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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicant’s filing on 13 November 2024.
Claims 1 – 6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5 February 2025, 14 May 2025, and 7 October 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected for the following reasons:
Regarding figure 7, reference character “162” should read “162a”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 5, ll. 12 and line 18, the phrase, “slit lines 108, 110, 112, and 114”, should read, “slit lines 108, 110, 116, and 118”. Please note, this change corresponds to page 5, ll. 16 – 18 and to figures 2A, 2B in the drawings.
On page 8, ll. 7 – 8, the phrase, “a second gap 164a”, should read, “a first gap 164a”. Please note, page 8, ll. 7 – 10 describes a second gap 164a and a second gap 164b wherein this change amends the element, “a second gap 164a”, to “a first gap 164a”, to differentiates the two elements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, lines 6 – 7, the limitation, “the second card;”, should read, “the second card; and”, in order to link the last method step to the preceding ones in a cohesive way thereby making it clear it's part of the group and not separate.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sama (US 3,840,114 A) in view of Ocampo (US D649,886 S).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Ocampo (US D649,886 S) – Annotated fig. 1)][AltContent: textbox (Sama (US 3,840,114 A) – fig. 3)][AltContent: textbox (C’)][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 1, Sama discloses a method of assembling a product mailer comprising:
sealing a container (16, fig. 3) to a bottom surface of a first card (36, fig. 3); sealing a container (16’, fig. 3) to a bottom surface of a second card (38, fig. 3);
positioning a product (Col. 2, ll. 23 – 29; “an article”) within a cavity defined by the container sealed to the first card (Col. 2, ll. 23 – 29 describes containers 16, 16’ each enclosing an article);
positioning a product (Col. 2, ll. 23 – 29; “an article”) within a cavity defined by the container sealed to the second card (Col. 2, ll. 23 – 29 describes containers 16, 16’ each enclosing an article); and
positioning the first card over the second card wherein the bottom surface of the first card contacts one or more of the containers sealed to the second card (Col. 3, ll. 2 – 16 describes dimension A across a spacer panel 40 corresponding to the height of containers 16, 16’ so that when card/panel 36 is positioned over card/panel 38, containers 16, 16’ provides reinforcing means. The examiner interprets when card/panel 36 is positioned over card/panel 38, containers 16, 16’ provides reinforcing means to mean the bottom surface of the card/panel 36 contacts the container 16’ sealed to the card/panel 38).
Sama does not explicitly disclose sealing a plurality of containers to a bottom surface of a first card; sealing a plurality of containers to a bottom surface of a second card; and positioning a product within a cavity defined by each of the containers sealed to the first card; and positioning a product within a cavity defined by each of the containers sealed to the second card.
However, Ocampo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches sealing a plurality of containers (A, A’, annotated fig. 1) to a bottom of a card (B, annotated fig. 1) and positioning a product (C, C’, annotated fig. 1) with a cavity defined by each of the containers sealed to the card (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Ocampo with the invention of Sama, a first set of the plurality of containers A, A’ of Ocampo would replace the container 16 of Sama and be sealed to the bottom surface of the card/panel 36 of Sama and a second set of the plurality of containers A, A’ of Ocampo would replace the container 16’ of Sama and be sealed to the bottom surface of the card/panel 38 of Sama).
Ocampo is evidence that sealing a plurality of containers to a bottom of a card and positioning a product with a cavity defined by each of the containers sealed to the card was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success replacing the container 16 sealed to the bottom of the card/panel 36 and the container 16’ sealed to the bottom of the card/panel 38, as disclosed in Sama, with the containers A, A’ sealed to the bottom of the card/panel 36 of Sama and the containers A, A’ sealed to the bottom of the card/panel 38 of Sama, as taught by Ocampo. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated replacing the container 16 sealed to the bottom of the card/panel 36 and the container 16’ sealed to the bottom of the card/panel 38, as disclosed in Sama, with the containers A, A’ sealed to the bottom of the card/panel 36 of Sama and the containers A, A’ sealed to the bottom of the card/panel 38 of Sama, as taught by Ocampo, in order to provide a user/customer with multiple products per card/panel benefiting the user/customer with convenience, perceived savings, reduced decision-making, and getting complementary items together. It also cuts operational costs for businesses by reducing individual packing, handling, and shipping expenses.
Regarding claim 2, Sama, as modified by Ocampo, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Sama discloses said positioning the product (Sama – Col. 2, ll. 23 – 29; “an article”, and Ocampo – C, C’, annotated fig. 1) within the cavity defined by each of the containers (Sama – 16, 16’, fig. 3; and Ocampo – A, A’, annotated fig. 1) sealed to the first card (Sama – 36, fig. 3; and Ocampo – B, annotated fig. 1) is prior to sealing the plurality of containers to the bottom surface of a first card (Both Sama and Ocampo discloses and teaches a product positioned within a cavity defined by each of the containers and then sealed to the bottom surface of a card. That is, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize in Sama that the product must be positioned within the container prior to sealing the container to the card/panel because the drawings show no other opening to position the product within the container after the sealing. Similarly, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize in Ocampo that the product must be positioned within the container prior to sealing the container to the card/panel because the opening shown in the drawings is too small to position the product within the container after the sealing).
Regarding claim 4, Sama, as modified by Ocampo, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Sama discloses offsetting the containers (Ocampo – A, A’, annotated fig. 1) sealed to the first card (Sama – 36, fig. 3) from the containers (Ocampo – A, A’, annotated fig. 1) sealed to the second card (Sama – 38, fig. 3).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: textbox (C’)]
Regarding claim 5, Sama, as modified by Ocampo, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Sama discloses positioning an opening (Ocampo – D, D’, annotated fig. 2) defined by each of the containers (Ocampo – C, C’, annotated fig. 2) at an outer edge of the first card (Sama – 36, fig. 3; and Ocampo – B, annotated fig. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sama (US 3,840,114 A), in view of Ocampo (US D649,886 S), in further view of Schumann (US 3,004,661 A).
Regarding claim 3, Sama, as modified by Ocampo, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Sama does not explicitly disclose forming a plurality of perforated tabs on the first card aligned with one of the respective containers sealed to the first card.
However, Schumann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a plurality of perforated tabs (32, 36, fig. 2) on the first card (10, fig. 1) aligned with one of the respective containers (12, fig. 1) sealed to the first card.
Schumann is evidence that forming a plurality of perforated tabs on the first card aligned with one of the respective containers sealed to the first card was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the first card of the modified Sama with forming a plurality of perforated tabs on the first card aligned with one of the respective containers sealed to the first card, as taught by Schumann. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated modifying the first card of the modified Sama with forming a plurality of perforated tabs on the first card aligned with one of the respective containers sealed to the first card, as taught by Schumann, in order to easily remove the product within the container improving convenience for the user/customer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sama (US 3,840,114 A), in view of Ocampo (US D649,886 S), in further view of Smart (US 2013/0105351 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sama, as modified by Ocampo, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Sama does not explicitly disclose positioning the first card and the second card within an envelope.
However, Smart, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches positioning a blister pack (22, fig. 3) within an envelope (24, fig. 4) (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Smart with the invention of the modified Sama, the blister pack of the modified Sama comprising the first card 36 and the second card 38 would be positioned within the envelope 24 of Smart).
Smart is evidence that positioning the blister pack within an envelope was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the method of assembling a product mailer such that the blister pack of the modified Sama comprising the first card 36 and the second card 38 is positioned within the envelope 24 of Smart, as taught by Smart. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated modifying the method of assembling a product mailer such that the blister pack of the modified Sama comprising the first card 36 and the second card 38 is positioned within the envelope 24 of Smart, as taught by Smart, in order to lower shipping costs for lightweight items, enhanced privacy and security for sensitive goods, and to provide better customer engagement through personalization of the envelope (i.e., logos or unique windows 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
22 December 2025