DETAILED ACTION
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
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathcock (US 6402021 B1) in view of Haidacher et al. (US 11352163 B2; hereinafter Haidacher).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 23-25, Heathcock discloses a displayable shipping carton and blank for making comprising a food compartment comprising a bottom surface (24/34/44/54); and a plurality of sidewalls (20/30/40/50) that extend from the bottom surface, wherein each of the plurality of sidewalls is fixed to at least one of another of the plurality of sidewalls to provide a volume for receiving a food item (see Figures 1-3); a plurality of foldable wings (22/32/42/52), wherein each of the foldable wings is connected to one of the plurality of sidewalls at a base of the foldable wing (see Fig. 3); a plurality of creases (21/31/41/51), wherein each respective crease of the plurality of creases is located at a respective base of each foldable wing, and wherein each of the foldable wings is configured to fold inwardly from the respective crease (see Fig. 1) at the respective base of the foldable wing; and a detachment feature (37/47/48) located on a first sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls, wherein the detachment feature is located below a first crease of the plurality of creases that connects the first sidewall to a first foldable wing of the plurality of foldable wings (see Fig. 3), and wherein the detachment feature is configured to selectively separate the first foldable wing and a portion of the first sidewall from the food container (see Fig. 2). Heathcock lacks a first and second portion of perforations with distinct characteristics between each other.
Haidacher teaches a tamper evident carton with a detachment feature comprising perforations, wherein a first portion (15 or 26) of the perforations have a first teeth per inch and a second portion of the perforations (13/14) having a second teeth per inch, wherein the first teeth per inch is greater than the second teeth per inch (see Figures 1A-4A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Heathcock’s container to have a second portion of perforations for providing tamper evidence (Haidacher; Col 2 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 4, Heathcock, as modified above, discloses a carton further comprising a third detachment feature located on the third sidewall, wherein the third detachment feature is located below the third crease, and wherein the third detachment feature is configured to selectively separate the third foldable wing and a portion of the third sidewall from the food container; and a fourth detachment feature located on the fourth sidewall, wherein the fourth detachment feature is located below the fourth crease, and wherein the fourth detachment feature is configured to selectively separate the fourth foldable wing and a portion of the fourth sidewall from the food container (Heathcock; Col 4 lines 5-30). Examiner considers the perforations of 21 and 51 to be “detachment features”.
Regarding claim 6, Heathcock, as modified above, discloses a carton wherein the detachment feature forms a curved shape extending between the two opposite ends of the first sidewall (Heathcock; see Figures 2 and 5). Examiner considers the detachment to form a curve at the bottom corners of 39 and 49.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heathcock in view of Haidacher, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Chilton (GB 2422143 A).
Regarding claim 7, Heathcock, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for a curved shaped having a maximum radius of curvature at a midpoint between sidewalls. Chilton teaches a container and blank having a removable section wherein a curved shape (48; see Fig. 1) of the removable section has a maximum radius of curvature at a midpoint between two opposite ends of a first sidewall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Heathcock’s container to have a curved removable section as taught by Chilton in order to have a cleaner appearance (Chilton; Page 3 lines 15-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 21 are 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.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-11, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 23 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Heathcock have been fully considered and are persuasive. Heathcock lacks first and second distinct portions of perforations with varying characteristics. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Heathcock in view of Haidacher.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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 J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights