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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9 and 11 in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each independent claim further defines the claimed pocket. This is not found persuasive because the common technical feature of the pocket being formed between the inner flap of one of the side panels and the flap of the top, and which the inner flap having side sections with edges that are attached to the flap of the time, has also been taught by Hofte in view of the flap of the top (figure 2, item 102 and 103), being glued to the flap 100 of the side panel (figure 1 and 2, item 100; figure 2, item 6; see page 13, lines 7-13 which disclose glue 6 applied to flaps 102 and 103 and which are then folded over to obviously hold the inner flap (100) in position (see figure 4 and page 13,1st full paragraph, which discloses that flap 102 and 103 are folded and bonded to the inner flap of the side panel 100). The inner flap 100 has side sections and which side sections have edges, and the side sections are attached to the flap of the top.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 26, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Paragraph 20 of the specification as filed refers to more than one gripping tab “53.” Figures 2-4 label starter strip portions 47 and 48 but do not point to another gripping tab 53.
Paragraph 26 of the specification refers to “a bag 172,” which cannot be found in the figures.
Paragraph 27 refers to reference sign “11” which cannot be found in the figures.
Paragraph 28 refers to “hinge-defining strip 182” which reference sign cannot be found in the figures.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “164” has been used to designate both a “hinge body portion” as recited on paragraphs 24 and 25 and a “hinge body strip” as recited on paragraph 27.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 23 recites that, “upper flap 26 is folded along upper connecting fold line 123 and glued to main flap 35.” It is not clear how the upper flap 26 can be glued to main flap 35 since main flap 35 is at the bottom of the carton. Clarification is required.
On paragraph 27, the specification refers to “interlocking tbs.” (see the last sentence). It appears that this should recite, “interlocking tabs”
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.
Claim 6 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 6 recites the limitation, “the opposing side portions,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofte (WO 0211516 cited on PTO892 mailed 12/4/2025) in view of Hertenstein (US 5105971 cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hofte teaches a carton comprising:
a front panel (figure 3 and 4, item 14);
a rear panel (see figure 4, item 13) ;
opposing side panels (figure 8, item 11 and 12);
a bottom (since the container holds granular products, it would have been obvious that the carton comprises a bottom); and
a top (figure 1-2, item 102, 103),
Regarding the limitation of, “said top, along with upper sections of each of the front, rear and opposing side panels, defining a cover which is connected to one of the front, rear and opposing side panels by a hinge body portion,” Hofte teaches that the top along with upper sections of the front, rear and opposing side panels define a cover (figure 4, item 3) that is connected to the rear panel by a hinge (see figure 4 and page 13, last paragraph, “In the example, the lid 3 is a hinged lid 3, so that it does not have a side covering the back side 13 as the hinge 31 is at the corner of the top and of the back side.”).
Hofte further teaches that there is a hinge body portion that obviously would have defined a hinge axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary that Hofte is teaching that the cover would bend about a hinge axis to an opened position (see figure 4). Hofte is also teaching on the last paragraph on page 13 that the cover can “comprise sides 30 for covering the front 14, left 11 and right 12 sides of the carton.” This suggests a closed position wherein the hinge body would have folded so that the cover overlaps portions of the front panel and opposing side panels.
Hofte also teaches that one of the side panels includes an inner flap (see figure 1, item 100) which is folded beneath a flap of the top (figure 1-4, item 102 and 103), with both the inner flap and the flap of the top being part of the cover (see figure 4) and, between the inner flap and the flap of the top, there is established a pocket (see figure 4 and 8 where there is a pocket into which utensil 20 is secured; see page 16, which discloses using lines of weakness, embossed areas, cut or fold lines to help to fit and remove object 2). Because Hofte also discloses that the inner flap is glued to the top (see figure 2, where item 6 is glue applied to side sections of flap 100), the reference also discloses that the inner flap has side sections with edges that are attached to the flap of the top.
While Hofte is suggesting a hinge body portion that pivots about a hinge axis between an open and closed position and which closed position covers the front and opposing side panels, Hofte is not clear on the hinge body portion also having at least one fold line spaced from the hinge axis to enable the open position and the closed position.
Hertenstein teaches a container comprising a cover that is connected to the rear panel by a hinge body portion (see figure 7, item 25) that obviously defines a hinge axis. There is a fold line spaced from the hinge axis (see figure 7, item 25L) that allows the cover to be in an open position as shown in figure 7 and enables a closed position where the hinge body portion folds along line 25L so that the cover overlaps the front (12) and opposing side panels (11, 13) (see for example, column 5, lines 24-33 which discloses that the hinge portion would fold at 25L and 25B to allow the cover to overlap with front panel 12 and side panels 11, 13; see figure 10; see column 3, lines 5-6 which discloses 25L and 25B are fold lines). Hertenstein teaches that the fold line spaced from the hinge axis allows for reclosing of a similar type of carton (see the abstract and column 1, lines 54-68).
Since Hofte already teaches that the cover is to pivot to an open position for access to the contents and then can pivot to overlap the front and side panels for closing the carton, to modify Hofte and to use at least one fold line spaced from the hinge axis for facilitating opening and closing of the cover, as taught by Hertenstein would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because Hertenstein teaches that such fold lines can allow the cover to be more easily closed over the front and opposing sides of the carton and because Hofte does not provide any specificity as to how the hinge portion operates. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have looked to known techniques to achieve what Hofte already desires, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Hertenstein teaches that the hinge axis is formed by a perforated line extending along an edge of the hinge body portion (see figure 7, item 25L, 25B and column 3, lines 5-6 which discloses 25L and 25B are perforation cut scores). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a perforated line for facilitating pivoting of the cover between an open and closed position.
Regarding claim 3, Hertenstein teaches that the perforated line extends along the rear panel (see figure 7 where item 25, 25L and 25B are part of the rear panel, such that the perforated line extends along the rear panel).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 3 above which relies on Hofte (WO 0211516) as the primary reference, and in further view of Edelmann (DE 9316275 cited on IDS).
Claim 4 differs from the combination, as applied to claim 3 in specifically reciting, cuts provided at uppermost corner sections between the front panel and each of the opposing side panels.
Edelmann (DE 9316275) teaches a carton with a hinged lid that overlaps with the front panel and opposing side panels when closed (see figure 5). Edelmann further teaches cuts provided at uppermost corner sections between the front panel and each of the opposing side panels (see figure 5, item 20) for the purpose of making the lid corners to fit and to increase the stiffness of the container (see paragraph 12 of the machine translation).
To therefore modify Hofte who also teaches that closing of the cover can overlap with the front and opposing side panels and to provide cutouts at upper most corner sections between the front panel and each of the opposing side panels as taught by Edelmann would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of improving the lid fitment when closing and to increase the stiffness of the container.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 4 above which relies on Hofte (WO 0211516) as the primary reference, and in further view of Ahlers (US 2824684).
Claim 5 differs from the combination as applied to claim 4 in specifically reciting, cut-outs provided at uppermost corner sections between the rear panel and each of the opposing side panels.
Ahlers teaches a carton comprising slits (i.e. cutouts) at uppermost edges between the rear panel and each of the opposing side walls (see figure 1 and 6, item 34). Ahlers teaches that the slits 34 can be helpful for providing a flexible connection between the lid and the remainder of the carton, distributing the flexing and bending stresses due to opening and closing movements of the lid and thus minimize the tendency of the lid hinge connection to break or tear (see column 2, lines 43-52).
Since Hofte also teaches a lid hinge, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included slits in uppermost corners sections between the rear and each of the opposing side panels, as taught by Ahlers, for the purpose of distributing flexing and bending stresses between the lid and the carton and to help minimize the tendency of the hinge from breaking or tearing in use.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above which relies on Hofte (WO 0211516) as the primary reference, and in further view of Brand (US 20070267466).
Claim 6 differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting, wherein at least one of the opposing side portions is formed with a handle at a position spaced from the cover.
Brand teaches carton with a hinged cover (see figure 15) and which carton further comprises a handle at a position spaced from the cover (see figure 16A, item 715, 735; see paragraph 80, last sentence).
To therefore modify Hofte and to provide handles, as taught by Brand would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of making it easier to hold and carry the container, such as commensurate with larger sizes of the container.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above which relies on Hofte (WO 0211516) as the primary reference, and in view of Meyers (US 3690544) and in further view of Zimmerman (US 20090294517) and Hession (US 20060289328).
Regarding claim 7, Hofte teaches a utensil is at least partially stored within the pocket (see figure 7 and 8, item 20).
Claim 7 differs in specifically reciting, wherein a hole is formed in the inner flap to expose a handle of the utensil to assist in maneuvering the utensil and wherein the edges of the side sections are tapered.
Regarding the edges of the side sections being tapered, Meyers teaches a carton comprising a cover that comprises a hinge (see figure 3). Myers further teaches that the cover can be formed using inner flaps (figure 1, item 41 and 45) and which inner flaps are attached to a flap of the top (Column 3, lines 32-40). Meyers teaches that the inner flap has tapered edges (see figure 1, item 41 and 45) which are shown in figure 3 as being able to clearly fit within the underside of the top. Since Meyers is teaching an inner flap that is folded and secured to a top flap in a similar manner as already taught by Hofte, to modify Hofte and use flaps that have some degree of taper would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on a substitution of one shape of flap for another, both which would still function as desired by Hofte for creating a pocket that can at least partially hold a utensil therein. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the tapering of the inner flap would also have ensured that the flap would fit within the underside of the top.
Claim 7 differs from the above combination in specifically reciting that there is a hole in the inner flap to expose a handle of the utensil to assist in maneuvering the utensil.
However, as shown in figure 1 and 4, Hofte teaches that the flap has a recess (see figure 1, item 41), which would expose a handle of the utensil (i.e some portion of the scoop’s flange). Hofte also teaches that there can be lines of weakness, embossed areas, cut or fold lines in the vicinity of the cutout 41 in the flap 100 to help access and remove the utensil (see page 16, lines 6-8). This disclosure would appear to suggest some form of a hole in combination with the recess 41 for helping to gain access to the utensil. Regarding claim 7, item 41 of Hofte could be construed as a hole.
Nonetheless, Zimmerman teaches using perforations in combination with a hole (figure 1, 2 and 5, item 6 and 11; paragraph 29) for facilitating further access to the utensil (figure 3, item 2; paragraph 27) that has been secured to the carton.
Hession teaches that known forms of perforations can be full depth cuts (i.e. holes) (see figure 1A and Figure 7, item 21 and paragraph 25), which therefore read on holes. Therefore, Zimmerman and Hession are teaching and suggesting holes that can be used in combination with Hofte’s recess for gaining access to Hofte’s utensil.
To therefore modify Hofte and to include a hole to expose a portion of Hofte’s handle would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of being able to make it easier to gain access to Hofte’s scoop.
Regarding claim 8, Hofte teaches a handle portion positioned in the pocket, such as the longer portion of the rim as shown in figure 4, near item 30).
Regarding claim 9, Hofte’s inner flap includes a concave recess (see figure 1, item 41) and the scoop portion is nesting in the concave recess (see figure 1 and 4, item 2). The combination as applied to claim 7 teaches a hole in combination with a recess.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Hofte (WO 0211516) as the primary reference, and in further view of Baner (US 20210053719) and in further view of Stone (US 5236123) and Bigelow (US 4380289).
Regarding claim 11, Hofte teaches that the contents can be granular contents (see page 1, under “Technical field”).
Claim 11 differs in specifically reciting that there is a bag in the interior of the carton and dry pet food in the bag.
Regarding the use of a bag within the interior of the carton, Hertenstein teaches using a sealable, flexible liner within a carton with a cover that can be opened and closed about a hinge (see figure 7, item L). Hertenstein teaches that the liner is useful for containing the contents in a sealed condition and to serve as a moisture barrier for the dry contents within the carton (see column 1, lines 5-25). If it could have been construed that Hertenstein did not specifically discuss a bag, then it is noted that Baner teaches a bag in box package, which comprises a hinged lid (see figure 3, item 25 and paragraph 9, “hinged lid”). The carton comprises a bag (see figure 4, item 15) used to hold dry particulate material (see paragraph 60 last four sentences). Baner further teaches that the bag is useful for protecting the contents (see paragraph 10 and 53).
To therefore modify Hofte and to include a bag within Hofte’s carton would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of protecting the granular material, such as from moisture.
Regarding the particular type of product within the bag, Hofte is not limiting regarding the particular contents but does not specifically recite dry pet food. Hofte does discuss particulate material such as detergent as one example (see page 1, 2nd paragraph). Baner teaches dry pet food (see paragraph 60, “particulate material may include pet food”). Stone further teaches cartons with hinged covers (see figure 5) and which carton comprises a liner (figure 2, item 10) that is used for dry granular material such as detergents and pet foods (see column 3, lines 29-32, 37-40). Bigelow teaches cartons for granular products such as dry pet food as well as other particulate materials such as detergent (see column 1, lines 15-18) and where the carton further includes a utensil for helping to dispense the contents without the consumer having to rely on a separate scoop (see figure 1 and 3, item 90; column 2, lines 28-34).
Since Hofte already teaches a carton with a scoop that is used to help dispense the granular contents from within the carton, to therefore modify Hofte and to package dry pet food, as taught by Stone and Bigelow, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on another known and conventional granular product that can be beneficially packaged together with a dispensing utensil.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dacey (US 20040060974) teaches a carton with a hinged lid that overlaps with the front panel and opposing side panels when closed. Dacey further teaches cuts provided at uppermost corner sections between the front panel and each of the opposing side panels (see figure 4, item 60 and 70) for the purpose of relieving stress that can be caused by placing the cover over the body portion of the container when the cover is closed (see paragraph 31).
Barde (WO 2021144405) teaches a carton for packaging granular products such as dry pet food (see page 18, lines 2-7) and which carton further includes a scoop or spoon (see the abstract; page 6, lines 6-9 and page 19, lines 3-19).
Hall (US 20170297800) teaches that full depth cuts are known forms of perforations (see paragraph 51).
Miller (US 20040089671) teaches providing a hole to expose what is behind a carton flap (see figure 1 and 2, item 58) and which hole can help to gain access to the contents behind the flap (see paragraph 35), via additional cut or perforation lines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights