DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 May 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the exterior with four bottom panels (seen in fig. 10 of the instant application) in addition to complementary components including a tab and a recess (seen in fig. 1 and 4 of the instant application but only having three panels and no bottom interlocking flaps) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant is mixing embodiments of two unique exterior panels. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The embodiment where “engaged” recesses mate have recesses on the same side of the folded exterior panels (fig. 1), see objections to the drawings, above. The 4 bottom panels of claim 1, embodiment of fig. 10, and the mating opposing recesses of claim 7, fig. 1, are contradictory. Applicant does not have support for what is being claimed, an exterior panel with four sides, four bottom flaps and mating recesses that extend in opposite directions when engaged.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is not clear what “when engaged” means. What is the recess engaged with and how does the engagement cause the recesses to extend in opposite directions? In the instant application, the recesses that are claimed as extending in opposite directions are on a different exterior panel than the exterior panel with four bottom flaps. It is not clear how the exterior with four panels and four bottom panels having recesses at the ends would engage somehow and extend in opposite directions. For the purposes of examination, “a second direction opposing said first direction” is interpreted to mean that the recesses are cut into opposing edges as seen in fig. 4 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasjack (US 2706935) in view of Russell (US 4572425).
Regarding claims 1, 2, Pasjack discloses a partitioned container assembly comprising:
a plurality of transverse panels and a plurality of longitudinal panels, fig. 2 at 17 and 16, each comprising:
a partition having one or more slots at 18;
folding tabs 21 extending from each side of each partition panel and having a top edge and a bottom edge; and
a fold line (at 20, fig. 2) extending a length of each edge shared by said partition and the respective transverse folding tab; and
an exterior panel at 1, fig. 1, comprising a plurality of sections (walls at 3 and 4), each of said sections having an exterior facing surface and an interior facing surface, wherein each folding tab is adjoined to one of said interior facing surfaces of opposing sections of said exterior panel (via adhesive at 25, fig. 3, 5, and 7);
wherein said exterior panel further includes four bottom panels (fig. 1, at 7 and 8), each bottom panel extending from a fold line (not numbered, seen in fig. 1) on a bottom edge of said exterior panel sections, and each bottom panel extending substantially a length of said bottom edge of the exterior panel section adjoined thereto, fig. 1, such that when assembled said bottom panels form a bottom section of said partitioned container assembly, fig. 6; and
wherein said transverse panel slots are mated with said longitudinal panel slots to form a series of individual compartments within said exterior panel, fig. 5.
Pasjack does not disclose that the bottom panels are configured to interlock with one another, they are secured together via staples at 22, in fig. 6. With this in mind, after being assembled the box is not again readily flattened as seen in Figs 1 and 4 of Pasjack.
However, Russell is analogous art in regard to folding boxes and teaches a reuseable knock down box, fig. 1-5, with four panels (12, 14, 16, 18) and bottom panels (22a, 24a, 26a, 28a) extending substantially an entire length of a bottom edge of each panel along a fold line (not numbered), fig. 1. As seen in fig. 1, each of the panels of Russell have a different shape including a rectangular panel, 22a, two panels having an angled side edge opposite a straight side edge, 24a and 26a, and a panel with a shape different from the other panels, 28a, and are intended to interlock together in order to allow the box to be erected, fig. 2-4. The bottom flaps of Russell are taught as being more durable with a simplified design and flaps that readily reopen, in addition the container readily lays flat for storage or return shipment, col. 1: 35-45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom panels of Pasjack to have the interlocking differently shaped bottom panels for allowing the box to be flattened and shipped as per the teaching of Russell.
Regarding claim 3, Pasjack also discloses that the exterior panel comprises complementary components for mating separate portions of said exterior panel to one another, flap 5 and corresponding area at the opposite end of the blank, fig. 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 5, Pasjack further discloses that the assembly is configured to be folded substantially flat, fig. 1 and 3, col. 2: 30-40, fig. 2 of Russell.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasjack and Russell as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Corella (US 4115909).
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 7, the references applied above teach all of claim 3, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach that edges of the exterior panels have complementary mating recesses and tabs.
Corella teaches a folded container with four panels, 22, 24, 26, and 28, fig. 1 and 2(b), the two outer end panels, 24 and 22, are mated together by mating alternating tabs 222 and recesses 221 on the side edge of panel 22 and alternating tabs 241 and recesses 242 on the opposing side edge of panel 24, fig. 2(b) that mate together to connect the side edges to form the container, fig. 1 and 4 of Corella; Corella shows the recesses on both edges and the tabs on both edges such that the mating recesses on opposing side edges extend in opposite directions. The interlocking means for joining the edges of Corella allows the container to be erected without requiring any joining operations prior to use, col. 1: 45-52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the connecting means for the opposing edges of the panels of Pasjack which includes a tab 5 with adhesive, col. 1: 15-30, with interlocking alternating tabs and slots of Corella in order to allow the container to be assembled at a point of use and that can be reversely mated without tearing apart adhesively joined edges. The mating recesses of Pasjack as modified above are capable of extending in opposite directions “when engaged” depending on how a user engages the side edges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Hallam are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Hallam for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 7 is not found persuasive because there is no support for the combination of claim 7 and claim 1. The embodiment where “engaged” recesses mate have recesses on the same side of the folded exterior panels (fig. 1), see objections to the drawings, above. The 4 bottom panels of claim 1, embodiment of fig. 10, and the mating opposing recesses of claim 7, fig. 1, are contradictory. Applicant does not have support for what is being claimed, an exterior panel with four sides, four bottom flaps and mating recesses that extend in opposite directions when engaged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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 at (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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights