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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed on February 11, 2026 wherein Applicant previously elected (with traverse) Species 1 [i.e., figure(s) 1-4]. No claim(s) amendments present in aforementioned reply and Examiner notes Applicant’s arguments to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 103 of standing claim(s) 1-8. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are pending and claim(s) 1-8 will be examined.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haven (U. S. Patent US1951408A) hereinafter HAVEN, in view of Spiegelman (U. S. Patent US8523048B1) hereinafter SPIEGELMAN.
Regarding claim 1, HAVEN teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 below) a supporting structure 10 comprising:
a bottom plate H4-01;
a foldable area H1-01;
a plurality of side plates H1-02 respectively disposed on edges H1-03 of the bottom plate H4-01 and forming an accommodating space H4-02, any adjacent two of the side plates H1-02 being connected to each other (Fig. 3);
at least one flip segment 21, a part of the at least one flip segment 21 being separable from the side plates H1-02; and
at least one through hole H1-04,
wherein the at least one through hole H1-04 disposed on the side plates H1-02;
wherein the bottom plate H4-01 is foldable along the foldable area H1-01, and the at least one flip segment 21 is inserted into a headed pin 23 positioned in the at least one through hole H1-04 to fix the bottom plate H4-01 and the side plates H1-02 in position (Fig. 1).
HAVEN fails to teach flip segment 21 being separable from the side plates H1-02 along a segmenting line.
HAVEN fails to teach flip segment 21 disposed on the bottom plate H4-01.
HAVEN fails to teach flip segment 21 is inserted into the through hole H1-04 to fix the bottom plate H4-01 and the side plates H1-02 in position.
However, SPIEGELMAN teaches (see Figure 1 - Figure 5 below) a package S1-01, wherein a flip segment 4 being separable from the side plates S1-02 along a segmenting line, flip segment 4 is inserted into the through hole 5 to fix side plates S1-02 in position for manufacturing ease.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified flip segment 21 in the supporting structure 10 of HAVEN with flip segment 4 as taught in the package S1-01 of SPIEGELMAN for manufacturing ease.
PNG
media_image1.png
1001
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
370
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1069
365
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
941
469
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
892
1211
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
974
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
430
556
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
470
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
406
536
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HAVEN further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) supporting structure 10, wherein when the bottom plate H4-01 is folded along the foldable area H1-01, the accommodating space H4-02 is divided into a support zone H4-03 and a base zone H4-04, there is an included angle H4-05 formed between the support zone H4-03 and the base zone H4-04.
HAVEN fails to teach the at least one flip segment 21 is disposed in one of the support zone H4-03 and the base zone H4-04, and the at least one through hole H1-04 is correspondingly disposed in another one of the support zone H4-03 and the base zone H4-04.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified relative placement of flip segment 21 / through hole H1-04 (in the supporting structure 10 of HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN) to be disposed in one / in another of the support zone H4-03 and the base zone H4-04 to meet design requirements since rearrangement of parts is held as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 3, HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HAVEN (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) and SPIEGELMAN (see Figure 1 - Figure 5 above) further teaches supporting structure 10, wherein the at least one flip segment 21 is flipped along a bending line and toward the at least one through hole H1-04.
Regarding claim 4, HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HAVEN fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) supporting structure 10, wherein a number of the at least one flip segment 21 is two, a number of the at least one through hole H1-04 is two, and the two through hole H1-04s are respectively disposed on two of the side plates H1-02 facing each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified number of the at least one flip segment 21 / number of the at least one through hole H1-04 (respectively disposed on two of the side plates H1-02 facing each other) to be respectively two / two in the supporting structure 10 of HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN for securement purposes. Moreover, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 5, HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HAVEN (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) and SPIEGELMAN (see Figure 1 - Figure 5 above) further teaches supporting structure 10, wherein the at least one flip segment 21 and the at least one through hole H1-04 are disposed on one of the side plates H1-02, the at least one flip segment 21 is flipped from the one of the side plates H1-02 along a bending line and toward the at least one through hole H1-04, and the bottom plate H4-01, which is folded, and the at least one flip segment 21 form a triangular structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HAVEN (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) and SPIEGELMAN (see Figure 1 - Figure 5 above) further teaches supporting structure 10, wherein the at least one flip segment 21 is disposed on the bottom plate H4-01, and when the at least one flip segment 21 is inserted into the at least one through hole H1-04, the at least one flip segment 21, the one of the side plates H1-02 and the base zone H4-04 form a triangular structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HAVEN further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) supporting structure 10, wherein the bottom plate H4-01 comprises a long side H3-01 along a direction, a location of the foldable area H1-01 is at 35% to 65% of a total length H3-02 of the long side H3-01.
Regarding claim 8, HAVEN and SPIEGELMAN (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HAVEN further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) supporting structure 10, wherein the supporting structure 10 is made of paper material (page 4, left column, lines 10-13, “… cardboard…”) and is glue-free.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC § 103 (in the reply filed February 11, 2026) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections (i.e., 35 USC § 103) does not rely on exactly combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Matias (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20180346234A1): Teaches a “pack” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Chatelain (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20170349362A1): Teaches a “pack” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Henke et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20080087556A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Parker (U. S. Patent US2813621A): Teaches a “carton” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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 D. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights