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, 6-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice (US 9073664 B2) in view of Govers et al. (US 10717561 B2; hereinafter Govers).
Regarding claims 1, 6-7, and 11, Justice discloses a container with a cover comprising a flexible sheet material (see Fig. 5; Examiner considers a foldable blank to be “flexible”) and including first and second folded portions (12a-d) respectively located adjacent to opposing edges of, and co-planar with, a remainder of the said cover apparatus (14a-b), and each said folded portion capable of being at least partially unfolded to be moved (see Figures 1-2), when the cover apparatus is located over the opening of the container, to a position to contact with an adjacent side wall (18a; see Fig. 2) of the container such that the opening of the container is substantially covered by the remainder of the cover apparatus; and wherein the said folded portions of the cover apparatus are retained so as to be substantially co-planar with the remainder of the cover apparatus and, when the said respective folded portions are at least partially unfolded, to form a chamber or pouch (22), by the provision of first and second seals located at opposing ends of each respective folded portion (Col 6 lines 5-15). Examiner notes that, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim reads on a box with a foldable lid; said lid having end seals. Justice lacks the flexible sheet comprising a polymer.
Govers teaches a flexible sheet forming a box with a cover (see Fig. 1) wherein said flexible sheet comprises a polymer (Col 3 lines 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Justice’s container to include a polymer coating in order to protect said container, as taught by Govers.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice in view of Govers, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Smith (US 2021/0221584 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Justice, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for detectable materials being included within the flexible sheet. Smith teaches an apparatus wherein a flexible sheet of material includes one or more detectable materials as an integral part thereof that render the sheet of material detectable by X-ray and/or metal detection apparatus when in range thereof so as to allow the presence of the apparatus, or a fragment of the apparatus greater than a predetermined size, to be detectable (see Par. 0020-0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Justice’s container material to include the presence of detectable materials detectable by X-rays in order to provide the container with a safety hazard detection means (Smith; see Par. 0006-0007).
Regarding claims 4-5, Justice, as modified above, teaches a container wherein the detectable material includes any or any combination of barium, magnetite and/or iodine to render the cover apparatus capable of detection by X-ray detection apparatus (Smith; Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 9, Justice, as modified above, teaches a container wherein the flexible sheet material is provided in a colour associated with a particular indication, such as the origin or destination locations for a container with which the cover apparatus is located, the contents of a container with which the cover apparatus is located or the time in which the cover apparatus was located with a container (Smith; Par. 0021 and 0038).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6-7, and 11 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Justice have been fully considered and are persuasive. Justice lacks a flexible sheet comprising a polymer. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Justice in view of Govers.
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 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