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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim must refer back in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 15 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 6 and 7 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.
Claim 6 recites “wherein at least one of the bottom edge portions engages in two of the recesses”. It is unclear if the portion engages the recess the same time or if it Is capable of engaging either recess.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same corner region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US-3984027-A) in view of Vukkisila (US-20180303260-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a packaging for an article (Fig. 3) comprising a three-dimensionally shaped packaging bottom (12), the packaging bottom being adapted to receive an article to be packaged and comprising: a bottom support surface (32), a bottom side wall (34) surrounding the bottom support surface, and a bottom edge (36) arranged at an end of the bottom side wall, the end being distal with respect to the bottom support surface, wherein the bottom edge protrudes outwardly from the bottom side wall (Fig. 2), and a packaging cover (10) having recesses (20, 22, 24), wherein the packaging cover is arranged on the packaging bottom such that outwardly projecting bottom edge portions (38, 40, 42) engage in respective ones of the recesses of the packaging cover such that the packaging cover is fixed in its relative position with respect to the packaging bottom (Fig. 3).
Smith fails to teach a leaf material of a plant.
Vukkisila teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a packing bottom out of a leaf material of plant (par. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the bottom out of plant, in order to adjust costs and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8 and 10-11, the modified packaging of Smith teaches wherein the bottom edge on at least one of the bottom edge portions comprises an increased protrusion with respect to adjoining further portions of the bottom edge (Smith, Fig. 3, 6), wherein at least one of the bottom edge portions is formed as a projection integrally formed on the bottom edge (Smith, Fig. 2), wherein the bottom edge in the region of at least one of the bottom edge portions and adjoining further portions of the bottom edge comprises a constant protrusion (Smith, Fig. 2), wherein the packaging cover is arranged on the packaging bottom such that side wall portions of the packaging cover are pressed against corner regions of the bottom edge and thereby curved such that in at least one of the corner regions at least one of the bottom edge portions engages in at least one of the recesses (Smith, Fig. 9), wherein at least one of the bottom edge portions engages in two of the recesses (one is capable depending on orientation), wherein at least one of the recesses is arranged on a lug (Smith, 26) formed on the packaging cover, wherein the packaging cover is three-dimensionally shaped or flat (Smith, Fig. 1), wherein the leaf material is a palm leaf material (Vukkisila, par. 0031), wherein the packaging cover consists of recycled and/or recyclable and/or compostable and/or biodegradable material (Vukkisila, par. 0031).
Regarding claim 7, the modified packaging of Smith fails to teach recesses in corner regions of the bottom edge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the recesses at corners rather than sides, in order to adjust appearance and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the modified packaging of Smith fails to teach wherein the packaging cover comprises at least four recesses in each of which a bottom edge portion engages.
Vukkisila teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a packaging with at least four connection structures (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the packaging with additional connection structures in order better secure components together.
Regarding claim 14, the modified packaging of Smith fails to teach wherein the packaging cover is formed to be at least partially transparent.
Vukkisila teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a transparent cover (par. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the cover to be transparent, so that contents of the packaging could be observed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US-3984027-A) and Vukkisila (US-20180303260-A1) in view of Jewell (US-D251657-S).
The modified packaging of Smith fails to teach wherein the bottom edge portions are equidistantly arranged around the bottom edge.
Jewell teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a packaging with equidistantly arranged connection structures (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the packaging with equidistantly arranged edge portions, in order to make the packaging more uniform and since a modification would be the use of a known connection structure arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-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 Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733