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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-12 drawn to a hard-shell packaging product in the reply filed on 2/2/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2/2/26.
Applicants request that new claim 15 be examined together with the Group I claims is acknowledged. The request is based on applicant’s contention that the new claim requires the features of claim 1. However, even though new claim 15 requires the features of claim 1, it is not directed to a hard-shell packaging product as recited in claims 1-12 and as elected for examination by the applicant. Accordingly, claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration along with claims 13-14 as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (2012/0051967) in view of GB 05596 (cited by the applicant), hereinafter “GB596”.
Murphy discloses most of the features of the claims including a hard-shell packaging product as shown at 10 in Fig. 1.
The claimed case and cap can be base 20 and cap 40 that form an enclosure as required in claim 1.
The claimed adhesive label can be coupling 12 that can be adhesive tape as disclosed in Murphy.
The data display area of claim 8 can be an area of the Murphy label that is not part of the perforated section described below.
Although the Murphy adhesive label has a perforated section (see the middle of the Murphy label in Fig. 1) having perforation lines to facilitate tearing of the label and separation of the case and cap from one another (see Fig. 2), the perforation lines are not configured as required in claim 1 last paragraph. On the other hand, GB596 discloses the use of perforation lines (inclined perforations or slots 10) having the features of claim 1 to facilitate the removal of a metallic capsule 5 to permit a stopper and bottle neck to be separated from one another. It would have been obvious in view of GB596 to provide the label of Murphy with perforation lines as claimed (for example, instead of the ones disclosed in Murphy) in order to facilitate easier tearing of the label when desired while helping to prevent inadvertent tearing of the label.
The angle of the perforation lines (claims 2-3), length of the label (claim 4), distance between the perforation lines (claim 5), extent of the perforation lines across the gap (claims 6-7) are all expedients that are well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art to provide based upon features such as the desired performance of the label. It would also have been obvious to provide the label of Murphy with these claimed features in order to facilitate easier tearing of the label when desired while helping to prevent inadvertent tearing of the label in particular applications.
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights