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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10, 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayer (US 11993428 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10, 12-14, and 16, Mayer discloses a closeable carton and a blank for making comprising a floor panel (112); a plurality of side panels (116/114a-b) extending about a periphery of the floor panel (see Fig. 13), the plurality of side panels comprising a front side panel (114a), an opposing rear side panel (114b), a first side end panel (116), and an opposing second side end panel (116); corner gussets (118) extending between adjacent side panels, wherein the floor panel, side panels, and corner gussets are configurable to form a compartment region (see Figures 14-15); a closure portion (132/136), wherein the closure portion is configured to secure a top opening of the container portion; and an arrangement of vent openings (142).
Regarding claim 2, Mayer discloses a carton wherein the closure portion comprises, closure flaps (120/124/136; Examiner considers element 124 to extend as a flap) extending from an uppermost edge of the side panels forming a moveable joint where the closure flaps and corresponding side panels intersect (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Mayer discloses a carton wherein a first closure flap (136) and a second closure flap (124) are adapted to engage with one another when in a folded closed position.
Regarding claim 4, Mayer discloses a carton wherein the first closure flap and the second closure flap are configured to interlock with one another via a tab (124) formed on one of the first closure flap or the second closure flap and a corresponding slot (138) formed in the other of the first closure flap or the second closure flap.
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) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Hubbard, Jr. et al. (US 9309023 B2; hereinafter Hubbard).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Mayer discloses the claimed invention except for vent openings in the closure. Hubbard teaches a food tray and blank for making with vent openings wherein one or more of the vent openings are formed substantially in the closure portion of the carton (Col 4 lines 44-65; Examiner notes that Hubbard contemplates putting vent openings anywhere along in the lid, or closure, side walls or end walls). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Mayer’s carton to move the vent openings anywhere along the carton, including the lid, as taught by Hubbard in order to optimize the ventilation of the carton.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Hanna et al. (US 7607563 B2; hereinafter Hanna).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 11, Mayer discloses the claimed invention except for vent openings along fold lines. Hanna teaches a food tray comprising circular vent openings (45) along a closure fold line (see Figures 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Mayer’s carton to include vent openings along fold lines, as taught by Hanna, in order to optimize the ventilation of contents (Hanna; Col 1 lines 35-50).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Sill et al. (US 2019/0322409 A1; hereinafter Sill).
Regarding claim 15, Mayer discloses the claimed invention except for closure flaps that are removable. Sill teaches a food carton wherein one or more moveable joints are weakened (120), and wherein one or more closure flaps (105) are configured to be removable from its respective side panel by tearing along a respective one of the weakened moveable joints (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have Mayer’s closure flaps be removable in order to provide a means for gaining greater access to the food within (Sill; see Par. 0003-0004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734