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) 1-7, 9-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vistrom et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,472,121).
Regarding claim 1: Vistrom discloses a continuous blank for forming a folded object,
wherein the blank is made from a multi-layered board material comprising a corrugated layer defining a flute direction, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via blank 100 and/or “The middle layer may be corrugated”);
the blank comprising two blank portions (via middle section 101 and any of the outer flaps 105-110) joined to each other by a straight fold line (via fold lines 102a /103a and 104/105 and 106) extending along the flute direction and having two opposed fold line end points (via each fold line inherently having two end points), the multi-layered board material being weakened along the fold line (via the shown cutout along fold lines 101/102; further along any fold lines inherently the cardboard is weakened);
wherein a contour of the blank comprises two recessed contour portions (via the shown contour/recessed section around curved corners 101g, 101h, 101f, 101e), each recessed contour portion comprising one of the end points and extending on both sides of the fold line (Fig. 1; via each corner 101h/101e with the shown recess section extending on both sides of fold line 101a/102a).
Vistrom may not suggest the claimed each of the two recessed contour portions having a recess length extending parallel to the fold line and a recess width extending perpendicular to the fold line in a plane defined by the blank in an unfolded state, wherein, for at least one of the two recessed contour portions, the recess length is from 2 mm to 15 mm, and the recess width is from 3 mm to 8 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed inventio, to have modified Vistrom’s blank to come up with the claimed specific locations of the recessed contour portions with recess length extending parallel to the fold line and a recess width extending perpendicular to the fold line, since it has been held that rearranging parts/elements of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Further, Vistrom’s blank could have been modified to the claimed value and ratios related to the contour portions and recess length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges or value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and/or re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
regarding claim 2: wherein the multi-layered board material further comprises a non-corrugated first liner layer being joined to a first surface of the corrugated layer, wherein the first liner layer is weakened along the fold line, preferably by an indented score line, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via the shown corrugated blank 100 with the shown formed fold lines, inherently weaken and scored lines).
Regarding claim 3: wherein the blank is configured to be folded into a packaging box, the first liner layer preferably being is an inner liner layer configured to form an interior surface of the packaging box, see for example (Figs. 4-8; via the final formed box 200).
Regarding claim 4: wherein the two recessed contour portions are arranged and formed symmetrically to each other (Figs. 1-2; via the shown symmetrically contour portions of both corners 101e/101h), and/or wherein at least one of the two recessed contour portions is symmetric with respect to the fold line.
Regarding claim 5: wherein at least one of the recessed contour portions is wedge- shaped and preferably has a rounded apex region (via rounded corners 101e/101h).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 9, 11: Vistrom may not suggest the exact claimed values and ranges of the having the contour portion is not larger than 10 mm., at least one of the two recessed contour portions has a curve radius at the associated fold line end point of between 0.8 mm and 2.5 mm, preferably of about 2 mm., nor a ratio of the recess length to a flute height of the corrugated layer to be between 1.6 and 6.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed inventio, to have modified Vistrom’s blank to come up with the claimed specific claimed value and ratios related to the contour portions and recess length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges or value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and/or re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 10: wherein the recessed contour portions are centered on the fold line and/or on the score line, see for example (Figs. 1-2; via the shown recessed portion of the corners 101e & 101h are centered in respect to the fold line 101a/102a).
Regarding claim 12: Vistrom discloses that the multi-layered material further comprises a non-corrugated second liner layer joined to a second surface of the corrugated layer (Figs. 1-3; via blank 100; inherently the corrugated blank has top and bottom layers over the flutes materials and/or “The middle layer may be corrugated”).
Vistrom may not suggest the exact claimed thickness of the first liner layer is smaller than a thickness of the second liner layer and/or wherein a bending stiffness according to ISO 5628 is lower for the first liner layer than for the second liner layer. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed inventio, to have modified Vistrom’s blank to come up with a thickness of the first liner layer to be smaller than a thickness of the second liner layer and/or wherein a bending stiffness according to ISO 5628 is lower for the first liner layer than for the second liner layer., since it has been heled that discovering the optimum or workable ranges or value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13: wherein one of the two blank portions is a side flap portion, preferably a short side flap portion and the other one is a wall portion, wherein the contour of the blank in regions of the wall portion immediately adjacent the recessed contour portions is smoothly curved, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via the shown smoothly curved corners of the two blank portions body and flaps; 101e/101h).
Regarding claim 17: wherein the first liner layer is weakened along the fold line by an indented score line (via the shown weaken lines 101a/102a and 101a/103a).
Regarding claim 18: wherein at least one of the recessed contour portions is wedge-shaped and has a rounded apex region (via rounded regions of 101h and 101e).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection adjusted to address the newly added limitations.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Vistrom ‘121 does not suggest the newly added limitations referring to “each of the two recessed contour portions having a recess length extending parallel to the fold line and a recess width extending perpendicular to the fold line in a plane defined by the blank in an unfolded state, wherein, for at least one of the two recessed contour portions, the recess length is from 2 mm to 15 mm, and the recess width is from 3 mm to 8 mm”. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is calling for an end potions of a fold line of extending along the flute direction, while ‘121 mentions that the blank might be formed from a smoothly bendable board but does not explicitly specify the flute direction.
The Office believes that ‘121 clearly stating and using a corrugated with flute portions, see for example “The middle layer may be corrugated, and the second outer layer may have a lower bending stiffness”.
Applicant further argued the location of flute direction of the board as applied by ‘121 cannot extend along the fold line, but rather must extend perpendicular. Applicant also highlighting that ‘121 cannot extend along the flute direction F as defined in claim 1 and the regions around the endpoints of folding line 101a/102a cannot be a recessed contour portion int eh sense of claim 1.
The Office reminds applicant that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, arguing of a specific locations or orientations of the claimed fold line around contour portions is only a matter of design choice and orientation of elements to be made. As set forth above, it has been held that rearranging parts/elements of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731