DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiemstra (US 4319680).
Regarding claim 17, Hiemstra discloses a folded sleeve 1, col. 1: 35-40, col. 2: 10-20 for containing a plurality of consumer product containers 2, the folded sleeve comprising, figs. 1-3:
a. a first wall, fig. 2;
b. a second wall opposite the first wall, fig. 1; and
c. a pair of side walls opposite each other, fig. 1 and 3, and connecting the first and second walls, wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the side walls define a sleeve cavity of the folded sleeve configured to slidably receive, retain, and slidably dispense the plurality of consumer product containers, fig. 1, and
wherein one or more of the first or second walls of the folded sleeve comprises one or more pliable tabs 7 and 8 that protrude partially into the sleeve cavity.
Regarding claim 19, Hiemstra discloses a method for assembling a consumer product dispensing system, the method comprising:
providing a sleeve blank comprising a plurality of fold lines, fig. 1 and 3 (each corner has a fold line) that define at least a first wall portion, a second wall portion, and a pair of side wall portions, wherein at least one of the side wall portions is positioned between the first wall portion and the second wall portion;
forming one or more windows (for viewing the product, col. 1: 45-65, in the sleeve blank by folding in one or more pliable tab portions 7 and 8 in the sleeve blank, figs. 1-3
wherein each of the one or more pliable tab portions is associated with one of the one or more windows;
as seen in the figures 1-3, the blank is folded as claimed:
folding the sleeve blank along the plurality of the fold lines to form a folded sleeve comprising a sleeve cavity defined by a first wall corresponding to the first wall portion, a second wall corresponding to the second wall portion, and a pair of side walls corresponding to the pair of side wall portions;
folding at least one of the one or more pliable tab portions to form one or more pliable tabs that protrude into the sleeve cavity of the folded sleeve; and
inserting a plurality of consumer product containers containing one or more consumer products into the sleeve cavity of the folded sleeve, col. 2: 40-65, wherein at least one of the one or more pliable tabs engages at least one of the plurality of consumer product containers.
Hiemstra discloses that the folded sleeve is configured to dispense one or more consumer products, col. 1, line 34, last two words and col. 2: 55-65.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiemstra in view of Petricca (US 6648140).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Hiemstra discloses a folded sleeve 1, col. 1: 35-40, col. 2: 10-20 for containing a plurality of consumer product containers 2, for putting the packs on display for customers, col. 1: 1-25, the folded sleeve comprising, figs. 1-3:
a. a first wall, fig. 2;
b. a second wall opposite the first wall, fig. 1; and
c. a pair of side walls opposite each other, fig. 1 and 3, and connecting the first and second walls, wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the side walls define a sleeve cavity of the folded sleeve configured to slidably receive, retain, and slidably dispense the plurality of consumer product containers, fig. 1, and
wherein one or more of the first or second walls of the folded sleeve comprises one or more pliable tabs 7 and 8 that protrude partially into the sleeve cavity, and
wherein at least one pliable tab of the one or more pliable tabs engages at least one of the plurality of containers, fig. 1 and 2.
Hiemstra does not disclose any specific item held within the blister.
However, Petricca teaches housing a shaving razor cartridge within a blister pack container 10, fig. 1. Petricca also teaches it is known to sell a plurality of shaving cartridges housed in a dispenser, col. 1. 15-21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Petricca and Hiemstra to house a plurality of shaving razor cartridge containers each containing at least one of the plurality of shaving razor cartridges within a folded dispensing carton with windows and retaining tabs as taught by Hiemstra in order to provide consumers with a plurality of shaving razor cartridges as taught by Petricca housed within a folded carton of relatively cheap and simple construction, col. 1: 30-35 of Hiemstra, that permits viewing of the items, col. 1: 45-60 of Hiemstra.
Regarding claim 2, Hiemstra further discloses that the at least one pliable tab extends at least partially into the sleeve cavity from one or more of the first and second walls, fig. 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 3, Hiemstra further discloses that the sleeve further comprises a first window, not numbered, seen in fig. 2 and 3 and formed by inwardly folded pliable tabs in one or more of the first and second walls, and wherein the at least one pliable tab comprises a first pliable tab is “associated” with the first window in that the tabs are at the edge of the window, fig. 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Hiemstra discloses that the sleeve further comprises a second window formed in one or more of the first and second walls, fig. 1-3 formed by a second pliable tab associated with the second window in that the tab is at the edge of the window, fig. 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 6, as seen in fig. 2 of Hiemstra, Hiemstra discloses the first wall (at 1) of the sleeve comprises the first window and the second window.
Regarding claim 7, as seen in fig. 1 of Hiemstra, opposing sides of the sleeve have pliable tabs associated with windows such that the first wall of the sleeve comprises the first window and the second wall of the sleeve comprises a second window.
Regarding claim 8, Hiemstra discloses that the first wall, the second wall, and the side walls of the sleeve further define at least one end opening, fig. 1, configured for at least one of receiving into or dispensing from the sleeve cavity at least one of the plurality of shaving razor cartridge containers, col. 1: 45-65.
Regarding claim 9, Hiemstra further discloses, fig. 1, the sleeve further comprises a cutout, fig. 1, (open end) at the at least one end opening, the cutout being configured to permit access to at least one of the plurality of cartridge containers retained in the sleeve cavity during dispensing. In addition, fig. 4 shows a tear away piece that can be removed thereby creating a cutout for access to the container cartridges, col. 2: 54-65.
Regarding claim 10, Hiemstra discloses that the opposing ends of the sleeve are open, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 11, Hiemstra discloses that the one or more pliable tabs comprise at least two pliable tabs that protrude partially into the sleeve cavity, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, Hiemstra discloses that a first one 7 of the at least two pliable tabs is configured to engage a first one of the plurality of cartridge containers, fig. 1, and a second one 8 of the at least two pliable tabs is configured to engage a second one of the plurality of cartridge containers.
Regarding claim 13, Hiemstra discloses a method for loading the containers, col. 2: 40-55, that when the at least one pliable tab is in a first position, the at least one pliable tab is spaced apart from the plurality of shaving razor cartridge containers for receiving the plurality of containers into the sleeve cavity, and wherein when the at least one pliable tab is in a second position, the at least one pliable tab engages the at least one of the plurality of cartridge containers for retaining the plurality of cartridge containers in the sleeve cavity.
Regarding claim 14, Hiemstra discloses, fig. 1 and 2, that the at least one pliable tab engages a cartridge container wall of at least one of the plurality of cartridge containers.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Hiemstra discloses a method for loading the containers, col. 2: 40-55, that when the at least one pliable tab is in a first position, the at least one pliable tab is spaced apart from the plurality of shaving razor cartridge containers for receiving the plurality of containers into the sleeve cavity, and wherein when the at least one pliable tab is in a second position, the at least one pliable tab engages the at least one of the plurality of cartridge containers for retaining the plurality of cartridge containers in the sleeve cavity.
Regarding claim 20, Hiemstra discloses all of claim 19, as applied above. Hiemstra does not disclose the plurality of consumer product containers comprises shaving razor cartridge containers and the one or more consumer products comprise shaving razor cartridges.
However, Petricca teaches housing a shaving razor cartridge within a blister pack container 10, fig. 1. Petricca also teaches it is known to sell a plurality of shaving cartridges housed in a dispenser, col. 1. 15-21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Petricca and Hiemstra to house a plurality of shaving razor cartridge containers each containing at least one of the plurality of shaving razor cartridges within a folded dispensing carton with windows and retaining tabs as taught by Hiemstra in order to provide consumers with a plurality of shaving razor cartridges as taught by Petricca housed within a folded carton of relatively cheap and simple construction, col. 1: 30-35 of Hiemstra, that permits viewing of the items, col. 1: 45-60 of Hiemstra.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiemstra and Petricca as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hession (US 2010/0116693).
Regarding claim 15, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. Hiemstra further discloses, fig. 5, containers separated into two areas, each area configured to receive, retain, and dispense the plurality of cartridge containers. Hiemstra does not teach an inner wall separating the container areas.
Hession is analogous art in regard to folded container cartons for holding blister packaging, fig. 1 and 2.
Hession teaches that it is known to separate an area within a container into two compartments using an inner wall 130, fig. 2, providing two separate compartments [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Hiemstra to include a divider between cartridge container areas as per the teaching of Hession in order to increase the strength of the carton between walls when cartons are stacked and to maintain each row of blisters in their corresponding compartment.
Regarding claim 16, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach what material the carton is made from.
Hession is analogous art in regard to folded container cartons for holding blister packaging, fig. 1 and 2.
Hession teaches that the carton is made from a blank of paperboard, fig. 1, [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute whatever material the carton of Hiemstra is made of with cardboard with the reasonable expectation of housing the plurality of cartridge containers and further to allow the carton to be compostable or recyclable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 7 of 14, in regard to claim 17 applicant argues that Hiemstra fails to disclose or suggest a sleeve that is configured to slidably dispense as claimed. Examiner disagrees, movement of the flaps would allow the consumer product to be slid from the folded sleeve disclosed by Hiemstra. In addition, col. 2: 55-65, disclose that the products are intended to be dispensed from the packaging by sliding.
Applicant further argues that removing a T-shaped panel does not meet the claimed limitation of a device that is configured to perform that function without being altered, page 8 of 14, first two paragraphs. Examiner disagrees. The perforations that enable the T-shaped panel to be removed were intentionally provided in Hiemstra’s design and thereby the packaging of Hiemstra is configured to allow the items to be dispensed by sliding. In addition, simply pushing parts of the panels 6 inward provides another means for sliding the items out of the container of Hiemstra.
Furthermore, applicant claims no structure that differs from Hiemstra to suggest that applicant’s device is any more so configured to allow the items to be dispensed by sliding. The structure of Hiemstra is capable of allowing dispensing by sliding the products out of the package – if applicant’s design has particular structure that defines over Hiemstra rather than relying on functional language and intended use, the structure should be claimed to further prosecution.
With this in mind, applicant’s argument against Hiemstra is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the difference between Hiemstra and the instant application is that a portion of Hiemstra must be removed to allow dispensing. What aspect of applicant’s invention provides the slidable dispensing that Hiemstra’s package does not? There are no claimed structural differences between the instant application and Hiemstra’s. Applicant further argues that the device of the instant application is configured to perform the slidable dispensing without being altered. However, the argued limitation is not claimed. In addition, the flaps 24 of the instant application must move to allow slidable dispensing.
With this in mind, applicant’s arguments against Hiemstra are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a system immediately capable of dispensing, ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Petricca and Hiemstra would not be logically combined because Petricca’s device is fully achieved by the container of Petricca and the combination is redundant and illogical and furthermore is combined via hindsight, examiner disagrees. It is well-known to provide a plurality of razor cartridge packages held within a secondary outer container to a consumer. Petricca’s packaging holds a single razor head. With this in mind, using the carton of Hiemstra to present a plurality of Petricca’s individual containers of razor heads is a reasonable combination a person of ordinary skill would use in order to provide a display means for selling multiples of the packaging disclosed by Petricca. The combination does not remove the razors of Petricca from the packaging, it merely provides a means for selling multiple cartridges to a consumer.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With this in mind, applicant’s argument that the combination of Petricca and Hiemstra is illogical is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument again that Hiemstra does not teach a dispensing system, examiner disagrees, as applied above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that pliable tabs of the instant application provide an audible and tactile feedback) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s tabs are only a fraction of the length of the window, as seen in fig. 3, the window of Hiemstra is formed by folding in the tabs; the tabs of Hiemstra appear to have the same length of the window, perhaps this is a difference between the prior art and the instant application that can be claimed to overcome the rejection at hand.
In response to applicant's argument, page 11 of 14, that modifying Hiemstra to include a divider wall for providing additional strength and maintain items in their respective rows is an improper combination, examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that increasing strength is for bulk stacking, however, this is not necessarily the case in every instance. It is reasonable to use an interior wall to strengthen a sleeve of packaging formed from thin material so that the package can better maintain its shape, for example during shipping or while in a consumer’s shopping bag. Plus, the divider helps maintain the rows in their respective position.
With this in mind, applicant’s argument against the combination of Hiemstra and Hession is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that modifying Hiemstra with Hession to be made from cardboard is questionable since Hiemstra already teaches the container is cardboard in col. 1, examiner disagrees. Hiemstra’s reference to cardboard is with respect to known types of containers and is in the background section and does not necessarily apply to the material used for Hiemstra’s folded sleeve.
In response to applicant's argument that for the Office Action to focus on a single element in isolation is improper, the office action does not focus on the material singularly, applicant’s does not disclose any particular aspect that allows the instant application to function especially well because of the claimed material, only that the package “may” be formed from a list of materials that include materials other than cardboard/paperboard, see the top of page 11 of the instant application, for example. The material is treated accordingly in the Office Action; the importance of the material is applied at the same level applicant applies the importance of the material. With this in mind applicant’s argument against the combination of Hiemstra and Hession is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799