DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/6/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1-8, the term “novel” should not be there.
Regarding claim 1, line 9 “an edge of an opening part of the box are connected” should read “an edge of an opening part of the box is connected”.
Regarding claim 1, line 10 “the various angle frames” should read “the angle frames”.
Regarding claim 5, “the corresponding fillets” should read “corresponding fillets”.
Regarding claim 6, “the corresponding angle frame” should read “an angle frame”.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, “the circumferential flange” lacks antecedent basis.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 6349877 issued to Bradford (hereinafter “Bradford”) in view of US Pub 20140117025 by Minnette et al. (hereinafter “Minnette”).
Regarding claim 1, Bradford teaches a packaging box (Title, col 1, lines 37-39, “Tote box” necessarily is packaging for articles by being disclosed as “tote boxes and goods therein”; Fig 1, box 10), comprising
a box body (Figs 1A & 2, “square box 14” is folded plastic sheet blank 12),
the box body comprises a box sheet material (Fig 2, 12), a second buckle part (Fig 1A, a second buckle part is top rail 16), and angle frames (Fig 1A, angle frames are corner enhancers 18a-d); the box sheet material comprises a bottom surface (Figs 1A & 2, 20) and four side surfaces connected to the bottom surface (Fig 2, side surfaces 22a-b and 26a-b); the box sheet material is formed into a box by folding four side surfaces (Fig 1A, box from folding); four corners of the box are fixed and sealed through the angle frames (Figs 1 & 6, col 9, lines 43-45, four corners are shown fixed and sealed by engagement through angle frames 18a-d and disclosed fixed since a portion of the box “prevent[s] the top rail from being removed from the box”); an edge of an opening part of the box is connected to the second buckle part (Fig 1, col 2, lines 36-39, “The top rail [/second buckle 16] is locked onto the top edge [/an opening part] of the box as the result of a hook… which snaps [/buckles to] beneath one or more tabs”);
the second buckle part is connected to the angle frames (Fig 1, 16 is shown connected to 18a-d); the second buckle part and the angle frames are integrally formed (Fig 1, 16 is integrated/integral as a fixed assembly with 18a-d) by injection molding (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality));
the second buckle part is formed at the opening part of the box (Fig 1, 16 is integrated/integral with the opening part of 15 of the box) by injection molding (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality)); and the angle frames are formed at the four corners of the box (Fig 1, 18a-d is formed and at each box corner) by injection molding (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality)).
But Bradford does not explicitly teach a cover.
Minnette, however, teaches a similar plastic injection-molded-parts box (Fig 16) comprising:
a cover body, wherein the cover body is detachably buckled with the box body (Figs 4 & 9 & 16, shows a second buckle part of the box that is a brim 316 – which is detachably buckled/snapped to by the lid 14, [0050] “Sheet-support ring 50 provides a lid-ring frame for the multi-layer membrane sheet 52…50 is configured to mate temporarily in snapping relation”); the cover body comprises a cover sheet material (52) and a first buckle part (50); the first buckle part is arranged at an edge of a surface of the cover sheet material (Figs 4 & 16, 50 is at an edge of a surface of 52); the first buckle part is formed by injection molding at the edge of the surface of the cover sheet material (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second buckle at the opening end of the box of Bradford to have a cover covering the box opening as taught by Minnette in order to beneficially protect the contents inside from the environment.
Regarding claim 3, Bradford further teaches the second buckle part is in a frame shape (Fig 1, 16 is a frame shape) and has a circumferential flange (Fig 1A, a circumferential flange is shown aligned with lip 81 as a lower outer portion of 16); and the circumferential flange is fused together with the edge of the opening part of the box (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality)).
Regarding claim 4, Bradford further teaches each angle frame (18a-d) comprises a side frame (Fig 4, a side frame is a frame formed by leg channel walls 58b and 60b) and a bottom frame (Fig 4, a bottom frame is a frame formed by leg channel walls 58a and 60a, shown extending at the bottoms of 18a-d, Fig 6; col 6, lines 16-18, “18a-d… has a height equal to the distance between the bottom 20… and the top edge 15 of the box 14”, Fig 1A, meaning the bottom frame contacts the box bottom); the side frame is fused with edges of two corresponding adjacent side surfaces; and the bottom frame is fused with bottom edges of two corresponding adjacent side surfaces and a corresponding corner edge of the bottom surface (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality)).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 6349877 issued to Bradford (hereinafter “Bradford”) in view of US Pub 20140117025 by Minnette et al. (hereinafter “Minnette”) in view of US Pat 2757851 issued to Moore (hereinafter “Moore”).
Regarding claim 2, Bradford/Minnette further teaches the first buckle part is in a frame shape (Bradford, Fig 1, 16 is a frame shape); an outer contour of the first buckle part is the near an outer contour of the cover sheet material (Minnette, Fig 9, an outer contour of 50 is shown near an outer contour of 52); and after forming, a surface of the first buckle part is fused together with a circumferential edge of the cover sheet material (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality)). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Bradford/Minnette does not explicitly teach the outer contour of the first buckle part is the same as the outer contour of the cover sheet material.
Moore, however, teaches a plastic cover sheet (Figs 16-17, blank 50 is a sheet material lid; col 3, lines 64-66, “The blank material employed may be any suitable kind of sheet material such as sheets formed of fibers, metals, plastics, resins or combinations thereof”) comprising:
an outer contour of a first buckle part is the same as an outer contour of the cover sheet material (Figs 16 & 19, show an outer contour of a buckle part 54 with 55 is the same as an outer contour of the cover sheet 50, because they are coextruded; col 6, lines 8-12, “The blank [is of] material and/ or aluminum foil having a thermoplastic or resinous film or coating on its face. The coating may be extruded polyethylene film which is impervious to moisture”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover sheet outer contour of Minnette to be the same as (i.e. aligned with) the outer contour of the first buckle as taught by Moore, since it has been held that shifting the position of the element would not have modified the operation of the device (e.g. Minnette, Fig 9, still 52 engages 16), rearrangement is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
Regarding claim 8, Bradford/Minnette further teaches a thickness of the cover sheet material (Minnette, Fig 9, cover sheet material is elastic membrane 52 shown relatively thin); and a thickness of the box sheet material (Bradford, col 4, line about 45, “Depending upon the application, the box blank may be other thicknesses or materials as well”). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Bradford/Minnette does not explicitly teach a cover sheet thickness is 2 decimillimetres to 35 decimillimetres, and box sheet thickness is 2 decimillimetres to 35 decimillimetres (Note: that’s five orders of magnitude from a meter).
Moore, however, teaches a cover sheet material thickness (Figs 16-19, col 7, lines 40-41, “form the cap [blank 50] of… sheet material from 0.003 to 0.004 inch thickness” which is 7.62 to 10.16 decimillimetres) and a box sheet material thickness (Figs 10-13, col 3, lines 71-74, “blanks are… 0.012 to 0.016 inch thickness, or other sheet material… 0.002 to 0.004 inch thickness” which is at least 5.08 to 10.16 decimillimetres; col 3, lines 64-70, “The blank material employed… of sheet material [for cover and box is] … plastics”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of cover and box of Bradford/Minnette to be the claimed range as taught by Moore in order to advantageously permit “hermetically sealed closures” (Moore, col 3, line 70), wherein the thickness of the material improves/increases the duration of freshness of the contents by being airtight over Bradford, and prevents more types of atmospheric harm.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 6349877 issued to Bradford (hereinafter “Bradford”) in view of US Pub 20140117025 by Minnette et al. (hereinafter “Minnette”) in view of US Pat 3381879 issued to Belcher et al. (hereinafter “Belcher”).
Regarding claim 5, Bradford further teaches the bottom surface is square (Fig 1A, “square box 14” means box bottom 20 is square);
two ends of a side surface (Fig 2, two ends of one of side surfaces 22a-b or 26a-b) extend outwards to any adjacent two side surfaces (Fig 1, is shown extending to any two proximal side surfaces (e.g. 26a extends to 22a and 22b)); after folding, the two ends are fused together with the side frame along the corresponding bottom surface corners to seal junctions of the four side surfaces (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality)); the bottom frame is in an arc shape (Fig 4, the bottom frame is a frame formed by leg channel walls 58a and 60a, shown extending at the bottom, that are in an arc shape in between said legs, Fig 6); and the bottom frame is fused together with bottom edges of end portions of two corresponding adjacent side surfaces and edges of the corresponding bottom surface corners of the bottom surface to seal junctions of the four corners (product by process limitation. MPEP 2113. Reinforced corners via angle frames and second buckle part fixed in a folded sheet box body show the prior art to be similar to the claimed product (i.e. same claim structure and functionality)).
But Bradford/Minnette does not explicitly teach that the four box bottom surface corners have fillets.
Belcher, however, teaches a similar plastic sheet box material comprising:
four corners of the bottom surface have fillets (Fig 1, filleted/rounded corners of a bottom 12 are apertures 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the box bottom four corners of Bradford with fillets as taught by Belcher, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration (e.g. rounded fillet corner shape) were significant, changes in shape a merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B.
Examiner notes that the resultant modification yields the claimed invention via fusing the side and bottom frames of Bradford to the fillets of Belcher that are in the box bottom sheet of Bradford.
Regarding claim 6, Bradford further teaches reinforcing blocks are arranged at four corners of the second buckle part (Fig 4, reinforcing blocks are a separator 61 of each angle frame 18a-d, shown at each corner of second buckle part 16, and shown having a length in cross-section and a height, Fig 1A, making it block shape); the reinforcing blocks are respectively connected to the circumferential flange and the corresponding angle frame (Fig 1, 61 is shown connected to the second buckle part 16 circumferential flange (lower outer portion) and to 18a-d); two sides of the side surfaces are provided with unfilled corners (Figs 1A & 4, in the folded box state, two sides of each of the four side surfaces 22a-b and 26a-b are shown with unfilled/gap corners); and the unfilled corners of the two sides of two adjacent side surfaces after folding form gaps that are matched with shapes of the reinforcing blocks (Fig 4, each 61 fills/matches the otherwise unfilled corner gaps).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The limitations are sufficient to overcome the prior art, and examiner did not find references to teach all the limitations particularly as follows:
Claim 7: The limitation “second flush stiffening ribs are arranged on the bottom frames” has sufficiently narrowed the scope of the claim.
Since second flush stiffening ribs arranged on the bottom frames are not taught, none of the references anticipate the claimed subject matter (analysis below).
For illustration purposes, Figures 5-7 of the examined disclosure show second flush stiffening ribs 721 are arranged on the bottom frames 72, which is different than the prior art which does not teach second flush stiffening ribs on the bottom frames as claimed.
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight, since the function (i.e. reinforcing box corners) was achieved without the same particular structure (i.e. second flush stiffening ribs on the bottom frame) of the examined invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Failed teachings of Bradford/Minnette are as follows underlined with null citation “(-)”.
Regarding claim 7, Bradford discloses first flush stiffening ribs are arranged on the side frames (Fig 4, first flush stiffening ribs are a separator 61 of each 18a-d, shown having a length in cross-section and a height, Fig 1A, making it an elongate rib shape capable of flushing with edges of side surfaces);
second flush stiffening ribs are arranged on the bottom frames (-); the first flush stiffening ribs are intersected with the second flush stiffening ribs (-);
after folding, the edges of two adjacent side surfaces resist against two sides of the corresponding first flush stiffening ribs (Fig 4, engagement of two edges of two side surfaces necessarily shows resistance/resisting against two sides of 61);
bottom edges of the end portions of the two adjacent side surfaces resist against upper sides of the corresponding second flush stiffening ribs (-); and edges of the fillets of the bottom surface resist against lower sides of the corresponding second flush stiffening ribs (-).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 20060011634 – not a box, no second stiffening ribs (Fig 8)
US 20230150713 – no first stiffening ribs (Fig 11 & 15 & 43-44 & 55)
US 20240092529 – no second stiffening ribs (Fig 12C)
EP 1650134 – no second stiffening ribs (Fig 9)
WO 2022063445 – first and second stiffening ribs 52 intersecting each other on angle frame but the box is not a sheet and not obvious to add second stiffening ribs 52 to prior art rejection above (Figs 5-7)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733