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
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, 4-5,7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sublett (US 2014/0346218) in view of Boone (US 3273783).
Regarding claim 1, Sublett discloses a box closure clip (see fig. 4) for a box with flaps, comprising: an upper member configured to be placed on the box, and having a center member and two arm members integrally formed with the center member, each arm member extending rearwardly from each of outer ends of the center member; and a lower member having a base portion connected to a center portion of the center member, and a tail portion spaced from the center portion and extending rearwardly from the base portion between the two arm members. (see annotated figure 4 below for parts of the clip)
PNG
media_image1.png
345
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sublett does not disclose the box clip having anchors configured to engage the box, each anchor being provided at a lower side of the upper member, wherein each anchor is integral with a corresponding arm member of the upper member. Boone discloses a similar box clip having a plurality of arms (10,12) each having anchors (17,21,22) extending at right angles to enable the clip to puncture the box to hold the clip in position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arms of the clip of Sublett by adding the anchors/prongs as taught Boone to enable the clip to puncture the box to hold the clip in place on the box.
Regarding claim 4, Sublett discloses the box closure clip according to claim 1, wherein the center member extends substantially perpendicularly to the lower member and fixed to the base portion configured to be placed above the flaps of the box (see Sublett - pp39).
Regarding claim 5, Sublett discloses the box closure clip according to claim 1, wherein the box closure clip is made with a plurality of anchors (see above rejection of claim 1 – adding anchors/prongs of Boone to each of the arms of the clip of Sublett).
Regarding claim 7, Sublett discloses the closure clip of claim 1, wherein the box closure clip is made of a material that may be cast or molded(see Sublett -pp 41,42). While one of ordinary skill in would recognize that metal would be one option for the material, Boone discloses that these types of clips may be made of metal (see Boone – col. 2, lines 40-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the clip of Sublett out of metal as mere use of a known material to form box flap clips.
Regarding claim 8, Sublett discloses the closure clip of claim 1, wherein the tail portion extends beyond the two arm members in a rearward direction (see Sublett – fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Sublett discloses the box closure clip wherein each of the two arm members has a uniform width along the length of each arm (see Sublett fig. 4-6, pp42) and does not disclose each arm member has a tapered width along an entirety of the length of each arm member. Boone does disclose that the wings/arm members taper away from the intersection of these members (central portion) along the length of each wing/arm member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the arm members of Sublett have a tapering width along the entirety of the length of each arm member as taught by Boone as a mere design choice as this design shape has no mechanical function as the arm members would perform equally well with a constant width or a tapering width. See MPEP 2144.04 I. and MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 11, Sublett discloses the closure clip of claim 1, wherein the base portion comprises a locating surface (at the junction of the base portion and center member – see Sublett - fig. 4) extending in a direction perpendicular (downwardly) to the center member, and the locating surface is rearward of the center member (as this surface is at the rearward side of the center member).
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 10- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speers et al. (Speers) (US 4068353) in view of Boone (US 3273783).
Regarding claim 1, Speers discloses a box closure clip (see fig. 5) for a box with flaps, comprising: an upper member configured to be placed on the box, and having a center member (26) and two arm members (22) integrally formed with the center member, each arm member extending rearwardly from each of outer ends of the center member; and a lower member (33_ having a base portion connected to a center portion of the center member, and a tail portion spaced from the center portion and extending rearwardly from the base portion between the two arm members. (see Speers – fig. 5) Speers does not disclose the box clip having anchors configured to engage the box, each anchor being provided at a lower side of the upper member, wherein each anchor is integral with a corresponding arm member of the upper member. Boone discloses a similar box clip having a plurality of arms (10,12) each having anchors (17,21,22) extending at right angles to enable the clip to puncture the box to hold the clip in position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arms of the clip of Speers by adding the anchors/prongs as taught Boone to enable the clip to puncture the box to hold the clip in place on the box.
Regarding claim 4, Speers discloses the box closure clip according to claim 1, wherein the center member extends substantially perpendicularly to the lower member and fixed to the base portion configured to be placed above the flaps of the box (see Speers – figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Speers discloses the box closure clip according to claim 1, wherein the box closure clip is made with a plurality of anchors (see above rejection of claim 1 – adding anchors/prongs of Boone to each of the arms of the clip of Speers).
Regarding claim 6, Speers discloses the closure clip of claim 1, wherein the box closure clip is made of a plastic resin material(see Speers – col. 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding claim 8, Speers discloses the closure clip of claim 1, wherein the tail portion extends beyond the two arm members in a rearward direction (see Speers – figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Speers discloses the box closure clip wherein each of the two arm members has different tapers along the length of each arm (see Speers fig. 5) and does not disclose each arm member has a tapered width along an entirety of the length of each arm member (uniform taper). Boone does disclose that the wings/arm members taper away from the intersection of these members (central portion) along the length of each wing/arm member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the arm members of Speers have a tapering width along the entirety of the length of each arm member (uniform taper) as taught by Boone as a mere design choice as this design shape has no mechanical function as the arm members would perform equally well with a different tapering widths or a uniform tapering width along the entirety of the length of the respective arm. See MPEP 2144.04 I. and MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 11, Speers discloses the closure clip of claim 1, wherein the base portion comprises a locating surface (at the junction of the base portion and center member – see Speers - figs. 5-6) extending in a direction perpendicular (downwardly) to the center member, and the locating surface is rearward of the center member (as this surface is at the rearward side of the center member).
Claims 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sublett in view of Boone OR Speers in view of Boone as applied to claim 1(pp 3 or 4) above, and further in view of Huffman (US 1423936).
The combination of Sublett/Boone or Speers/Boone discloses the box closure clip of claim 1 as set forth above where the anchors extend at right angles as taught by the Boone reference. Therefore neither combination teaches that the anchors extend downwardly and forwardly (claim 2) or the anchors are inclined in a forward direction opposite a rearward direction(claim 9).
Huffman discloses a similar box closure clip (18) which has anchors (20) with the pointed ends extending toward the bight of the clip. The direction is forwardly in an opposite direction from the rearward direction which is away from the bight of the clip. As disclosed by Huffman this direction prevents accidental displacement of the clip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the anchors of either combination (Sublett/Boone or Speers/Boone) extend downwardly and forwardly or inclined in a forward direction as taught by Huffman to prevent accidental displacement of the clip.
Regarding claim 3, the box closure clip according to claim 2, wherein each of the anchors is provided under the arm member near a distal end thereof (see Boone – figs which show placement of the anchors at the distal end).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NATHAN JEFFREY NEWHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4544. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights