DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an area of hot melt fills a cavity on the spring clip” is objected to because it is not written in the same language style as the rest of the claim. The limitation should be rewritten to match the style of the rest of the claim, e.g. “a cavity on the spring clip, wherein the cavity is filled with an area of hot melt.”
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “an angle comprise between” is grammatically incorrect, and should be change to an angle comprising between”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation “for creating container and packaging applications” comprise. In other words, it is not clear how this limitation serves the further define the claimed invention.
Further regarding claim 1, from which the remaining claims depend, it is unclear back to which term the term “itself” refers (page line 13).
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “an area of hot melt fills a cavity on the spring clip” is indefinite because it is not clear if it is claiming a physical structure or a process limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is indefinite because the term “a cavity” appears to find proper antecedent basis in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is indefinite because the term “a cavity” appears to find proper antecedent basis in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the limitation “walls protruding to prevent damage by accidental over traveling” comprise. The claim should be amended to better state the physical structure (e.g. “protruding walls”) and the function they perform (e.g. “which limit the movement of…”).
Regarding claim 13, the term “the engaged lip” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the container is the same structure as the lid and base of claim 1, or a distinct container.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner notes independent claim 1, from which the remaining claims depend, comprises the same claim scope as that of claim 1 in allowed in parent application 17/367,922, with the additional limitation of a cavity filled with a hot melt. That independent claim 1 was allowed because the combination of Shepherd in view of Ishikawa fails to teach the spring strap clip comprising a living hinge, instead teaching two distinct halves (16, 18) which are connected by the hinge (20) which is a separate element. As such, the collective spring strap clip does not comprise a living hinge, but a hinge formed by a separate element.
No motivation could be found to modify the references in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733