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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9) and Species 1 (Figures 1-2G and 7-8) in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated that elected Species 1 corresponds to claims 1-4 and 7-8. The traversal is on the grounds that Species 4 (Figures 5A-5B) is not a separate species from Species 1 since the weakened lines in Figures 5A-5B are structurally and functionally integrated with the configuration of the plurality of holes defined in Species 1. This is found persuasive, therefore, claim 9 will be examined with claims 1-4 and 7-8. Claims 5-6 and 10-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the peripheral contour" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a configuration of the plurality of holes is determined based on the peripheral contour of a product to be packaged and a positioning device to be used” in lines 4-6, since it is unclear if the product and positioning device are intended to be positively recited in the claim or not. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the product and positioning device as not being positively recited in claim 1 due to the “to be packaged” and “to be used” phrases. Furthermore, defining the size of the claimed invention by the object to be held, without positively reciting the object to be held, renders the claim indefinite since it relies upon a variable object. A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Claim 2 is also rendered indefinite, similar to claim 1 above, since it is unclear if the positioning device is intended to be positively recited. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the positioning device as not being positively recited in claim 1 due to the “to be used” phrase. Therefore, the packaging of the prior art must only be capable of being used with a positioning device as recited in the claim.
Claim 4 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “one of the plurality of holes is arranged in a decorative hole of the product to be packaged, and the other holes of the plurality of holes are arranged outside the peripheral contour of the product to be packaged” since defining the size of the claimed invention by the object to be held, without positively reciting the object to be held, renders the claim indefinite since it relies upon a variable object. A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the product as not being positively recited in claim 1 due to the “to be packaged” phrase. Therefore, the packaging of the prior art must only be capable of being used with a product in the manner recited in the claim.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins (US 4,023,759).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins discloses a paper card packaging (packaging shown in Fig. 4), comprising: a paper card body (at 45 in Fig. 4, which is formed from cardboard), comprising a first half portion (See Fig. 4 labeled below) and a second half portion (See Fig. 4 labeled below) connected to the first half portion, wherein the second half portion comprises a plurality of holes (holes on either side of 50 in Fig. 4 that accommodate element 52 – See Fig. 4 labeled below), and a configuration of the plurality of holes is determined based on the peripheral contour of a product to be packaged and a positioning device (element 52 in Fig. 4) to be used.
PNG
media_image1.png
470
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the packaging of Perkins is fully capable of being used with a positioning device that is a limiting device comprising a plurality of rods.
Regarding claim 3, Perkins discloses the plurality of holes are arranged outside the peripheral contour and surround the peripheral contour (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, one of the plurality of holes of Perkins can be arranged in a decorative hole of a product to be packaged (e.g. if a decorative hole of a product is placed therein), and the other holes of the plurality of holes are arranged outside the peripheral contour of the product to be packaged (depending on the type/shape/size of the product held therein).
Regarding claim 7, Perkins discloses the plurality of holes are circular.
Regarding claim 8, Perkins discloses dimensions of the first half portion and the second half portion are approximately the same (See at 12 and 14 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins discloses the second half portion is provided with a weakened line (at 22) which is easy to tear at the outer side of the peripheral contour of the product to be packaged.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2017/0166374).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a paper card packaging (packaging shown in Fig. 9), comprising: a paper card body (at 11/12 in Fig. 9), comprising a first half portion (at 11 - See Fig. 9 labeled below) and a second half portion (at 12 - See Fig. 9 labeled below) connected to the first half portion, wherein the second half portion comprises a plurality of holes (holes at 112b/122b in Fig. 8, that accommodate elements 50 in Fig. 9), and a configuration of the plurality of holes is determined based on the peripheral contour of a product (product at 61/62) to be packaged and a positioning device (elements 50 in Fig. 9) to be used.
PNG
media_image2.png
1026
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the positioning device (elements 50) to be used is a limiting device comprising a plurality of rods (elements 50 are elongated rods that are fed through the holes, wrapped around the product and tied together).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the plurality of holes are arranged outside the peripheral contour and surround the peripheral contour.
Regarding claim 4, one of the plurality of holes of Wang can be arranged in a decorative hole of a product to be packaged (e.g. if a decorative hole of a product is placed therein), and the other holes of the plurality of holes are arranged outside the peripheral contour of the product to be packaged (depending on the type/shape/size of the product held therein).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the plurality of holes are circular (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses dimensions (e.g. thickness and width) of the first half portion and the second half portion are approximately the same (See Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses the second half portion is provided with a weakened line (at 13) which is easy to tear at the outer side of the peripheral contour of the product to be packaged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights