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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action for application #18/816099, Ziploader, filed 8/27/2024, since the filing of a Request for Continued Examination filed 2/13/26. Claims 1, 2, 6-11, and 13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because they did not include Claim Status Indicators as required. The Examiner has reviewed the claims and since they are unchanged since the previous amendment of 7/10/25, the claims have been examined as “Previously Presented” claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because the Claim Status Indicator is incorrect. The status was identified as “Original”, but the claim was amended on 7/10/2025 and therefore should be identified as “Previously Presented”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
-The drawings are objected to because they contain new matter. Figure 2 was amended on 7/10/2025 to include dashed rectangular boxes near the upper ends of the panels. This is new matter since not depicted in the original figures. No numerals were added to the figure to define these boxes, but the Applicant’s response explains that Figure 2 was amended to add the optional adhesive of Claim 13. While the specification does disclose using optional adhesive, the specification does not disclose the shape, size, orientation, or positioning on each panel and therefore the amendment is considered new matter. Additionally, para [0020] teaches that the adhesive may be placed “on the top, outer edge (comprising the shorter widthwise sides of the flat panels 110)”. The language makes it unclear where exactly the adhesive is placed since the “top outer edge” could be defining the thickness of the panel that creates an edge facing upwardly. Additionally, the upper ends of the panels in Figure 2 are not the “shorter widthwise sides of the flat panels”. Therefore, the location is unclear. The Examiner suggests canceling Claim 13 since all claimed subject matter must be depicted. See Response to Arguments section for further details.
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slot “snugly and securely” receiving the tab therein must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. There are no figures that actually teach the interaction between the tab and slot. It is claimed that the tab is larger than the slot, and amended to claim that the tab is snugly received in the slot, but it is not clear if the entire tab is fit into the slot so the base of the tab sits in the slot or if the tab is pushed in until it reaches interference with the slot, or if the tab is deformed to be retained in the slot etc. The term “snugly” has not been defined so that the metes and bounds could be determined, and the drawings do not depict the actual engagement between the tab and the slot.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 2, 6-11, and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding Claim 1:
-The term “snugly” is indefinite as the metes and bounds of this term cannot be determined. The actual engagement between the tab and slot was not depicted in the figures and therefore it is not clear if the entire tab is fit into the slot so the base of the tab sits in the slot or if the tab is pushed in until it reaches interference with the slot, or if the tab is deformed to be retained in the slot etc.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11:
-It is claimed that “each of the flat panels is formed of a single piece”. This wording makes it unclear if each flat panel is a separate piece. See Response to Arguments for proposed language.
Regarding Claim 13:
-Claim 13 claims that adhesive is located “proximate the distal widthwise sides”. However, this is unclear. First, the original drawings did not depict adhesive and therefore could not be relied upon for location. Secondly, para [0020] of the specification teaches that adhesive may be placed “on the top outer edge (comprising the shorter widthwise sides of the flat panels 110)”. Since each panel is defined by widthwise and lengthwise sides, which are the edges thereof, para [0020] appears to be referring to the upwardly facing edge, and not to a location near the upper end of the panel. Since the original drawings did not depict adhesive, the Examiner suggests canceling claim 13.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5,293,715 (Kaz).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Kaz teaches a foldable support structure (Figures 5 and 6), comprising:
a body (50; Figure 5) comprising a plurality of connected elongated flat panels (52,52,52,52,52), each panel having a pair of widthwise sides (upper end lower sides) and a pair of coextensive lengthwise sides (vertical fold lines and ends having the tab/slot), wherein:
the plurality of flat panels comprises a beginning panel (left panel 52 in Figure 5), an end panel (right panel 52), and a plurality of middle panels connected therebetween along corresponding lengthwise sides (see Figure 1 depicting three middle panels 52);
the beginning panel (left panel in Figure 5) is connected to a first of the plurality of middle panels along a first lengthwise side (fold line) of the beginning panel and a first lengthwise side of the first middle panel;
the end panel (right panel in Figure 5) is connected to a last of the plurality of middle panels along a first lengthwise side (fold line) of the end panel and a second lengthwise side of the last middle panel;
each middle panel is connected to two adjacent panels respectively along each middle panel's lengthwise sides (fold lines);
a first securing mechanism (tab extending from the left panel in Figure 5) located proximate an unconnected lengthwise side (where the tab extends from) of the beginning panel, and a second securing mechanism (slot within right panel in Figure 5) located proximate an unconnected lengthwise side (free lateral edge) of the end panel complementary to the first securing mechanism, the first and second securing mechanisms configured to removably connect the beginning flat panel to the end flat panel along each’s unconnected lengthwise side (Figure 6; slot and tab explained in col 4, ln 29-36, and ln 55-64 with respect to the other depicted shapes, with all of the tab/slots working in the same manner);
wherein the first securing mechanism (left tab) comprises a tab extending from the unconnected lengthwise side of the beginning panel (Figure 5), and the second securing mechanism (right slot) comprises a receiving slot formed within the unconnected lengthwise side of the end panel (Figure 5), wherein a width of the tab is larger than a width of the slot (as clearly depicted in Figures 1,3,and 5 the tab is almost the full width of the blank and the slot is significantly smaller) such that the slot snugly and securely receives the tab therein to removably connect the beginning flat panel to the end flat panel (col 4, ln 29-36, and ln 55-64 teaching the tab in the slot is a locking mechanism, thereby meeting the “snugly and securely” limitation as best understood since the tab in the slot retains the blank in the assembled configuration as shown);
a base opening (lower opening created by the lower edges when 50 is assembled into the structure of Figure 6) defined by proximate widthwise sides of the plurality of flat panels when the first securing mechanism is connected to the second securing mechanism; and
a top opening (upper opening created by upper edges when 50 is assembled into the structure of Figure 6) defined by distal widthwise sides of the plurality of flat panels when the first securing mechanism is connected to the second securing mechanism.
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, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0226914 (Fleming) in view of US D639,519 (Gomez) and further in view of US 1,829,915 (Wasser).
Regarding Claim 1, Fleming teaches a foldable support structure, comprising:
a body (16; Figure 1) comprising a plurality of connected elongated flat panels (Figure 2a depicting two fold lines 22, 24 extending from the top edge 18 to the lower edge 20 of the body, and para [0033] teaching that the number of fold lines can include 3-20 or more fold lines), each panel having a pair of widthwise sides (upper end lower sides along edges 18 and 20) and a pair of coextensive lengthwise sides (vertical fold lines extending between 18 and 20), wherein:
the plurality of flat panels comprises a beginning panel (panel with one free end), an end panel (opposing panel with one free end), and a plurality of middle panels connected therebetween along corresponding lengthwise sides (see Figure 1 depicting the overlapped beginning and end panels having securing mechanism 114, and para [0033] teaching that the number of fold lines can include 3-20 or more fold lines therefore all of the fold lines either create the middle panels or attach a middle panel to either the beginning or end panel);
the beginning panel is connected to a first of a plurality of middle panels along a first lengthwise side (fold line) of the beginning panel and a first lengthwise side of the first middle panel;
the end panel is connected to a last of the plurality of middle panels along a first lengthwise side (fold line) of the end panel and second lengthwise side of the last middle panel; and
each middle panel is connected to two adjacent panels respectively along each middle panel's lengthwise sides (fold lines);
a first securing mechanism (depicted as 114 in Figure 1) located proximate an unconnected lengthwise side (free lateral edge) of the beginning panel, and a second securing mechanism (opposing structure to 114) located proximate an unconnected lengthwise side (free lateral edge) of the end panel complementary to the first securing mechanism, the first and second securing mechanisms configured to removably connect the beginning flat panel to the end flat panel along each’s unconnected lengthwise side (as depicted in Figure 1; para [0030],[0031]);
a base opening (15, lower opening created by the edge 20; Figure 1, 3b) defined by proximate widthwise sides of the plurality of flat panels when the first securing mechanism is connected to the second securing mechanism (Figure 1);
a top opening (14, upper opening created by the edge 18; Figure 1, 3a) defined by distal widthwise sides of the plurality of flat panels when the first securing mechanism is connected to the second securing mechanism (Figure 1).
While Fleming teaches first and second securing mechanisms, Fleming does not specifically teach wherein the first securing mechanism comprises a tab extending from the unconnected lengthwise side of the beginning panel, and the second securing mechanism comprises a receiving slot formed within the unconnected lengthwise side of the end panel, wherein a width of the tab is larger than a width of the slot such that the slot snugly and securely receives the tab therein to removably connect the beginning flat panel to the end flat panel. Fleming does teach that the securing mechanisms could include any means known in the art for attachment including but not limited to snaps, buttons, hook and loop, rivets, adhesives, plastic welds and combinations thereof (para [0030]).
Gomez, which is also drawn to a support structure for a bag in which the ends of a single sheet are coupled together with a securing mechanism to create top and base openings (Figure 12) further teaches wherein the first securing mechanism comprises a tab (on right in Figure 1) extending from the unconnected lengthwise side, and the second securing mechanism comprises a receiving slot (two large vertical receiving slots depicted on the left in Figure 1) formed within the opposite unconnected lengthwise side, wherein a width of the tab is larger than a width of the slot (as depicted in Figure 15 where the tab engages the first slot and also in Figure 12 where the tab engages the second slot) such that the slot snugly and securely receives the tab therein to removably connect the beginning flat panel to the end flat panel (as depicted in Figures 12 and 15). Additionally, Wasser, which is also drawn to a blank (Figure 4) with the ends overlapped and locked together (Figure 5) with a tab (19) and slot (17/18) locking mechanism, specifically states in the specification that the tab is larger than the slot (page 3, col 1, ln 30-34 teaching that an elongation 19 is ‘of greater width than the length of the slit 17,18’; and page 3, col 1, ln 51-60 teaching the lateral edges of the extension 19 caused to engage the inner side of the blank ‘beyond the ends of the slit portion 18’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success for the securing mechanisms of Fleming to be tab and slots as taught by Gomez (as clearly depicted) and Wasser (as further supported in the specification), since this prevents any additional hardware from having to be installed on the body and can easily be made only via cuts right into the body of the support structure.
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Fleming, Gomez, and Wasser combined teach the foldable support structure of claim 1, and Fleming further teaches wherein each pair of lengthwise sides of each flat panel are parallel (para [0030] teaching the fold lines can be perpendicular to edges 18 and 20), whereby the top opening is equal to the base opening (Figure 4c teaching a side view; first sentence of para [0038]), and whereby when the beginning flat panel is connected to the end flat panel the body comprises a cylindrical prism where the plurality of flat panels comprise the faces of the prism (Figure 7; para [0030] teaching a plurality of fold lines creating the panels).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Fleming, Gomez, and Wasser combined teach the foldable support structure of claim 6, and Fleming further teaches wherein each of the flat panels comprises a rectangular shape (Figure 5a teaching edges 18 and 20 parallel to one another and para [0030] teaching that the fold lines can be perpendicular to edges 18 and 20).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, as best understood, Fleming, Gomez, and Wasser combined teach the foldable support structure of claim 1, and Fleming further teaches whereby the top opening is larger than the base opening when the first securing mechanism is connected to the second securing mechanism, and whereby when the beginning flat panel is connected to the end flat panel the body comprises a truncated conical prism where the plurality of flat panels comprise the faces of the prism (para [0038] teaching that the first embodiment had equal first and second openings, but that the second embodiment teaches unequal circumferences of edges 18 and 20 such that the top has a larger circumference and the bottom has a smaller circumference; Figure 5b; para [0034]).
Fleming does not specifically teach wherein each pair of lengthwise sides of each flat panel are non-parallel and converging toward the base opening, wherein each of the flat panels comprises a trapezoid shape. However, Fleming teaches the alternate embodiment of Figures 5b and para [0038] teaches the alternate embodiment having a smaller circumference on the bottom. Para [0030] teaches that the plurality of fold lines may run diagonal to the edges 18 and 20. Therefore, since the upper and lower edges have unequal circumferences, and Figure 5b shows two of the fold lines on the right and left sides thereby creating two stacked trapezoidal panels, in order to create the ‘bowl type structure’ as disclosed in para [0038], each of the plurality of fold lines must extend diagonal to the edges in a trapezoid shape in the same manner depicted in Figure 5b.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Fleming, Gomez, and Wasser combined teach the foldable support structure of claim 1, and Fleming further teaches wherein each of the flat panels is formed of a single piece of cardboard (para [0027] teaching various materials, including cardboard), and wherein connections between flat panels are provided by folds in the cardboard between adjacent flat panels (para [0033]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleming, Gomez, and Wasser and further in view of US 4,867,340 (Byers).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Fleming, Gomez, and Wasser combined teach the foldable support structure of claim 1, but do not specifically teach further comprising an adhesive located proximate the distal widthwise sides of the plurality of flat panels on an exterior surface of the flat panels, wherein the adhesive is configured to assist securing a top of a flexible bag around said widthwise sides when a body of said bag is located through the top opening. However, Byers teaches that when placing a flexible bag within a container, one problem includes that the upper end of the flexible bag is frequently pulled inwardly. To remedy this issue, Byers teaches using an adhesive (30) proximate the upper end of the container on an exterior surface, wherein the adhesive (30) is configured to assist securing a top of a flexible bag (24) around the upper edges of the container when a body of said bag (24) is located through the top opening (Figure 3 showing the upper end of the bag being folded over the upper edges of the supporting container and then secured to an exterior of the container via the adhesive; col 2, ln 57-66). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use an adhesive as taught by Byers on the support structure of Fleming such that the plastic bag of Fleming is retained in place when the bag is being filled (para [0041]) which tends to cause the bag to collapse under the entry of contents. The adhesive would help retain the bag in place to securely receive the contents without the bag collapsing.
Claims 1, 2, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,897,084 (Judge) in view of Gomez and Wasser.
Regarding Claim 1, Judge teaches a foldable support structure, comprising:
a body (10; Figure 1) comprising a plurality of connected elongated flat panels (12,14,16,18), each panel having a pair of widthwise sides (upper end lower sides along edges 20 and 22) and a pair of coextensive lengthwise sides (vertical sides extending between 20 and 22), wherein:
the plurality of flat panels comprises a beginning panel (18), an end panel (12), and a plurality of middle panels connected therebetween (14,16) along corresponding lengthwise sides;
the beginning panel (18) is connected to a first (16) of the plurality of middle panels along a first lengthwise side of the beginning panel and a first lengthwise side of the first middle panel (fold line 19; Figure 1);
the end panel (12) is connected to a last (14) of the plurality of middle panels along a first lengthwise side of the end panel and a second lengthwise side of the last middle panel (fold line 19); and
each middle panel (14, 16) is connected to two adjacent panels respectively along each middle panel's lengthwise sides (14 is connected to 12 and 16 at fold lines 19; 16 is connected to 14 and 18 at fold lines 19; Figure 1);
a first securing mechanism (Figures 6-9) located proximate an unconnected lengthwise side (free lateral edge) of the beginning panel (18), and a second securing mechanism (opposing structure) located proximate an unconnected lengthwise side (free lateral edge) of the end panel (12) complementary to the first securing mechanism, the first and second securing mechanisms configured to removably connect the beginning flat panel (18) to the end flat panel (12) along each’s unconnected lengthwise side (col 4, ln 27-48);
wherein the first securing mechanism comprises a tab (30a/b; Figure 6) extending from the unconnected lengthwise side of the beginning panel (18), and the second securing mechanism comprises a receiving slot (25) formed within the unconnected lengthwise side of the end panel (12; col 4, ln 27-32);
a base opening (lower opening created by the edge 22 in use configuration as in Figure 2) defined by proximate widthwise sides of the plurality of flat panels (col 4, ln 10-12, ‘opening at each end’) when the first securing mechanism is connected to the second securing mechanism (Figure 2); and
a top opening (upper opening created by the edge 20 when in use configuration as in Figure 2) defined by distal widthwise sides of the plurality of flat panels (col 4, ln 10-12, ‘opening at each end’) when the first securing mechanism is connected to the second securing mechanism (Figure 2).
While Judge teaches that the slot securely receives the tab therein to removably connect the beginning flat panel (18) to the end flat panel (12), Judge does not specifically teach wherein a width of the tab is larger than a width of the slot.
However, Gomez, which is also drawn to a support structure for a bag in which the ends of a single sheet are coupled together with a securing mechanism to create top and base openings (Figure 12) further teaches wherein the first securing mechanism comprises a tab (on right in Figure 1) extending from the unconnected lengthwise side, and the second securing mechanism comprises a receiving slot (two large vertical receiving slots depicted on the left in Figure 1) formed within the opposite unconnected lengthwise side, wherein a width of the tab is larger than a width of the slot (as depicted in Figure 15 where the tab engages the first slot and also in Figure 12 where the tab engages the second slot) such that the slot snugly and securely receives the tab therein to removably connect the beginning flat panel to the end flat panel (as depicted in Figures 12 and 15). Additionally, Wasser, which is also drawn to a blank (Figure 4) with the ends overlapped and locked together (Figure 5) with a tab (19) and slot (17/18) locking mechanism, specifically states in the specification that the tab is larger than the slot (page 3, col 1, ln 30-34 teaching that an elongation 19 is ‘of greater width than the length of the slit 17,18’; and page 3, col 1, ln 51-60 teaching the lateral edges of the extension 19 caused to engage the inner side of the blank ‘beyond the ends of the slit portion 18’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success for the tabs of Judge to be larger than the receiving slot as taught by Gomez (as clearly depicted) and Wasser (as further supported in the specification), since this prevents the tab from easily slipping out of the receiving slot.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Judge, Gomez, and Wasser combined teach the foldable support structure of claim 1, and Judge further teaches wherein the body is foldable along each flat panel's lengthwise sides (19) that are connected to adjacent panels such that the flat panels lie stacked and parallel when the first securing mechanism is not connected to the second securing mechanism (Figure 10A; col 4, ln 49-57).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Judge, Gomez, and Wasser combined teach the foldable support structure of claim 1, and Judge further teaches wherein each of the flat panels is formed of a single piece of coated paper (col 3, ln 30-39 teaching ‘moisture resistant boxboard’ which is known in the art to be a coated cardboard), and wherein connections between flat panels are provided by folds (19) in the coated paper between adjacent flat panels (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Judge, Gomez, and Wasser combined teach the foldable support structure of claim 1, and Judge further teaches wherein each of the flat panels is formed of a single piece of cardboard (col 3, ln 30-39 teaching ‘moisture resistant boxboard’ which is known in the art to be a coated cardboard), and wherein connections between flat panels are provided by folds (19) in the cardboard between adjacent flat panels (Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Drawings:
-The Examiner rejected Figure 2 as having new matter since the Applicant added adhesive thereto that was not previously depicted. While the specification does disclose using optional adhesive, the specification does not disclose the shape, size, orientation, or positioning on each panel and therefore the amendment is considered new matter.
-The Applicant argues that adding the optional adhesive of Claim 13 to Figure 2 would not be new matter since there is support in the originally filed application, and refers to para [0020] disclosing that an adhesive may be placed “on the top, outer edge (comprising the shorter widthwise sides of the flat panels 110)”. The Examiner has fully considered this argument but it is not persuasive. The language makes it unclear where exactly the adhesive is placed since the “top outer edge” could be defining the thickness of the panel that creates an edge facing upwardly. This is more likely the placement since each flat panel is defined by two lengthwise sides and two widthwise sides (perimeter of each panel) and since the specification is stating that the top outer edge is one of the “widthwise sides”, then it would make more sense that this would be the actual edge, rather than a front surface of the panel near the upper end. Additionally, if the placement of the adhesive was just meant to be on the planar front surface of the upper ends of the panels, as shown in Figure 2 the upper ends of the panels are not the “shorter widthwise sides of the flat panels”. The upper ends of the panels are actually wider in Figure 2. Therefore, the adhesive in Figure 2 is still deemed new matter.
-The Applicant further argues that the “shape, size, and orientation shown are consistent with the specification’s disclosure of adhesive placed on the top, outer edge”. The Examiner has fully considered this but it is not persuasive. Even if the location of the adhesive was clear (which as explained above it is not), the location would not define the shape, size, and orientation of the adhesive.
-Lastly the Applicant argues that original claim 13 recites “an adhesive located proximate the distal widthwise sides…”. The Examiner has fully considered this but it is not persuasive since this was NOT the original claim 13 language. This language was added in the claim amendment of 7/10/2025. Notwithstanding, this would not clarify the above issues explained. The Examiner suggests canceling Claim 13 since all claimed subject matter must be depicted.
-Regarding Figure 5:
The Examiner notes that the amendment to the drawing filed 2/13/26 is approved only since Claim 5 was canceled.
Regarding the Claims:
-Regarding Claim 10 and 11, the Applicant argues that the claims are clear since the specification clarifies the matter. The Examiner has fully considered this, but it is not persuasive. While the application as a whole is considered when reviewing the claims, the claims themselves must still be clear. Currently, the claims suggest that EACH panel is a single sheet, rather than a single sheet creating a plurality of panels. The Examiner suggests language as follows as an example for Claim 10:
---10. The foldable support structure of claim 1, wherein the foldable support structure is formed of a single piece of coated paper, and wherein each of the flat panels are formed by folds in the coated paper defining connections between adjacent panels of the flat panels.---
Regarding the Prior Art Rejections:
-The Applicant argues that the specification of Kaz does not specifically teach the tab being larger than the width of the slot and that the drawings are not generally relied upon for precise dimensional relationships. The Examiner has fully considered the argument but it is not persuasive. The drawings are not relied upon for a precise dimension, but rather for a very clearly depicted locking structure, where the tab is in fact depicted much larger than the slot. Additionally, the specification teaches that the tab/slot engagement create the locking structure, which thereby retains the support structure in the assembled configuration. While the term “snugly” is rejected as being indefinite, since the tab is retained in the slot and “locks” in place, this satisfies the “snugly and securely” limitation, since otherwise the support structure could not retain its shape.
-The Applicant argues that Gomez cannot be properly relied upon to teach the specific dimensional relationship of the tab since it is a design patent. The Examiner has fully considered this, and while it is not persuasive since Gomez more than clearly depicts the tab and slot engagement, in an effort to further prosecution the Examiner has added an additional reference (Wasser) that specifically states in the specification that the tab is larger than the slot. The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s drawings do not even depict the engagement of the tab with the slot. The Applicant’s specification also mentions a variety of different tab/slots that could be used thereby the type of tab/slot is not a critical element of the invention. The use of tabs/slots for engagement between two ends of a structure is more than well-known in the art. The Examiner cannot identify any element of the Applicant’s structure that is novel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art has been listed in the PTO-892 form.
US 4,706,805 (Becher), US 4,687,104 (Ielmini), US 5,503,324 (Bacchetti et al.), US 3,773,244 (Dunlap, III et al.) all teach tab/slot locking mechanisms, in which the specification teaches the tab being wider than the slot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday 7:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632