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) 1-3, 11, 13, 15, 20, 22-23, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcroft (US 11713181 B2) in view of Chambers et al. (US 10479581 B2; hereinafter Chambers).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 13, 20, 22, and 29-30, Ashcroft discloses an apparatus for holding a food product and allowing a user to consume the food product without container and blanks for making comprising a base (20; see Figures 4-5) for holding the product at least partially in a base interior, the base comprising a plurality of base panels (26/28) extending at least partially around the base interior; and a sleeve comprising a plurality of sleeve panels (40; see Figures 4-5) extending at least partially around the sleeve interior, the base being located at least partially in the sleeve interior for holding at least a portion of the product in the sleeve interior; wherein the sleeve comprises an open top end and an open bottom end (see Figures 4-5; Examiner considers the open top end to be the end that the base tray slides into), wherein the base is slidable along at least a portion of the sleeve for moving at least a portion of the product through the open top end of the sleeve from the sleeve interior. Ashcroft lacks a pull tab attached to the interior tray portion.
Chambers discloses a locking packaging container and blanks for making comprising a base (204) for holding the product at least partially in a base interior, the base comprising a plurality of base panels (see Fig. 2) extending at least partially around the base interior, the base further comprising a pull tab (234) foldably connected to at least one base panel (228; see Fig. 2) of the plurality of base panels at a bottom end of the base (see Fig. 3), wherein the pull tab is arranged to be grasped and pulled to move the base in at least one direction in a sleeve interior (202; see Figures 2-3); and a sleeve comprising a plurality of sleeve panels (see Fig. 2) extending at least partially around the sleeve interior, the base being located at least partially in the sleeve interior for holding at least a portion of the product in the sleeve interior; wherein the sleeve comprises an open top end (Examiner considers the open top end to be the end that the base tray slides into), and the base is slidable along at least a portion of the sleeve for moving at least a portion of the product through the open top end of the sleeve from the sleeve interior. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Ashcroft’s container to have a pull tab attached to the base in order to facilitate the sliding of said base within the outer sleeve (Chambers; Col 6 lines 1-5).
Regarding claims 2-3, 15, and 23, Ashcroft, as modified above, discloses a carton and blanks for making wherein the base comprises a base boot (Ashcroft; 30) positioned at least partially in the base interior, and the base boot is for at least partially supporting the product in the base interior.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-10, 12, 16, 18-19, 21, 24, and 26-28 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 11-14, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 13-16, 20, 22, and 29-30 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Chambers have been fully considered and are persuasive. Chambers lacks a sleeve comprising two opposed open ends. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Ashcroft in view of Chambers.
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
