DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1-3, 6, 10, and 12-14 have been amended. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 3-4, “the first and the secondary crease line(s)” should be --the first and second secondary crease lines--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoener (EP 0 127 110 A2) in view of Camillo et al. (US 4,817,796 A, hereinafter Camillo) and Lau (CA 1286236 C).
Regarding claim 1, Schoener teaches a container blank comprising:
a main panel (3/23);
a main flap (10/30) directly connected to the main panel and separated from the main panel by a main crease line (line between 3/23 and 10/30) parallel to a transversal direction;
a secondary panel (5/25) directly connected to the main panel and separated from the main panel by a longitudinal crease line (line between 5/25 and 3/23) parallel to a longitudinal direction; and
a secondary flap (9/29) directly connected to the secondary panel and separated from the secondary panel by a secondary crease line (line between 5/25 and 9/29) parallel to the transversal direction, the secondary flap having a thickness (Translation and Fig. 1, 2).
Schoener fails to teach the secondary crease line being offset longitudinally with respect to the main crease line of a distance comprised between about 100% and about 200% of the thickness of the secondary flap, wherein the main panel comprises a longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the secondary flap and having a length corresponding to the distance, and wherein the longitudinal free edge portion is straight and extends straight away from the longitudinal crease line.
Camillo teaches an analogous container blank comprising a main panel (18), a main flap (10) directly connected to the main panel via a main crease line (34), a secondary panel (20) directly connected to the main panel via a longitudinal crease line (38), and a secondary flap (12) directly connected to the secondary panel by a secondary crease line (36). Camillo further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the main crease line by a distance comprised of one thickness of corrugation (i.e., 100% of thickness of the secondary flap), whereby the main panel comprises a longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the secondary flap having a length corresponding to the distance (FIG. 1), in order to allow the main flap to be folded over the secondary flap without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular box and further allows for stacking in a stable manner (column 2 lines 35-55, column 4 lines 43-51 and FIG. 1).
Lau also teaches an analogous container blank comprising a main panel (202), a main flap (200) directly connected to the main panel via a main crease line (204), a secondary panel (202) directly connected to the main panel via a longitudinal crease line (210), and a secondary flap (200) directly connected to the secondary panel by a secondary crease line (204). Lau further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the main crease line in order to accommodate the thickness of the material from which the blank is made so that one of the flaps can be folded underneath the other, wherein the main panel comprises a longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the secondary flap and having a length corresponding to the distance (FIG. 10), and wherein the longitudinal free edge portion is straight and extends straight away from the longitudinal crease line (FIG. 10) (page 12 lines 13-29).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by configuring the secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the main crease line of a distance comprised between about 100% and about 200% of the thickness of the secondary flap, wherein the main panel comprises a longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the secondary flap and having a length corresponding to the distance, and wherein the longitudinal free edge portion is straight and extends straight away from the longitudinal crease line, as taught by Camillo and Lau, in order to allow the main flap to be folded over the secondary flap without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular container and further allows for stacking in a stable manner.
Regarding claim 2, Schoener as modified by Camillo and Lau teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the main panel is a first main panel, the longitudinal crease line is a first longitudinal crease line, the main flap is a first main flap, the main crease line is a first main crease line, the longitudinal free edge portion is a first longitudinal free edge portion, the distance is a first distance and the length is a first length, the container blank further comprising: a second main panel (2/22), directly connected to the secondary panel and separated from the secondary panel by a second longitudinal crease line (line between 2/22 and 5/25) parallel to the longitudinal direction and a second main flap (8/28) directly connected to the second main panel and separated from the second main panel by a second main crease line (line between 2/22 and 8/28) parallel to a transversal direction (Schoener: Translation and Fig. 1, 2) but fails to teach the secondary crease line being offset longitudinally with respect to the second main crease line of a second distance comprised between about 50% and about 100% of the thickness of the secondary flap, the second main panel comprising a second longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the secondary panel and having a second length corresponding to the second distance.
Camillo additionally teaches a second main panel (22) directly connected to the secondary panel via a second longitudinal crease line (38) and a second main flap (14) directed connected to the second main panel via a second main crease line (34). Camillo further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the second main crease line by a second distance comprised of one thickness of corrugation (i.e., 100% of thickness of the secondary flap), whereby the second main panel comprises a second longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the secondary panel having a second length corresponding to the second distance (FIG. 1), in order to allow the second main flap to be folded over the secondary flap without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular box and further allows for stacking in a stable manner (column 2 lines 35-55, column 4 lines 43-51 and FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by configuring the secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the second main crease line of a second distance comprised between about 50% and about 100% of the thickness of the secondary flap, the second main panel comprising a second longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the secondary panel and having a second length corresponding to the second distance, as taught by Camillo, in order to allow the second main flap to be folded over the secondary flap without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular container and further allows for stacking in a stable manner.
Regarding claim 3, Schoener as modified by Camillo and Lau teaches the blank of claim 2 above, wherein the secondary panel is a first secondary panel, the secondary flap is a first secondary flap, and the secondary crease line is a first secondary crease line, the container blank further comprising: a second secondary panel (4/24) directly connected to the second main panel and separated from the second main panel by a third longitudinal crease line (line between 4/24 and 2/22) parallel to the longitudinal direction, and a second secondary flap (7/27) directly connected to the second secondary panel and separated from the second secondary panel by a second secondary crease line (line between 7/27 and 4/24) parallel to the transversal direction, the second secondary flap having a thickness (Schoener: Translation and Fig. 1, 2), but fails to teach the second secondary crease line being offset longitudinally with respect to the second main crease line of a third distance comprised between about 50% and about 100% of the thickness of the second secondary flap, the second main panel comprising a third longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the second secondary flap and having a third length corresponding to the third distance.
Camillo additionally teaches a second secondary panel (24) directed connected to the second main panel via a third longitudinal crease line (38) and a second secondary flap (16) directly connected to the second secondary panel via a second secondary crease line (36). Camillo further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the second secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the second main crease line by a third distance comprised of one thickness of corrugation (i.e., 100% of thickness of the second secondary flap), whereby the second main panel comprises a third longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the second secondary flap having a third length corresponding to the third distance (FIG. 1), in order to allow the second main flap to be folded over the second secondary flap without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular box and further allows for stacking in a stable manner (column 2 lines 35-55, column 4 lines 43-51 and FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by configuring the second secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the second main crease line of a third distance comprised between about 50% and about 100% of the thickness of the second secondary flap, the second main panel comprising a third longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the second secondary flap and having a third length corresponding to the third distance, as taught by Camillo, in order to allow the second main flap to be folded over the second secondary flap without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular container and further allows for stacking in a stable manner.
Regarding claim 4, Schoener as modified by Camillo and Lau teaches the blank of claim 3 above, wherein the third distance is substantially equal to the second distance (Camillo: FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Schoener as modified by Camillo and Lau teaches the blank of claim 4 above, wherein the first and second main flaps have a same longitudinal width (Schoener: Fig. 2- vertical width from first and second main crease lines to top edge of first and second main flaps 30 & 28), and wherein the first and second secondary flaps have a transversal width that is substantially equal to the same longitudinal width of the first and second main flaps (Schoener: Fig. 2-horizontal width of first and second secondary flaps 29 and 27 at first and second secondary crease lines).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoener in view of Camillo and Lau, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 3,958,748 A, hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 6, Schoener as modified by Camillo and Lau teaches the blank of claim 5 above, wherein the first and second secondary flaps have a longitudinal width (Schoener: Fig. 2-vertical width from first and second secondary crease lines to top edge of first and second secondary flaps 29 and 27), and wherein the second main flap comprises a distal edge opposite the second main crease line (Schoener: Fig. 2-top edge of second main flap 28), but fails to teach the second main flap further comprising a distal region delimited by a precut line and by the distal edge, the distal region dividing the distal edge into three sections among which two lateral sections have a substantially identical transversal width that is substantially equal to the longitudinal width of the first and second secondary flaps.
Smith teaches an analogous container blank comprising first and second secondary flaps (32) having a longitudinal width (Fig. 1), and a second main flap (26) comprising a distal edge (38) opposite a second main crease line (28). Smith further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to additionally provide the second main flap with a distal region (44, 44’, 44’’) delimited by a precut line (42, 42’, 42’’) and by the distal edge, the distal region dividing the distal edge into three sections among which two lateral sections (from left 46 to left side edge 36 and from right 46 to right side edge 36) have a substantially identical transversal width (Fig. 1) that is substantially equal to the longitudinal width of the first and second secondary flaps (“notched edge 74/82 having a curvature which is preferably generally equal to the curvature of the line of perforation 42”) in order to provide a closure that effectively prevents sifting during shipping and which is easily openable to provide an unobstructed opening for dispensing product (column 1 lines 17-27, column 3 line 3-column 4 line 50 and Fig. 1-6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the flaps and closure of Smith by configuring the second main flap with a distal region delimited by a precut line and by the distal edge, the distal region dividing the distal edge into three sections among which two lateral sections have a substantially identical transversal width that is substantially equal to the longitudinal width of the first and second secondary flaps, as taught by Smith, in order to provide the formed container with a closure that effectively prevents sifting during shipping and which is easily openable to provide an unobstructed opening for dispensing product.
Regarding claim 7, Schoener as modified by Camillo, Lau and Smith teaches the blank of claim 6 above, wherein the first and second secondary flaps comprise a respective distal corner notch (74/74’’, 82/82’’) of a shape that mirrors a portion of the precut line adjacent the distal edge of the second main panel (Smith: column 4 lines 29-50 and Fig. 1, 4, 6).
Claims 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoener in view of Camillo, Lau and Smith, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Nute et al. (US 2,816,699 A, hereinafter Nute).
Regarding claim 8, Schoener as modified by Camillo, Lau and Smith teaches the blank of claim 7 above, but fails to teach the first and second secondary flaps each comprising a precut line extending substantially parallel to the transversal direction.
Nute teaches an analogous blank comprising first and second secondary flaps (22) and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide each of the first and second secondary flaps with a precut line (24) extending substantially parallel to the transversal direction (column 2 lines 10-16, 42-46 and Fig. 1, 6) so that the opening can be widened as necessary or as desired.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by additionally providing the first and second secondary flaps with a precut line extending substantially parallel to the transversal direction, as taught by Nute, so that the opening of the formed container can be widened as necessary or as desired.
Regarding claim 10, Schoener as modified by Camillo, Lau, Smith and Nute teaches the blank of claim 8 above, wherein the container blank further comprises: an auxiliary panel (26) directly connected to the first main panel and separated from the first main panel by a fourth longitudinal crease line (line between 26 and 23) parallel to the longitudinal direction, and an auxiliary flap (31) directly connected to the auxiliary panel and separated from the auxiliary panel by an auxiliary crease line (line between 26 and 31) parallel to the transversal direction, the auxiliary flap having a thickness (Schoener: Translation and Fig. 2), but fails to teach the auxiliary crease line being offset longitudinally with respect to the first main crease line of a fourth distance comprised between 100% and 200% of the thickness of the auxiliary flap, the first main panel comprising a fourth longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the auxiliary flap and having a fourth length corresponding to the fourth distance.
Camillo teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure transversal direction crease lines adjacent and parallel to the first main crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the first main crease line by a distance comprised of one thickness of corrugation (i.e., 100% of thickness of an adjacent flap), whereby the first main panel comprises a longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to an adjacent flap having a length corresponding to the distance (FIG. 1), in order to allow the first main flap to be folded over the adjacent flap without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular box and further allows for stacking in a stable manner (column 2 lines 35-55, column 4 lines 43-51 and FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by configuring the auxiliary crease line to offset longitudinally with respect to the first main crease line of a fourth distance comprised between 100% and 200% of the thickness of the auxiliary flap, the first main panel comprising a fourth longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the auxiliary flap and having a fourth length corresponding to the fourth distance, as suggested by Camillo, in order to allow the first main flap to be folded over the auxiliary flap without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular container and further allows for stacking in a stable manner.
Regarding claim 11, Schoener as modified by Camillo, Lau, Smith and Nute teaches the blank of claim 10 above, wherein the auxiliary flap is a first auxiliary flap, the container blank further comprising: a third main flap (35) directly connected to the first main panel and separated from the first main panel by a third main crease line (line between 35 and 23) parallel to a transversal direction, a fourth main flap (33) directly connected to the second main panel and separated from the second main panel by a fourth main crease line (line between 33 and 22) parallel to a transversal direction, a third secondary flap (34) directly connected to the first secondary panel and separated from the first secondary panel by a third secondary crease line (line between 34 and 25) parallel to the transversal direction, the third secondary flap having a thickness, a fourth secondary flap (32) directly connected to the second secondary panel and separated from the second secondary panel by a fourth secondary crease line (line between 32 and 24) parallel to the transversal direction, the fourth secondary flap having a thickness, and a second auxiliary flap (36) directly connected to the auxiliary panel and separated from the auxiliary panel by a second auxiliary crease line (line between 36 and 26) parallel to the transversal direction, the second auxiliary flap having a thickness (Schoener: Translation and Fig. 2), but fails to teach (1) the third secondary crease line being offset longitudinally with respect to the third main crease line of a fifth distance comprised between about 100% and about 200% of the thickness of the third secondary flap, the first main panel comprising a fifth longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the third secondary flap and having a fifth length corresponding to the fifth distance, (2) the third secondary crease line being offset longitudinally with respect to the fourth main crease line of a sixth distance comprised between about 50% and about 100% of the thickness of the third secondary flap, the second main panel comprising a sixth longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the third secondary flap and having a sixth length corresponding to the sixth distance, (3) the fourth secondary crease line being offset longitudinally with respect to the fourth main crease line of a seventh distance comprised between about 50% and about 100% of the thickness of the fourth secondary flap, the second main panel comprising a seventh longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the fourth secondary flap and having a seventh length corresponding to the seventh distance, and (4) the second auxiliary crease line being offset longitudinally with respect to the third main crease line of an eighth distance comprised between about 100% and about 200% of the thickness of the second auxiliary flap, the first main panel comprising an eighth longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the second auxiliary flap and having an eighth length corresponding to the eighth distance.
Camillo further teaches a third main flap (26) directed connected to the first main panel via a third main crease line (34), a fourth main flap (30) directly connected to the second main panel via a fourth main crease line (34), a third secondary flap (28) directly connected to the first secondary panel via a third secondary crease line (36), and a fourth secondary flap (32) directly connected to the second secondary panel via a fourth secondary crease line (36).
Camillo teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure adjacent transversal direction crease lines (34 and 36) to be offset longitudinally with respect to each other by a distance comprised of one thickness of corrugation (i.e., 100% of thickness of an adjacent flap), whereby each of the panels comprises a longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to an adjacent flap or an adjacent panel and having a length corresponding to a respective distance (FIG. 1), in order to allow the main flaps, the secondary flaps and the auxiliary flap to be folded over each without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular box and further allows for stacking in a stable manner (column 2 lines 35-55, column 4 lines 43-51 and FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by configuring (1) the third secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the third main crease line of a fifth distance comprised between about 100% and about 200% of the thickness of the third secondary flap, the first main panel comprising a fifth longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the third secondary flap and having a fifth length corresponding to the fifth distance, (2) the third secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the fourth main crease line of a sixth distance comprised between about 50% and about 100% of the thickness of the third secondary flap, the second main panel comprising a sixth longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the third secondary flap and having a sixth length corresponding to the sixth distance, (3) the fourth secondary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the fourth main crease line of a seventh distance comprised between about 50% and about 100% of the thickness of the fourth secondary flap, the second main panel comprising a seventh longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the fourth secondary flap and having a seventh length corresponding to the seventh distance, and (4) the second auxiliary crease line to be offset longitudinally with respect to the third main crease line of an eighth distance comprised between about 100% and about 200% of the thickness of the second auxiliary flap, the first main panel comprising an eighth longitudinal free edge portion adjacent to the second auxiliary flap and having an eighth length corresponding to the eighth distance, as taught and suggested by Camillo, in order to allow the main flaps, the secondary flaps and the auxiliary flap to be folded over each other without any rounded corners which provides for a more rectangular container and further allows for stacking in a stable manner.
Claims 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoener in view of Camillo, Lau, Smith and Nute, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cartorhin (FR 1419392 A).
Regarding claim 9, Schoener as modified by Camillo, Lau, Smith and Nute teaches the blank of claim 8 above, wherein the first main flap comprising two lateral edges along the longitudinal direction (Schoener: Fig. 2) but fails to teach a through opening and two precut lines extending from the through opening to a respective one of the two lateral edges.
Cartorhin teaches an analogous blank comprising a first main flap having two lateral edges along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3-8) and further teaches that it is known in the prior art to provide a tamper-proof closure by configuring the first main flap with a through opening and two precut lines extending from the through opening to a respective one of the two lateral edges (Translation and Fig. 3-8).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by configuring the first main flap with a through opening and two precut lines extending from the through opening to a respective one of the two lateral edges, as taught by Cartorhin, in order to provide a tamper proof closure to the formed container.
Regarding claim 13, Schoener as modified by Camillo, Lau, Smith, Nute and Cartorhin teaches a method of folding a container comprising, providing the container blank of claim 9 above (see rejection of claim 9 above), but fails to specifically teach folding the first and second secondary flaps along the first and second secondary crease lines followed by folding the first and second main flaps along the first and second main crease lines and over the first and second secondary flaps, specifically folding the second main flap over the first and second secondary flaps and folding the first main flap over the second main flap.
Smith teaches an analogous blank having a first and second secondary flaps (32/34) and a first and second main flaps (26/30) and further teaches that it is well known and common in the prior art to fold a container blank into a container by first folding the first and second secondary flaps along first and second secondary crease lines (28) followed by folding the first and second main flaps along first and second main crease lines (28) and over the first and second secondary flaps, specifically folding the second main flap over the first and second secondary flaps followed by folding the first main flap over the second main flap (column 4 lines 51-67 and Fig. 1-3). Cartorhin also teaches the same method, whereby first and second secondary flaps are folded along first and second secondary crease lines, followed by folding a second main flap over the first and second secondary flaps, followed by folding a first main flap over the second main flap (Fig. 3-8).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by implementing the method of Smith or Cartorhin, whereby the first and second secondary flaps are folded along the first and second secondary crease lines followed by folding the first and second main flaps along the first and second main crease lines and over the first and second secondary flaps, specifically folding the second main flap over the first and second secondary flaps followed by folding the first main flap over the second main flap, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a common and well-known method of folding and forming a container and a container closure and thus, implementing such method would have yielded obvious and predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Schoener as modified by Camillo, Lau, Smith, Nute and Cartorhin teaches the method of claim 13 above, wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following steps: before folding the second main flap over the first and second secondary flaps, applying an adhesive element on a distal region of the first and second secondary flaps; before folding the first main flap over the second main flap, applying an adhesive element on a distal region of the second main flap; and before folding the first main flap over the second main flap, applying an adhesive element on a proximal region of second main flap, the proximal region mirroring a distal region of the first main flap delimited by precut lines and by a through-opening of the first main flap (Smith: column 4 line 51-column 5 line 16).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoener in view of Camillo and Lau, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith.
Regarding claim 12, Schoener as modified by Camillo and Lau teaches a method of folding a container comprising, providing the container blank of claim 1 above (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to specifically teach folding the secondary flap along the secondary crease line followed by folding the main flap along the main crease line and over the secondary flap.
Smith teaches an analogous blank having a secondary flap (32/34) and a main flap (26/30) and further teaches that it is well known and common in the prior art to fold a container blank into a container by first folding the secondary flap along a secondary crease line (28) followed by folding the main flap along a main crease line (28) and over the secondary flap (column 4 lines 51-67 and Fig. 1-3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Schoener by implementing the method of Smith, whereby the secondary flap is folded along the secondary crease line followed by folding the main flap along the main crease line and over the secondary flap, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a common and well known method of folding and forming a container and a container closure and thus, implementing such method would have yielded obvious and predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Camillo fails to teach the longitudinal free edge portion being straight and extending straight away from the longitudinal crease line, is not persuasive.
Camillo was not intended to teach the argued limitation as the argued limitation is a new limitation not presented in the previously examined claims.
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 NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights