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
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennessey (US 3786983) in view of Forget et al. (FR 2540465).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hennessey discloses a package comprising: a base (10); a lid (16) attached to said base for rotation about a hinge axis to open the package, the lid comprising a body (16) and a main tab (31) separated from body by a fold-line(17), and a tamper evidence tab (19)attached to the base, wherein, prior to first opening of the package, the main tab (31) and the tamper evidence tab (19) are connected to each other via a first line of weakening (29), the arrangement being such that said main tab (31) and the tamper evidence tab (19) separate along the first line of weakening (29) when the main tab is folded about the fold-line prior to rotation of the lid about the hinge axis to open the package, wherein the base comprises a lower face and a front wall (13) upstanding from said lower face at an angle thereto, wherein the body of the lid extends parallel to the lower face with the main tab (31) being folded relative to the body to overlie the front wall (13) prior to first opening, the tamper evidence tab (19) being attached to said front wall(col. 3 lines 22-25, 35-37), wherein the front wall is perpendicular to said lower face, the lower face and said front wall meeting along a line of juncture (11), wherein the front wall comprises a top edge parallel to said line of juncture, wherein prior to first opening, the body of the lid is connected to the tamper evidence tab along a second line of weakening (17 -col. 3 lines 2-13), and wherein the body and the tamper evidence tab separate along said second line of weakening when the lid is rotated about the hinge axis and after the main tab and the tamper evidence tab have separated along the first line of weakening (col. 3 lines 40-48). Hennessey does not disclose the main tab extends beyond the tamper evidence tab towards the line of juncture.
Forget et al. discloses a similar package with a main tab (14) that extends beyond the tamper evidence tabs (13) towards the line of junction (between 1 and 3) and contacts the line of junctions prior to first opening (see figs. 1-2,5) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the main tab of Hennessey with a length that is longer than the tamper evidence tabs to allow for easier access to the main tab during initial opening.
Regarding claim 4, Hennessey discloses a package according to claim 3, wherein the first line of weakness (29) extends at an angle to the top edge of the front wall of less than 90 degrees (see figs. 1-2, 5).
Regarding claim 6, Hennessey discloses a package according to claim claim 5, wherein the second line of weakening (17) between the tamper evidence tab (19) and the body of the lid extends along said top edge of the front wall (see figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Hennessey discloses a package according to claim 1, wherein the package comprises a pair of tamper evidence tabs (19 - either side of 31), each tamper evidence tab being separated from the main tab by a first line of weakening (29 - see figs. 1-2, 5).
Regarding claim 10, Hennessey discloses a package according to claim 9, wherein prior to first opening, the body (16) of the lid is connected to each tamper evidence tab (19 - either side of 31) along a second line of weakening (17), the body and the tamper evidence tab separating along each of said second lines of weakening when the lid is rotated about the hinge axis and after the main tab (31) and tamper evidence tab (19 -either side of 31) have separated along the first lines of weakening (29) (col. 3 lines 40-48).
Regarding claim 11, Hennessey discloses a package according to claim 9, wherein the pair of tamper evidence tabs are attached to the front wall on either side of the main tab (col. 3 lines 22-25, 35-37).
Regarding claim 12, Hennessey discloses a package according to claim 9, wherein the first lines of weakening (29) between the main tab (31) and each tamper evidence tab (19- either side of 31) each extend at an angle so that the main tab tapers in a direction away from the body of the lid(see figs. 1-2, 5).
Regarding claim 13, Hennessey as modified by Forget al. discloses the main tab (31) extends beyond the pair of tamper evident tabs (19 – either side of 31) toward the line of juncture (see rejection above of claims 1 and 8 – teaching of Forget et al. applied to main tab (31) of Hennessey to extend beyond and to line of juncture)
Regarding claim 14, Hennessey discloses a package according to claim 1, wherein the or each tamper evidence tab is attached to the base via a permanent adhesive (col. 3, lines 22-25, 35-39; - as each tamper evidence tab remains attached to the front wall (13) when the package is opened, the adhesive is considered to be permanent).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennessey (US 3786983) in view of Forget et al. (FR 2540465) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0297802).
Regarding claims 15-17, Hennessey, as modified above, discloses a package according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the base comprises a slot extending along the top edge of the front wall of the base configured to receive the main tab to facilitate closure of the package after first opening or the base comprises an upper face extending from the top edge of the front wall and parallel to the lower face and the upper face comprises an aperture configured to provide access to the package.
Davis et al. discloses a similar package having a base with a front wall (12) with a slot (50) along the top edge and an upper face (18) extending from the top edge of the front wall and parallel to the lower face with an aperture (30, 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the package of Hennessey to include a slot in the front wall at the top edge and an upper face with an apertures as taught by Davis et al. to allow the tab to fit in the slot to aid in reclosing the package while the upper faces with apertures allows for the package to hold multiple items segregated from each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Hennessey in view of Forget et al. is improper and does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Hennessey in the manner proposed by Forget et al. as Hennessey already provides a different structural arrangement to facilitate access and grasping of the main tab (31). The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Hennessey does employ the use of notches (28) on either side of main tab (31) to simplify the task of grasping the main tab (31), this does not mean that other teachings facilitating the grasping of tabs cannot be employed. Forget et al. teaches that to facilitate gripping the tab (14) is longer than the surrounding lateral zones (13). Applying this teaching to the main tab (31) of Hennessey would provide this same benefit and the fact that notches of Hennessey already provide some differentiation to the main tab to facilitate grasping and opening of the main tab is irrelevant as there are numerous examples in the prior art that the use of notches and a longer tab together are well known. See Davis, Rockefeller, Brown and Eisman.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN JEFFREY NEWHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4544. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights