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
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 September 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 25 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6 April 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) because the lead line associated with reference character 163 of figure 8 does not extend to the interior compartment as disclosed. MPEP 608.02 V.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “162” has been used to designate interior compartment and exterior.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: first three-dimensional exterior profile, second three-dimensional exterior profile, first depth, first surface portion, first cavity wall, first three-dimensional interior profile, second depth, second surface portion, second cavity wall, second three-dimensional interior profiles, third depth, third surface portion, third cavity wall, third three-dimensional interior profile.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “an exterior” in line 2 which should be corrected to “the exterior”. 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.
Claims 1-16 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.
The limitation of claim 1 of “a first three-dimensional exterior profile selected from at least first and second distinct three-dimensional exterior profiles” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear what subset the first three-dimensional exterior profile is selected from, as one of the two options is itself.
Claim 1 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of a packaging only, for use with some part, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a packaging and a part. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 1 lines 1-2, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 6-8, requiring a first cavity wall defining a first three-dimensional interior profile that corresponds to at least a portion of the first three-dimensional exterior profile). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the part is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the part are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 1 is required.
Claim 2 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 2 is drawn to the sub-combination of a packaging only, for use with some part, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a packaging and a part. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 2 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 4-5, requiring the second three-dimensional interior profile to correspond to a different portion of the first three-dimensional exterior profile). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the part is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the part are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 2 is required.
Claim 3 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 3 is drawn to the sub-combination of a packaging only, for use with some part, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a packaging and a part. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 3 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 4-5, requiring the second three-dimensional interior profile to correspond to at least a portion of the second three-dimensional exterior profile). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the part is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the part are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 3 is required.
Claim 7 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 7 is drawn to the sub-combination of a packaging only, for use with some part, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a packaging and a part. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 7 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 1-3, requiring first cavity depth to be less than a respective depth defined by the first three-dimensional exterior profile). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the part is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the part are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 7 is required.
Claim 8 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 8 is drawn to the sub-combination of a packaging only, for use with some part, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a packaging and a part. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 8 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 4-7, requiring the third three-dimensional interior profile to correspond to at least a portion of a third three-dimensional exterior profile that is different from the first three-dimensional exterior profile and the second three-dimensional exterior profile). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the part is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the part are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 8 is required.
Claim 11 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 11 is drawn to the sub-combination of a packaging only, for use with some part, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a packaging and a part. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 11 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 7-9, requiring a first cavity wall defining a first three-dimensional interior profile that corresponds to at least a portion of the first three-dimensional exterior profile). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the part is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the part are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 11 is required.
Claim 11 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 11 is drawn to the sub-combination of a packaging only, for use with some part, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a packaging and a part. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 11 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 9-10, requiring a second cavity wall defining a second three-dimensional interior profile that corresponds to at least a portion of the second three-dimensional exterior profile). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the part is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the part are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 11 is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snider (US 6082538).
Claim 1: Snider discloses a container 10 (packaging) configured for a part having a first three-dimensional exterior profile selected from at least first and second distinct three-dimensional exterior profiles, the container 10 (packaging) comprising: an interior compartment configured to retain some part; and a first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) that is defined along an exterior of the container 10 (packaging), the first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) defining a first depth inward from a first surface portion of the container 10 (packaging) and having a first cavity wall defining a first three-dimensional interior profile that corresponds to at least a portion of the first three-dimensional exterior profile (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Snider discloses wherein the container 10 (packaging) further comprising a second gauging opening 32 (second cavity) defining a second depth inward from a second surface portion of the container 10 (packaging) and having a second cavity wall defining a second three-dimensional interior profile that is different than the first three-dimensional interior profile, the second three-dimensional interior profile corresponding to a different portion of the first three-dimensional exterior profile (see fig. 1).
Claim 3: Snider discloses wherein a second gauging opening 32 (second cavity) defining a second depth inward from a second surface portion of the container 10 (packaging) and having a second cavity wall defining a second three-dimensional interior profile that is different than the first three-dimensional interior profile, the second three-dimensional interior profile corresponding to at least a portion of the second three-dimensional exterior profile (see fig. 1).
Claim 4: Snider discloses wherein the first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) is accessible from the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) when the interior compartment of the container 10 (packaging) is sealed such that it is not accessible from the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 5: Snider discloses wherein the first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) extends from a front side of the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) towards a rear side of the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
433
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: Snider discloses wherein the first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) extends laterally from a first side of the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) towards a second side of the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
455
403
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Snider discloses wherein the first depth is less than a respective depth defined by some first three-dimensional exterior profile (see fig. 1).
Claim 8: Snider discloses a third gauging opening 32 (third cavity) defining a third depth inward from a third surface portion of the container 10 (packaging) and having a third cavity wall defining a third three-dimensional interior profile that is different than the first three-dimensional interior profile and the second three-dimensional interior profile, the third three-dimensional interior profile corresponding to at least a portion of a third three-dimensional exterior profile that is different than the first three-dimensional exterior profile and the second three-dimensional exterior profile (see fig. 1).
Claim 9: Snider discloses a hang-hole 22 (hang tab) along a side of the container 10 (packaging), the hang-hole 22 (hang tab) configured to permit displaying of the container 10 (packaging) at a height (see fig. 1).
Claim 10: Snider discloses wherein the interior compartment is divided into two or more tool item receptacles 24 (sub-compartments) (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 11: Snider discloses a container 10 (packaging) configured for at least one part selected from a group comprising a first of the parts having a first three-dimensional exterior profile and a second of the parts having a second three-dimensional exterior profile distinct from the first three-dimensional exterior profile, the container 10 (packaging) comprising: an interior compartment configured to retain one or more parts; a first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) that is defined along an exterior of the container 10 (packaging), the first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) defining a first depth inward from a first surface portion of the container 10 (packaging) and having a first cavity wall defining a first three-dimensional interior profile that corresponds to at least a portion of the first three-dimensional exterior profile; and a second gauging opening 32 (second cavity) that is defined along the exterior of the container 10 (packaging), the second gauging opening 32 (second cavity) defining a second depth inward from a second surface portion of the container 10 (packaging) and having a second cavity wall defining a second three-dimensional interior profile that corresponds to to at least a portion of the second three-dimensional exterior profile having a second cavity profile that substantially corresponds to at least a portion of an exterior profile, wherein the first three-dimensional interior profile and the second three-dimensional interior profile are not identical (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 12: Snider discloses wherein both of the first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) and the second gauging opening 32 (second cavity) are accessible from the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) when the interior compartment of the packaging is sealed such that it is not accessible from the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) (see annotated fig. 2 above and fig. 1).
Claim 13: Snider discloses wherein both of the first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) and the second gauging opening 32 (second cavity) extend from a front side of the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) towards a rear side of the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) (see first annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 14: Snider discloses wherein both of the first gauging opening 32 (first cavity) and the second gauging opening 32 (second cavity) extend from a first side of the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) towards a second side of the exterior of the container 10 (packaging) (see second annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 15: Snider discloses a third gauging opening 32 (third cavity) that is formed in the exterior of the container 10 (packaging), the third gauging opening 32 (third cavity) defining a third depth inward from a third surface portion of the container 10 (packaging) and having a third cavity wall defining a third three-dimensional interior profile that corresponds to at least a portion of a third three-dimensional exterior profile, wherein the third three-dimensional interior profile is different from the first three-dimensional interior profile and the second three-dimensional interior profile (see fig. 1).
Claim 16: Snider discloses wherein the interior compartment is divided into two or more tool item receptacles 24 (sub-compartments) (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 2-8 of office action dated 6 October 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 6 April 2026.
The specification objections in paragraphs 9-11 of office action dated 6 October 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 6 April 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 27, and 28 of office action dated 6 October 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 6 April 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the gauging openings 32 are two-dimensional apertures that pass through the container wall, do not define any depth, lack any cavity depth, are pass-through holes not cavities extending inward from a surface portion of the packaging, do not include a cavity wall defining a three-dimensional interior profile, lack interior walls defining a three-dimensional profile, and cannot provide a three-dimensional cavity that can verify correspondence with a three-dimensional exterior profile of a part, the Examiner responds that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines cavity as an unfilled space within a mass. As the gauging openings 32 are unfilled space within the container 10 they meet the BRI of cavity. Further, as the gauging openings 32 are physical they must be three dimensional. The depth of each gauging opening 32 is clearly visible in figure 2. Each gauging opening 32 extends inward from an exterior surface of the container 10, defines a respective cavity wall which in turn define respective three-dimensional interior profiles, and are capable of verifying correspondence with some three-dimensional exterior profile of some part.
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 cavity structure with interior walls that define a three-dimensional shape) 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).
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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights