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 § 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.
Claims 6-9 are 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.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation “for holding in position”. It is unclear what is being held in position and what this limitation means. It appears to confusing due to the translation of the claims. For examining purposes, it was understood that this functional language is omitted from the claim.
Claim 6 recites “a snap fastening element in line 3. It is unclear whether this is referring to the same snap fastening element recited in the previous claims or another. For examining purposes, it was understood as “the snap fastening element”.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “at least two members”, “a snap fastening element”, two transverse projections” and depends on claim 6, which already introduces a member, a snap fastening element and a transverse projection. Therefore, it is unclear how many of each structure is being claimed. For examining purposes, it was understood that the “at least two members” include the at least one member of claim 6, and that it is the same snap fastening element as claim 6, and that the “two transverse projections” include the transverse projection of claim 6.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Varale (WO 2021190972 A1), and further in view of Sebban (US 2002/0162565 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Varale teaches a moulded one-piece device (100, Fig. 11) for packaging at least one product, in particular a cosmetic product (abstract), comprising a lid (20), a base (30) provided with a lower bearing surface (35) and a hinged platform (40) connecting said base to said lid (see Figure 11) in a pivoting manner (see abstract and claim 1),
wherein the hinged platform (40) comprises:
- a first hinge (41) connected to the lower bearing surface (35) connected to a rear wall (32) of the base (30) and configured to make the lid (20) pivot relative to the base (30) from an initial moulding position, in which the lid makes a first angle with the base, towards an open use position in which the lid makes a second angle with the base (page 8 lines 12-17; the base and the hinged platform 20 are fully capable of being positioned in the same plane if the user chooses to do so); and
- a second hinge (42) connected to an upper part of a rear wall (22) of the lid (20) in the initial moulding position and configured to pivot the lid relative to the base from the open use position towards a closed position in which the lid covers the base (page 8 lines 18-25; the base and the hinged platform 20 are fully capable of being positioned in the same plane if the user chooses to do so),
the base (30) and the hinged platform (40) being disposed on the same plane in the initial moulding position, and a lower surface of the lid, which is opposite the upper part of the rear wall, being disposed in a plane parallel to the plane of the base and the hinged platform in the initial moulding position (see Figures and page 3; the parts are pivotable and fully capable of being adjusted by the user such that the hinged platform and the base are in the same plane and the lid is in another parallel plane),
wherein the rear wall of the base is provided with a vertical cutout (32a) provided with two opposing vertical snap-fastening grooves (132b), each vertical snap-fastening grooves being configured to cooperate with a vertical snap-fastening element (144b) protruding vertically from the hinged platform (see Figures 11-13) in the initial moulding position.
Varale teaches a snapping elongated member (144, 144a) which comprises the vertical snap-fastening elements (144b) may also comprise a transversal recess and discusses providing a snapping connection along the whole length of the connection walls (144d, see Figure 13 and page 5 lines 4-10), but is silent to specifically at least one notch made in the bottom of the vertical cutout in the base wherein the hinged platform comprises at least one anti-translation stud extending along the longitudinal axis in the initial moulding position and configured to cooperate, in the closed position, with the at least one notch, said notch having a shape corresponding to the shape of the anti-translation stud.
Sebban teaches a cosmetic packaging device comprising a base (2), a lid (4) and a hinge platform (20) between the base and the lid configured for providing a pivoting hinge connection at two points between the lid and the base (see Figures 1-6; [0031-0032], [0040-0045]). Sebban teaches a rear wall of the base comprises a notch (B) that is configured to engage/snap with an anti-translation stud (C, 31) (see Figures and [0039], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base rear wall of Varale to include a notch for receiving a stud (C) in the hinge platform, as taught by Sebban, because Varale contemplates providing a transverse recess that spans the entire length of the rear wall and , and such a connection would advantageously provide multiple snapping points (in addition to the groove and snap elements) that would reinforce the connection between the base and lid at different locations.
Regarding claim 2, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Varale teaches each of the two vertical snap-fastening elements (144b) comprises a protuberance (144c), the protuberances each extend beyond the surface of the hinged platform in two opposite directions and are each intended to cooperate with the corresponding vertical groove (132b) in the open position (see Figures 11-13 and pages 9-10).
Regarding claim 3, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 2 (see rejection above). Varale teaches each protuberance (144c) comprises a flat surface (see Figure 13).
Regarding claim 4, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Varale teaches each snap-fastening groove (132b) has, in transverse cross section, a parallelepipedal shape designed to correspond to a corresponding shape on a snap-fastening element (page 5 ll. 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Varale teaches the two vertical snap-fastening grooves (132b) extend over the entire height of the rear wall of the base (see Figure 12; the grooves 132b spans the entire height of the base).
Regarding claim 6, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Varale teaches wherein the hinged platform (20) comprises at least one member (see annotated Figure below; such that the lip/step between 144a and 144b forms a seat) extending horizontally from each of the snap-fastening elements (144b) toward the centre of the hinged platform (see Figures 11-13) and
wherein the base comprises a transverse projection (see annotated Figure below) protruding from the bottom of the vertical cutout in the base towards the lid, the at least one member being configured to engage, in the closed position, with the transverse projection, thus forming a first anti-translation stop (see Figures 11-13; that the lip/step structure between 144a and 144b forms a seat that is received by the protruding projection in the rear wall of the base within the cutout).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
541
809
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 6 (see rejection above). Varale teaches wherein the hinged platform comprises at least two members for holding in position, each extending horizontally from a snap-fastening element towards the centre of the hinged platform, and wherein the base comprises two transverse projections protruding from the bottom of the vertical cutout in the base towards the lid, each member for holding in position being configured to engage, in the closed position, with one of the transverse projections, thus forming the first anti-translation stop (see rejection of claim 6 and how the same structures are replicated on both ends of 144a and see annotated Figures below).
PNG
media_image3.png
520
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
548
809
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 7 (see rejection above). The combination teaches that Varale’s snapping bar (144a) will have a protrusion where the recess (144d) is located that snaps with a notch similar to notch (B) of Sebban to provide an additional snapping point. Therefore, the modified device of Varale would have the notch situated between the two transverse projections as it corresponds to the same location of (144d) shown in Figures 11-13.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base rear wall of Varale to include a notch for receiving a stud (C) in the hinge platform, as taught by Sebban, because Varale contemplates providing a transverse recess that spans the entire length of the rear wall and , and such a connection would advantageously provide multiple snapping points (in addition to the groove and snap elements) that would reinforce the connection between the base and lid at different locations.
Regarding claim 9, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 8 (see rejection above). Sebban teaches the notch and stuf (B and C) have corresponding geometry as to create a snap connection. The combination is silent to the hinged platform comprises at least two anti-translation studs, and wherein the rear wall of the base is provided with at least two notches made in the bottom of the vertical cutout in the base, each anti-translation studs extending along the longitudinal axis in the initial moulding position, each anti-translation stud being configured to
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the stud and notch since such modification involves a mere duplication of a part that does not change its operation. This change may be done to increase stability or increase the force required to open and close the hinge platform from the base. It may also be obvious to divide one elongated stud and one elongated notch into two separate parts as it may be advantageous to enhance symmetry and reinforce the connection at localized connection points.
Regarding claim 10, Varale in view of Sebban teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Varale teaches the lid (20) is delimited by a front wall (21), the rear wall (22), which is opposite the front wall (see Figure 11), two lateral walls (23, 24) and the lower surface (25) delimiting an inner cavity (26) and wherein the base (30) is delimited by a front wall (31), a rear wall (32), which is opposite the front wall (see Figure 11), two lateral walls (33, 34) and a lower surface (35) delimiting an inner cavity (36) for accommodating the product, the first hinge (41) being connected to the lower part of the rear wall (32) of the base (30) and the second hinge (42) being connected to the upper part of the rear wall (22) of the lid (20), which is opposite the lower surface (see Figure 11).
Response to Arguments
The claim amendments recived on 4/7/2026 overcome the previous claim objections and most 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, please note other 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please note new interpretation and grounds of rejection based on the amended claims and clarifications addressed in the remarks. The amendments require the notch to be located specifically in the vertical cutout and forces a new interpretation of the transverse projections of claims 6-7 as they are now being positively claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
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 LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights