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 Objections
Claims 15, 29, 34 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, the applicant states (line 3): “the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion”. It appears that the term “and” should be placed between “portion” and “the” to read “the proximal inner locking portion and the distal inner locking portion”.
Regarding claim 29, the applicant states (lines 3-4): “the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion”. It appears that the term “and” should be placed between “portion” and “the” to read “the proximal inner locking portion and the distal inner locking portion”.
Regarding claim 34, the applicant states (lines 3-4): “when the inner construct is formed from the fist blank”. It appears that the term “fist” should be “first” to read “when the inner construct is formed from the first blank”.
Regarding claim 38, the applicant states (line 4): “the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion”. It appears that the term “and” should be placed between “portion” and “the” to read “the proximal inner locking portion and the distal inner locking portion”.
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 is 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 outer locking panel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the outer locking panel” should be “the outer locking tab”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18-23, 27 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lantz et al. (US 20190062023).
Regarding claim 1, Lantz teaches a carton (figure 1, reference 100) comprising: an inner construct (figure 7, reference 104) comprising a plurality of inner panels extending at least partially around an interior of the inner construct (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure below) and a first opening for at least partially receiving one or more products in the interior of the inner construct (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure below), wherein the inner construct comprises an inner locking tab (figure 14, reference 106) foldably connected to at least one inner panel of the plurality of inner panels (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure below); and an outer construct (figure 7, reference 102) comprising a plurality of outer panels (figure 11, as shown in the annotated figure below) extending at least partially around at least a portion of the inner construct (figure 1) and a second opening (figure 11, as shown in the annotated figure below), wherein the outer construct comprises an outer locking tab (figure 18, reference 120) foldably connected to at least one outer panel of the plurality of outer panels (figure 18, reference 102); wherein the inner locking tab and the outer locking tab cooperate to limit movement between the inner construct and the outer construct (paragraph 10, 16 and figure 19); wherein at least the inner locking tab is moveable with respect to the outer locking tab (paragraph 10, 16 and figure 19) for allowing the inner construct to move relative to the outer construct from a first position (figure 4) at least partially through the second opening to a second position (figure 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
551
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab and the at least one inner panel are in an overlapping relationship (figure 14, reference 106: the inner locking tab overlaps the inner panel), and the outer locking tab and the at least one outer panel are in an overlapping relationship (figure 18: outer locking tab 120 overlaps an outer panel on outer construct 102).
Regarding claim 3, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab and the outer locking tab extend between the at least one outer panel and the at least one inner panel (figure 4, 14 and 18: inner locking tab 106 and outer locking tab 120 extend between an outer panel of outer construct 102 and inner panel of inner construct 104).
Regarding claim 4, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab is foldably connected to the at least one inner panel along the first opening (figure 14, reference 106) and the outer locking tab is foldably connected to the at least one outer panel along the second opening (figure 18, reference 120).
Regarding claim 5, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab has an inner locking edge (figure 19, edge along tab 106), the outer locking tab has an outer locking edge (figure 18, edge along 120) for engaging the inner locking edge to limit movement of the inner construct with respect to the outer construct (paragraph 16), and the inner locking edge and the outer locking edge are perpendicular to a plane of the first opening and parallel to a plane of the second opening (figure 18 and 19).
Regarding claim 6, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner construct comprises a bottom wall opposite to the first opening (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure below), the outer construct comprises an end wall opposite to the second opening (figure 10, as shown in the annotated figure below), the inner locking tab has an inner locking edge (figure 19, edge along tab 106), the outer locking panel has an outer locking edge (figure 18, edge along 120), and the inner locking edge and the outer locking edge are perpendicular to the bottom wall (figure 19) and parallel to the end wall (figure 19).
PNG
media_image3.png
404
555
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
360
370
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the outer construct comprises an aperture in the at least one outer panel (figure 12, reference 108), and the inner locking tab extends along the aperture when the inner construct is in the first position so that the inner locking tab can be engaged via the aperture to move the inner locking tab relative to the outer locking tab (figure 19 and paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 11, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the outer construct further comprises a recess extending in the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along the second opening (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below and figure 11), at least a portion of the inner construct extending along the recess in the outer construct (figure 1, reference 104).
PNG
media_image5.png
479
577
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab (figure 14, reference 106) comprises an inner locking edge (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure below) and an insertion edge that is oblique with respect to the inner locking edge (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
416
558
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches respective edges of inner panels of the plurality of inner panels extend along the first opening of the inner construct (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure below) and respective edges of outer panels of the plurality of outer panels extend along the second opening of the outer construct (figure 11, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image7.png
466
604
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
539
561
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the at least one inner panel comprises a first inner panel (figure 14: the first inner panel would be the panel with inner locking tab 106), the inner construct further comprises an inner stop flap (figure 14, reference 114) foldably connected to a second inner panel of the plurality of inner panels (figure 14: the second inner panel is the panel with inner stop flap 114), the at least one outer panel comprises a first outer panel (figure 4 and 10: the first outer panel is the outer panel with recess 108), the outer construct further comprises an outer stop flap (figure 10, reference 110) foldably connected to a second outer panel of the plurality of outer panels (figure 10: the second outer panel is the panel outer stop flap 110 is foldably connected to), and the inner stop flap and the outer stop flap are configured for engaging one another when the inner construct is in the second position to limit movement of the inner construct through the second opening of the outer construct (paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 19, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 18, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner stop flap is foldably connected to the second inner panel along the first opening of the inner construct (figure 14, reference 114), the outer stop flap is foldably connected to the second outer panel along the second opening of the outer construct (figure 10, reference 110), the second inner panel is spaced apart from the second opening of the outer construct (figure 1 and 9), and the second outer panel extends along at least a portion of the first opening of the inner construct (figure 9 and 10 and paragraph 112).
Regarding claim 20, Lantz teaches an combination, a first blank (figure 16, reference 304) and a second blank (figure 15, reference 202) for cooperating to at least partially form a carton (figure 1), the first blank comprising a plurality of inner panels (figure 16, as shown in the annotated figure below) and an inner locking tab (figure 16, reference 306) foldably connected to at least one inner panel of the plurality of inner panels (figure 16: inner locking tab 306 is foldably connected to an inner panel along 310), wherein the first blank is for forming an inner construct (figure 14, reference 104) with a first opening for at least partially receiving one or more products in an interior of the inner construct formed from the first blank (figure 14, as shown in in the annotated figure above for claim 1); the second blank comprising a plurality of outer panels (figure 16, as shown in the annotated figure below) and an outer locking tab (figure 18, reference 120) foldably connected to at least one outer panel of the plurality of outer panels (figure 18, outer panel of 102), wherein the second blank is for forming an outer construct (figure 1, reference 102) with the plurality of outer panels at least partially extending around the inner construct formed from the first blank (figure 1), the outer construct formed from the second blank comprising a second opening (figure 11, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 14); wherein the inner locking tab and the outer locking tab are configured for selectively cooperating to limit movement between the inner construct formed from the first blank and the outer construct formed from the second blank when the carton is formed from the first blank and the second blank (paragraph 10 and 16 and figure 19).
PNG
media_image9.png
621
285
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
471
434
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 20, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab is configured for being folded into an overlapping relationship with the at least one inner panel when the inner construct is formed from the first blank (figure 14, reference 106: the inner locking tab overlaps the inner panel), and the outer locking tab is configured for being folded into an overlapping relationship with the at least one outer panel when the outer construct is formed from the second blank (figure 18: outer locking tab 120 overlaps an outer panel on outer construct 102).
Regarding claim 22, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 20, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab is foldably connected to the at least one inner panel along a first fold line (figure 16, reference 310) that extends along the first opening when the inner construct is formed from the first blank (figure 14, as shown in in the annotated figure above for claim 1), and the outer locking tab is foldably connected to the at least one outer panel along a second fold line that extends along the second opening when the outer construct is formed from the second blank (figure 18, reference 120).
Regarding claim 23, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 20, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab is configured for forming an inner locking edge when the inner construct is formed from the first blank (figure 19, edge along tab 106), the outer locking tab is configured for forming an outer locking edge when the inner construct is formed from the first blank (figure 18, edge along 120), the outer locking edge being for engaging the inner locking edge to limit movement of the inner construct with respect to the outer construct when the carton is formed from the first blank and the second blank (paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 27, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 20, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the outer construct comprises an aperture in the at least one outer panel (figure 12, reference 108), the aperture being positioned in the at least one outer panel for being aligned with the inner locking tab when the carton is formed from the first blank and the second blank (figure 19 and paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 33, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 20, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches wherein the at least one inner panel comprises a first inner panel (figure 14: the first inner panel would be the panel with inner locking tab 106), the inner construct further comprises an inner stop flap foldably connected to a second inner panel of the plurality of inner panels, the at least one outer panel comprises a first outer panel, the outer construct further comprises an outer stop flap foldably connected to a second outer panel of the plurality of outer panels, and the inner stop flap and the outer stop flap are configured for engaging one another to limit movement of the inner construct through the second opening of the outer construct the inner construct further comprises an inner stop flap (figure 14, reference 114) foldably connected to a second inner panel of the plurality of inner panels (figure 14: the second inner panel is the panel with inner stop flap 114), the at least one outer panel comprises a first outer panel (figure 4 and 10: the first outer panel is the outer panel with recess 108), the outer construct further comprises an outer stop flap (figure 10, reference 110) foldably connected to a second outer panel of the plurality of outer panels (figure 10: the second outer panel is the panel outer stop flap 110 is foldably connected to), and the inner stop flap and the outer stop flap are configured for engaging one another when the inner construct is in the second position to limit movement of the inner construct through the second opening of the outer construct (paragraph 12) when the carton is formed from the first blank and the second blank (figure 4 and 10)
Regarding claim 34, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 33, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner stop flap is foldably connected to the second inner panel along the first opening when the inner construct is formed from the first blank (figure 14, reference 114), the outer stop flap is foldably connected to the second outer panel along the second opening when the outer construct is formed from the second blank (figure 10, reference 110).
Regarding claim 35, Lantz teaches a method of forming a carton (figure 1, reference 100), the method comprising: obtaining a first blank (figure 16, reference 304) comprising a plurality of inner panels (figure 16, as shown in the annotated figure below) and an inner locking tab (figure 16, reference 306) foldably connected to at least one inner panel of the plurality of inner panels (figure 16: inner locking tab 306 is foldably connected to an inner panel along 310); forming an inner construct from the first blank by folding the plurality of inner panels at least partially around an interior of the inner construct (figure 14, reference 104 and figure 17), the inner construct comprising a first opening for at least partially receiving one or more products in the interior of the inner construct (figure 14, as shown in in the annotated figure above for claim 1); obtaining a second blank (figure 15, reference 202) comprising a plurality of outer panels (figure 16, as shown in the annotated figure below) and an outer locking tab (figure 18, reference 120) foldably connected to at least one outer panel of the plurality of outer panels (figure 18, outer panel of 102); forming an outer construct (figure 1, reference 102) from the second blank by folding the plurality of outer panels at least partially around the inner construct (figure 17), the outer construct comprising a second opening (figure 11, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 14); wherein the inner locking tab and the outer locking tab cooperate to limit movement between the inner construct and the outer construct; wherein at least the inner locking tab is moveable with respect to the outer locking tab for allowing the inner construct to move relative to the outer construct from a first position at least partially through the second opening to a second position (paragraph 10 and 16 and figure 19).
PNG
media_image9.png
621
285
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
471
434
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 35, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the forming the inner construct comprises positioning the inner locking tab to be in an overlapping relationship with the at least one inner panel (figure 14, reference 106: the inner locking tab overlaps the inner panel), and the forming the outer construct comprises positioning the outer locking tab to be in an overlapping relationship with the at least one outer panel (figure 18: outer locking tab 120 overlaps an outer panel on outer construct 102).
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 7-9 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantz et al. (US 20190062023).
Regarding claim 7, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab is a first inner locking tab (figure 14, top reference 106), the at least one inner panel comprises a first inner panel (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1), the outer locking tab is a first outer locking tab (figure 18, reference 120), the at least one outer panel comprises a first outer panel (figure 11, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1), the inner construct further comprises a second inner locking tab (figure 14, bottom reference 106) foldably connected to a second inner panel of the plurality of inner panels (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1), and the second inner locking tab and the outer locking tab being for cooperating to limit movement between the inner construct and the outer construct (figure 18).
Lantz does not explicitly teach the outer construct comprises a second outer locking tab foldably connected to a second outer panel of the plurality of outer panels. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Since Lantz discloses two apertures 108, one on the first outer panel and one on the second outer panel, and two locking tabs 106, one on each first and second inner panel (figure 14), duplicating the outer locking tab 122 for the second aperture 108 would involve only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the carton of Lantz to include the outer construct comprises a second outer locking tab foldably connected to a second outer panel of the plurality of outer panels because having a second outer locking tab would allows for a more secure locking feature to further mitigate accidental opening by a child.
Regarding claim 8, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 7, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the outer construct comprises a first aperture and a second aperture in the respective first outer panel and second outer panel (figure 4, 10 and 12, reference 108 on each outer panel), the first inner locking tab and the second inner locking tab extend along the respective first aperture and second aperture so that the first inner locking tab and the second inner locking tab are accessible via the respective first aperture and second aperture when the inner construct is in the first position for moving the first inner locking tab and the second inner locking tab inwardly relative to the respective first outer locking tab and second outer locking tab (figure 18: When duplicating the outer locking tab as described in the rejection of claim 7, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 9, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the first aperture and the second aperture are spaced apart from one another (figure 4, 10 and 12, reference 108 on each outer panel). Lantz discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of teaches the first aperture and the second aperture are spaced apart from one another by about 50 mm to about 120 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spaced apart distance being about 50 mm to about 120 mm apart, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 24, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the inner locking tab is a first inner locking tab (figure 14, top reference 106), the at least one inner panel comprises a first inner panel (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1), the outer locking tab is a first outer locking tab (figure 18, reference 120), the at least one outer panel comprises a first outer panel (figure 11, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1), the inner construct further comprises a second inner locking tab (figure 14, bottom reference 106) foldably connected to a second inner panel of the plurality of inner panels (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1), and the second inner locking tab and the second outer locking tab being for cooperating to limit movement between the inner construct and the outer construct when the carton is formed from the first blank and the second blank (figure 18)
Lantz does not explicitly teach the outer construct comprises a second outer locking tab foldably connected to a second outer panel of the plurality of outer panels. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Since Lantz discloses two apertures 108, one on the first outer panel and one on the second outer panel, and two locking tabs 106, one on each first and second inner panel (figure 14), duplicating the outer locking tab 122 for the second aperture 108 would involve only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the carton of Lantz to include the outer construct comprises a second outer locking tab foldably connected to a second outer panel of the plurality of outer panels because having a second outer locking tab would allow for a more secure locking feature to further mitigate accidental opening by a child.
Regarding claim 25, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 24, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the outer construct comprises a first aperture and a second aperture in the respective first outer panel and second outer panel (figure 4, 10 and 12, reference 108 on each outer panel), the first aperture and the second aperture being positioned in the respective first outer panel and second outer panel for being aligned with the respective first inner locking tab and second inner locking tab when the carton is formed from the first blank and the second blank (figure 18: When duplicating the outer locking tab as described in the rejection of claim 24, the limitation is met)
Regarding claim 26, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 25, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the first aperture and the second aperture are spaced apart from one another when the outer construct is formed from the second blank (figure 4, 10 and 12, reference 108 on each outer panel). Lantz discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of teaches the first aperture and the second aperture are spaced apart from one another by about 50 mm to about 120 mm when the outer construct is formed from the second blank. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spaced apart distance being about 50 mm to about 120 mm apart, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 12, 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantz et al. (US 20190062023), as applied to claim 1, 20 and 35 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 20190084740).
Regarding claim 12, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Lantz does not teach the outer construct further comprises a tear-away panel that is separable from the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along a line of weakening for forming a recess in the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along the second opening. However, Davis does teach the outer construct (figure 1 and 7, reference 100) further comprises a tear-away panel (figure 1 and 7, reference 36 and 38) that is separable from the at least one outer panel (figure 7, reference 104) and the outer locking tab (figure 8, reference 30) along a line of weakening for forming a recess in the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along the second opening (figure 1 and 7, reference 40 and 42 and paragraph 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the carton of Lantz to include the outer construct further comprises a tear-away panel that is separable from the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along a line of weakening for forming a recess in the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along the second opening, as disclosed by Davis, because including the tear away panel allows for forming a recess for a users’ fingers to grasp the inner construct during formation of the blank, as disclosed by Davis (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 28, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 20, as shown above.
Lantz does not teach the second blank further comprises a tear-away panel that is separable from the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along a line of weakening for forming a recess in the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along the second opening when the outer construct is formed from the second blank. However, Davis does teach the second blank (figure 1 and 7, reference 100) further comprises a tear-away panel (figure 1 and 7, reference 36 and 38) that is separable from the at least one outer panel (figure 7, reference 104) and the outer locking tab (figure 8, reference 30) along a line of weakening for forming a recess in the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along the second opening when the outer construct is formed from the second blank (figure 1 and 7, reference 40 and 42 and paragraph 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the carton of Lantz to include the second blank further comprises a tear-away panel that is separable from the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along a line of weakening for forming a recess in the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along the second opening when the outer construct is formed from the second blank, as disclosed by Davis, because including the tear away panel allows for forming a recess for a users’ fingers to grasp the inner construct during formation of the blank, as disclosed by Davis (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 37, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 35, as shown above.
Lantz does not teach the outer construct further comprises a tear-away panel that is separable from the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along a line of weakening, the method further comprising adhering the tearaway panel to the at least one inner panel. However, Davis does teach the outer construct (figure 1 and 7, reference 100) further comprises a tear-away panel (figure 1 and 7, reference 36 and 38) that is separable from the at least one outer panel (figure 7, reference 104) and the outer locking tab (figure 8, reference 30) along a line of weakening (figure 1 and 7, reference 40 and 42 and paragraph 68), the method further comprising adhering the tearaway panel to the at least one inner panel (paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the carton of Lantz to include the outer construct further comprises a tear-away panel that is separable from the at least one outer panel and the outer locking tab along a line of weakening, the method further comprising adhering the tearaway panel to the at least one inner panel, as disclosed by Davis, because including the tear away panel allows for forming a recess for a users’ fingers to grasp the inner construct during formation of the blank, as disclosed by Davis (paragraph 38).
Claims 15, 16, 29-31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantz et al. (US 20190062023), as applied to claim 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Drosis et al. (US 20200189813).
Regarding claim 15, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Lantz does not teach the inner locking tab comprises a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion are in an at least partially overlapping relationship and cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge. However, Drosis does teach the inner locking tab (figure 3B, reference 220) comprises a proximal inner locking portion (figure 3A, reference 270) foldably connected to the at least one inner panel (figure 3A, reference 254 at 288) and a distal inner locking portion (figure 3A, reference 272 and 274) foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion (figure 3B and 3A, reference 289A and 289B), and the proximal inner locking portion and the distal inner locking portion are in an at least partially overlapping relationship (figure 3B, reference 220) and cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge (paragraph 52 and 53 and figure 5A and 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the carton of Lantz to include the inner locking tab comprises a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion are in an at least partially overlapping relationship and cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge, as disclosed by Drosis, because including include the inner locking tab comprising a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion are in an at least partially overlapping relationship and cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge allows for the inner locking tab to essentially create a spring like action which keeps the carton in the locked position more securely.
Regarding claim 16, Lantz, in view of Drosis, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 15, as shown above. Furthermore, Drosis teaches the proximal inner locking portion and the distal inner locking portion are foldably connected along an oblique fold line (figure 3A, reference 289A and 289B).
Regarding claim 29, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 20, as shown above.
Lantz does not teach the inner locking tab comprises a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion are in an at least partially overlapping relationship and cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge when the inner construct is formed from the first blank. However, Drosis does teach the inner locking tab (figure 3B, reference 220) comprises a proximal inner locking portion (figure 3A, reference 270) foldably connected to the at least one inner panel (figure 3A, reference 254 at 288) and a distal inner locking portion (figure 3A, reference 272 and 274) foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion (figure 3B and 3A, reference 289A and 289B), and the proximal inner locking portion and the distal inner locking portion are in an at least partially overlapping relationship (figure 3B, reference 220) and cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge when the inner construct is formed from the first blank (paragraph 52 and 53 and figure 5A and 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the carton of Lantz to include the inner locking tab comprises a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion are in an at least partially overlapping relationship and cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge when the inner construct is formed from the first blank, as disclosed by Drosis, because including include the inner locking tab comprising a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion are in an at least partially overlapping relationship and cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge allows for the inner locking tab to essentially create a spring like action which keeps the carton in the locked position more securely.
Regarding claim 30, Lantz, in view of Drosis, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 29, as shown above. Furthermore, Drosis teaches the proximal inner locking portion and the distal inner locking portion are foldably connected along an oblique fold line (figure 3A, reference 289A and 289B).
Regarding claim 31, Lantz, in view of Drosis, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 30, as shown above. Furthermore, Lantz teaches the oblique line is for forming an insertion edge that is oblique with respect to the inner locking edge when the inner construct is formed from the first blank. (figure 14, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
416
558
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 38, Lantz teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 35, as shown above.
Lantz does not teach the inner locking tab comprises a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the forming the inner construct further comprises positioning the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion in an at least partially overlapping relationship so that the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge. However, Drosis does teach the inner locking tab (figure 3B, reference 220) comprises a proximal inner locking portion (figure 3A, reference 270) foldably connected to the at least one inner panel (figure 3A, reference 254 at 288) and a distal inner locking portion (figure 3A, reference 272 and 274) foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion (figure 3B and 3A, reference 289A and 289B), and the forming the inner construct further comprises positioning the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion in an at least partially overlapping relationship (figure 3B, reference 220) so that the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge (paragraph 52 and 53 and figure 5A and 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the carton of Lantz to include the inner locking tab comprises a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the forming the inner construct further comprises positioning the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion in an at least partially overlapping relationship so that the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge, as disclosed by Drosis, because including the inner locking tab comprises a proximal inner locking portion foldably connected to the at least one inner panel and a distal inner locking portion foldably connected to the proximal inner locking portion, and the forming the inner construct further comprises positioning the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion in an at least partially overlapping relationship so that the proximal inner locking portion the distal inner locking portion cooperate to at least partially form an inner locking edge allows for the inner locking tab to essentially create a spring like action which keeps the carton in the locked position more securely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 32 and 39 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsai et al. (US 20200087020) discloses a carton with an inner and outer construct and a locking tab.
Joines et al. (US 20220204210) discloses a carton with an inner and outer construct and a locking tab.
Takashi (JP 2017171364) discloses a carton with an inner and outer construct and a locking tab.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735