DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/04/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bressan (US20230113321A1), Bressan (US20240327063A1) herein after 7063’ and further in view of Wohlers (US2331754A).
Regarding claim 1, Bressan teaches a paper or cardboard container, comprising:
a container body comprising a bottom wall, a front wall, a rear wall, and two side walls, wherein (see annotated fig.5 and 6 of Bressan below for a container body with bottom, front, rear and two sidewalls):
the front wall, the rear wall and the side walls have respective upper edges which define an opening opposite the bottom wall (see annotated fig.5 and 6 of Bressan below for the front, rear and side walls having upper edges that define an opening opposite of the bottom wall), and
each of said side walls comprises an outer layer having a through-hole and an inner layer having a through-window facing the through-hole of the outer layer (see annotated fig.5 and 6 of Bressan below for side walls having outer later with a through hole and an inner layer having a through-window facing the through hole of the outer layer);
a cover movable between an open configuration and a closed configuration, wherein (see annotated fig.5 and 6 below for a cover movable between an open and closed configuration):
the cover comprises an upper wall, a pair of sides parallel to each other and perpendicular to the upper wall (see annotated fig.5 shows the upper wall 4F with sides parallel to each other and perpendicular to upper wall),
each side of said pair of sides has an engagement tab folded over a respective outer surface (see annotated fig.5 and 6 below for each pair sides have engagement tab folded over a respective outer surface; “In one aspect according to any one of the preceding aspects the container comprises at least two second coupling portions (13).”-0038),
in said closed configuration, the engagement tabs of the pair of sides engage respective through-windows of said side walls and hold the cover on the container body (annotated fig.5 and 6 show the tabs and the windows that hold the cover on the container body); and
the cover is adapted to be released from the container body by inserting a finger of a user into each of said through-holes and pressing inwards on said engagement tabs (see annotated fig.5 and 6 show the cover is capable of being released from the body by inserting a finger of a user into holes and pressing inwards the tabs). Bressan does not teach wherein the front wall has a folded distal portion having a base flap folded against an inner surface of the front wall and a stiffening flap arranged at a lower end of the base flap and folded towards an inside of the container and wherein the cover coupled to a rear wall via a hinged connection and movable about an axis of the hinged connection.
7063’ does teach wherein the front wall has a folded distal portion having a base flap folded against an inner surface of the front wall and a stiffening flap arranged at a lower end of the base flap and folded towards an inside of the container (see annotated fig.9 and 10 of 7063’ below shows the front wall 4d with a folded distal portion with a base flap folded against the inner surface with and a stiffening flap arranged at the lower end of the base flap folded towards the inside of the container). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front wall disclosed by Bressan by adding the teaching of base flap and stiffening flap as disclosed by 7063’ in order to to avoid such undesirable deformation that would lead to an undesirable opening of the container. “The support panel 20 is configured to avoid such undesirable deformation that would lead to an undesirable opening of the container; in other words, the support panel 20, in the locking condition, is configured to limit the movement of the side wall of the storage (optionally of the front wall 4a and/or the rear wall 4b) directly carrying the second coupling portion 13, away from the closure system, optionally facing at least one side wall of the storage directly carrying the second portion of coupling 13 (optionally of the front wall 4a and/or the rear wall 4b).” (0171, 7063’)
Bressan as modified right above does not teach wherein the cover coupled to a rear wall via a hinged connection and movable about an axis of the hinged connection.
Wohlers does teach wherein the cover coupled to a rear wall via a hinged connection and movable about an axis of the hinged connection (fig.1 shows the cover 1 ebing coupled to the rear wall of the box via hinged connection and movable about an axis of the hinged connection). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover disclosed by Bressan as modified right above by adding the teaching of the hinged cover as disclosed by Wohlers in order to keep the cover attached to the box so the user does not misplace the cover if it can just be taken off entirely.
Annotated fig.5 and 6 of Bressan
PNG
media_image1.png
696
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.9 and 10 of Bressan
PNG
media_image2.png
622
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bressan as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein the cover has a front side perpendicular to said side walls, and wherein in said closed configuration a lower edge of said front side rests against said stiffening flap (see annotated fig.5-6 above cover with a front side 4c perpendicular to the side walls and in closed configuration a lower edge of the front side will rest against the flap).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bressan as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein said stiffening flap extends over a full width of the front wall (fig.9 and 10 show the flap extends over a full width of the front wall).
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bressan as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein said stiffening flap has at least one wing which rests against the inner surface of the front wall (see annotated fig.9 and 10 above where the wing is the edge of the flap that rests against the inner surface).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amendments are addressed above with the updated rejection which includes reference Wohlers. Applicant argues that examiner has mislabeled Bressan 321 storage body as the storage cover this is not persuasive as the cover labeled above can cover the container body as required by the claim. Furthermore, all the structure of the claim is present in the prior art it does not matter what the intended use is as the intended use is not recited by the claim. Applicant also states action does not comply with KSR on why those would be swapped this is not persuasive as nothing was swapped just because the prior art has specific use for one element does not mean it cannot be used in the manner applicant is intending it as. Even though it is not required, “swapping” the intended use of the two elements would simply be reversal of parts, but once again nothing was swapped. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Applicant also says the cover slides over the outside of the storage body, this is not persuasive as claim 1 recites nothing of sort. Applicant arguments against claim 7 are not persuasive because applicant recites that panel 20 does not contact 4a however that is not what the office action states in the office action the front wall is 4d. Furthermore, even if applicant was correct, which is not the case, the flap 20 will still contact the front wall 4A as clearly seen in fig.9 when the flap 20 is folded down the side of the flap contacts 4A clearly. Applicant also argues how the “wings” do not prevent downward oscillation of a stiffening flap and serve different function and have different structural relationship to the front wall however applicant FAILS to claim any function that they argue in the respond. Claim 7 recites “wherein said stiffening flap has at least one wing which rests against the inner surface of the front wall” and fig.9 clearly shows the wing resting on the inner surface of the front wall which is why the claim was rejected. Any arguments against the functions of the flap or wing are moot since applicant themselves fail to positively claim those limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (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, 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights