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 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “the circumference” should be --a circumference--,
In lines 6-7, “the upper edge of one of the upstanding side wall parts” should be --an upper edge of a respective one of the upstanding side wall parts--,
In line 11, “the upper edge” should be --an upper edge--, and
In lines 12-13, “a strengthening flange part is adhered to both circumferential flange parts” should be --each of the strengthening flange parts is adhered to a respective one of the abutting flange parts--.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 2-3, “adjacent upper edges of an upstanding side wall part and adjacent upstanding corner wall part” should be --the upper edges of one of the upstanding side wall parts and an adjacent one of the upstanding corner wall parts”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 2-4, “the combined angle of the abutting edges of two adjacent circumferential flange parts is smaller than the angle between the upper edges of the two upstanding side wall parts of said two adjacent circumferential flange parts” should be --a combined angle of abutting edges of the abutting circumferential flange parts is smaller than the angle between the upper edges of one of the upstanding side wall parts and an adjacent one of the upstanding corner wall parts--.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “the abutting edges of the circumferential flange parts” should be --abutting edges of the abutting circumferential flange parts--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 4 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 3 recites the limitation “adjacent upper edges of an upstanding side wall part and adjacent upstanding corner wall part are under an angle of larger than 0° and smaller than 90°, preferably larger than 35° and smaller than 55°, more preferably 45°.
However, the upstanding side wall parts and the upstanding corner wall parts do not form a 90 degree angle, but rather form an obtuse angle. Accordingly, it is not clear how it is possible for the upper edges of one of the upstanding side wall parts and an adjacent one of the upstanding corner wall parts to be an angle less than 90°.
Additionally, the language “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the preferably are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination, the upper edges of one of the upstanding side wall parts and an adjacent one of the upstanding corner wall parts will be considered to be at an angle of larger than 0°.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the combined angle of the abutting edges of two adjacent circumferential flange parts is smaller than the angle between the upper edges of the two upstanding side wall parts of said two adjacent circumferential flange parts”.
A combined angle of abutting edges of two adjacent circumferential flange parts appears to be 180° (Fig. 1, 5, 7). Accordingly, it is not clear how it is smaller than the angle between the upper edges of the two upstanding side wall parts of said two adjacent circumferential flange parts.
For the purpose of examination, the angles will be considered as depicted in the drawings.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the third elongate flange part section is connected parallel…to the second elongate flange part section”. However, it is not clear how the third elongate flange part section is connected parallel to the second elongate flange part section. As seen in figure 8, the third elongate flange part section (36) is not parallel to the second elongate flange part section (35).
For the purpose of examination, the second and third elongate flange part sections will be considered as depicted in figure 8.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeguchi (WO 2021/186764 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takeguchi teaches a cardboard tray comprising:
a bottom wall part (121);
arranged along a circumference of the bottom wall part, a number of upstanding side wall parts (122a) alternated with the same number of upstanding corner wall parts (122b);
a circumferential flange (13) composed out of abutting circumferential flange parts (Fig. 1(a), 2), each circumferential flange part being arranged, along a fold line, to an upper edge of a respective one of the upstanding side wall parts (Fig. 1(a), 2),
wherein the circumferential flange has a sealing zone (4), which extends along the circumferential flange and which spans at least part of the width of said circumferential flange (Fig. 3);
wherein strengthening flange parts arranged, along a fold line, to an upper edge of each upstanding corner wall part (Fig. 1(a), 1(c), 2), wherein each of the strengthening flange parts is adhered to a respective one of the abutting flange parts of the adjacent side wall parts (translation);
wherein the strengthening flange parts at least partially overlap with the sealing zone, when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the sealing zone (Fig. 1(c)) (Translation and Fig. 1-3, 5, 6).
Regarding claim 2, Takeguchi teaches the cardboard tray of claim 1 above, wherein the strengthening flange parts fully overlap the sealing zone in a width direction of the circumferential flange (Fig. 1(c), 3).
Regarding claim 3, Takeguchi teaches the cardboard tray of claim 1 above, wherein the upper edges of one of the upstanding side wall parts and an adjacent one of the upstanding corner wall parts are under an angle of larger than 0° (Fig. 1(c)). See 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding claim 4, Takeguchi teaches the cardboard tray of claim 1 above, wherein a combined angle of abutting edges of the abutting circumferential flange parts is smaller than the angle between the upper edges of one of the upstanding side wall parts and an adjacent one of the upstanding corner wall parts (Fig. 1(a), 2). See 112(b) rejection above. The angles depicted by Takeguchi with respect to the abutting edges and the upper edges of the upstanding side wall parts and corner wall parts are substantially equivalent to the angles depicted in figure 5 of Applicant’s drawings.
Regarding claim 6, Takeguchi teaches the cardboard tray of claim 1 above, wherein at least one of the upstanding side wall parts is provided with a glue flap (Fig. 1(a), 2), which is adhered to the adjacent upstanding corner wall part (Translation and Fig. 1(a), 2).
Regarding claim 8, Takeguchi teaches the cardboard tray of claim 1 above, wherein the cardboard tray further comprises a plastic film (3) which covers the cardboard tray and is sealed along the circumferential flange at the sealing zone (Translation and Fig. 1(b), 3).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeguchi, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Doll et al. (US 3,316,102 A, hereinafter Doll).
Regarding claim 7, Takeguchi teaches the cardboard tray of claim 1 above, but fails to teach at least one of the circumferential flange parts comprising at least a first, a second and third elongate flange part section, which are connected parallel and along an elongate edge to each other, wherein the first elongate flange part section is arranged to the corresponding upstanding side wall part, the second elongate flange part section is double folded against the first elongate flange part section, and the third elongate flange part section is connected parallel and along an elongate edge to the second elongate flange part section, wherein the third elongate flange part section is adhered either on the inside or the outside of the corresponding upstanding side wall part.
Doll teaches an analogous cardboard tray comprising analogous circumferential flange parts and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the circumferential flange parts with at least a first, a second and third elongate flange part section (34a, 36a, 40a and the like), which are connected parallel and along an elongate edge to each other, wherein the first elongate flange part section is arranged to the corresponding upstanding side wall part, the second elongate flange part section is double folded against the first elongate flange part section, and the third elongate flange part section is connected parallel and along an elongate edge to the second elongate flange part section, wherein the third elongate flange part section is adhered either on the inside or the outside of the corresponding upstanding side wall part in order to reinforce the circumferential flange (column 3 line 51-column 8 line 2 and Fig. 1-8).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Takeguchi by configuring at least one of the circumferential flange parts with at least a first, a second and third elongate flange part section, which are connected parallel and along an elongate edge to each other, wherein the first elongate flange part section is arranged to the corresponding upstanding side wall part, the second elongate flange part section is double folded against the first elongate flange part section, and the third elongate flange part section is connected parallel and along an elongate edge to the second elongate flange part section, wherein the third elongate flange part section is adhered either on the inside or the outside of the corresponding upstanding side wall part, as taught by Doll, in order to reinforce the circumferential flange.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeguchi, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Takeguchi teaches the cardboard tray of claim 1 above, wherein a bonding means is arranged between each strengthening flange part and both corresponding circumferential flange parts, wherein the amount of bonding means extends between abutting edges of the abutting circumferential flange parts (Translation). Takeguchi fails to specifically teach a glue or adhesive. However, the tray disclosed by Takeguchi is made of paper. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would expect the bonding means to be a glue or adhesive as other known bonding means, such as welding/heat-sealing, would not bond paper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Farrell et al. (US 5,326,021 A), Marcontell (US 5,323,956 A), Suokas et al. (US 2020/0331660 A1), Vuorinen (FI 20205419 A1), and Suokas (FI 128097 B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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, Nathan 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights