lines 2-3. However, as the side wall cuff is introduced in claim 2 and claim 14 is dependent from claim 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the side wall cuff will be considered as defined in claim 2.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the top and/or bottom…is connected to the rest of the package in another way” in lines 1-4. However, the phrase "in another way" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "in another way"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination, the top and/or bottom will be considered to be crimped or adhesively bonded into the package.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the package is produced from paper, carboard or the like” in lines 1-2. However, claim 1, from which claim 19 depends, already requires the package comprising cardboard. Accordingly, the recitation of additional materials is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. Additionally, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination, the package will be considered to be produced from cardboard.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected as being dependent, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, claims 6 and 11.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoefte et al. (US 2022/0267044 A1, hereinafter Hoefte) in view of Holford (US 10,104,910 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Hoefte teaches a package comprising: a paper based material having a bottom (34), a top (93), and a circumferential side wall (20), wherein the top is designed to be separated from the package, removed and replaced (paragraphs 27-176 and Fig. 1-4, 7, 8, 11-17).
Hoefte fails to teach the paper based material being cardboard. Holford teaches an analogous paper based package having a bottom, a top and a circumferential sidewall, wherein the top is designed to be separated from the package and replaced. Holford further teaches that analogous packages are known in the prior art to be made from cardboard (column 5 lines 22-25).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Hoefte by alternatively forming the package from cardboard, as taught by Holford, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a known material for forming an analogous package and as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein a tear strip (110, 70), with which a side wall cuff and the top can be separated from the rest of the package, is provided in the side wall (Hoefte: paragraphs 36, 39-41, 80-86, Fig. 1, 11, 12).
Regarding claim 3, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein an insert (100) in the form of a collar is provided on an inside of the side wall (Hoefte: paragraphs 28, 38, 39, 43, 45, 52, 53 and Fig. 2, 3, 8).
Regarding claim 4, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 3 above, wherein the top is designed to be placed onto the collar (Hoefte: paragraph 38, 43 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein the insert forming the collar is formed circumferentially on the inside of the side wall (Hoefte: paragraph 38 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein the insert has an overlapping design (Hoefte: paragraph 106 and Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 7, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 6 above, wherein a lateral step (185) is provided, which extends over a part of a height of the insert (Hoefte: paragraph 79 and Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein an upper edge (200) of the insert is curved (Hoefte: paragraph 72 and Fig. 8, 13).
Regarding claim 9, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein the insert is connected to the side wall at points (Hoefte: paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 10, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein the collar is at least slightly pretensioned (Hoefte: paragraph 28- “the core layer 100 can be a spiral wound paperboard material that is cut to an appropriate length and has an outer diameter that is closely conforming to the interior surface of the shell layer 20”).
Regarding claim 11, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, but fails to teach at least one tab being hinged to an upper edge of the collar. Holford teaches an analogous package having an insert with a collar and additionally teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure an upper edge of the collar with at least one tab (27) configured to lock with a lid of the container in order to retain the lid in a closed position (column 4 line 22-column 6 lines 31 and Fig. 4, 6 and 9).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Hoefte by providing at least one tab hinged to an upper edge of the collar, as taught by Holford, in order to provide a means for helping to retain the top on the collar.
Regarding claim 12, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 11 above, but fails to teach at least two tabs hinged directly or indirectly adjacently to side edges of the insert. Holford additionally teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to further configure the collar with at least two tabs (34) hinged adjacently to side edges of the insert to help retain the lid in the closed position (column 4 line 22-column 6 line 31 and Fig. 1-5).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Hoefte at least two tabs hinged directly or indirectly adjacently to side edges of the insert, as taught by Holford, in order to provide a means for helping to retain the top on the collar.
Regarding claim 13, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 11 above, wherein the at least one tab is folded outwards (Holford: Fig. 4, 6, 9).
Regarding claim 14, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 11 above, wherein the at least one tab is able to support itself against the sidewall cuff (Holford: column 4 line 22-column 6 line 31).
Regarding claim 15, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein a tamper-evident closure (the removable portion 70 defines a tamper-evident closure) is provided (Hoefte: paragraphs 34, 36, 39-41, 50, 80-85 and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 16, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 15 above, wherein the tamper-evident closure is defined by a line of weakness (60, 80, 160) (Hoefte: paragraphs 33-34, 41, 44, 80 and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 17, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 15 above, wherein a part (70) of the cardboard of the side wall is designed to be removable (Hoefte: paragraph 34 and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches the package of claim 1 above, wherein the top and/or the bottom is crimped or adhesively bonded into the package (Hoefte: paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 20, Hoefte as modified by Holford teaches a folding carton blank for forming the package of claim 1 above (Hoefte: paragraph 87 and Fig. 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights