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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, applicant recites the phrases in each claim and each instances, “about” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term " about " is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 9, applicant recites “the at least two contact location” which is lack of proper antecedent basis. Claim 9 is currently depended on claim 1, but claim 1 never mention “at least two contact locations”. Applicant first mention “at least two contact locations” in claim 8. Perhaps claim 9 should be depended on claim 8 instead of claim 1. Correction is required.
As to claim 10, applicant recites “the at least two contact location” which is lack of proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 is currently depended on claim 1, but claim 1 never mention “at least two contact locations”. Applicant first mention “at least two contact locations” in claim 8. Perhaps claim 10 should be depended on claim 8 instead of claim 1. Correction is required.
As to claim 10, applicant recites the phrases in each claim and each instances, “about” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term " about " is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 11, applicant recites the phrases in each claim and each instances, “about” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term " about " is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 12, applicant recites the phrases in each claim and each instances, “about” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term " about " is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 14, applicant recites the phrase, “…and/or…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because of the indefinite meaning of the slash. Therefore, examiner suggests the following change, “…[[and/]]or…”
As to claim 15, applicant recites the phrases in each claim and each instances, “about” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term " about " is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-8, 13, 16-20 are also rejected under 112(b) due to their dependency to the rejected claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art disclose the limitation “a top flap hinged to a top portion of a first sidewall of the sidewalls, the top flap being foldable between an open orientation and a closed orientation, wherein the top flap covers at least part of the opening when in the closed orientation, the top flap having a distal edge separated from a second sidewall of the sidewalls opposite the first sidewall by a clearance , the clearance being comprised between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm; a lid configured for removably covering the opening of the box, the lid comprising a top and flanks, the top covering the opening and the flanks covering a specific portion of the first sidewall or of the second sidewall as the lid assumes a closed position; and a lock configured to releasably maintain the lid in the closed position, the lock comprising: a specific actuator connected to the specific portion of the first or second sidewall and moveable between a locking position and an opening position by applying an actuation pressure onto the specific actuator; and a specific actuation area arranged in a specific flank of the flanks, the specific actuation area facing the specific actuator and permitting displacing the specific actuator from the locking position to the opening position by applying the actuation pressure at the specific actuation area as the lid is in the closed position, wherein, the clearance is such that, as the actuation pressure is applied, the second sidewall contacts the distal edge.”.
Some of the closest prior art are listed below.
US 12162651 discloses all the limitation with transversal wall 190 with two end secure to the two opposite sidewalls, US12162651 does not disclose “a top flap hinged to a top portion of a first sidewall of the sidewalls, the top flap being foldable between an open orientation and a closed orientation, wherein the top flap covers at least part of the opening when in the closed orientation, the top flap having a distal edge separated from a second sidewall of the sidewalls opposite the first sidewall by a clearance , the clearance being comprised between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm and by applying the actuation pressure at the specific actuation area as the lid is in the closed position, wherein, the clearance is such that, as the actuation pressure is applied, the second sidewall contacts the distal edge.”.
US 12116184 discloses all the limitation with top panels 190 with two end of the top panels secure to the two opposite sidewalls, US12116184 does not disclose “a top flap hinged to a top portion of a first sidewall of the sidewalls, the top flap being foldable between an open orientation and a closed orientation, wherein the top flap covers at least part of the opening when in the closed orientation, the top flap having a distal edge separated from a second sidewall of the sidewalls opposite the first sidewall by a clearance , the clearance being comprised between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm and by applying the actuation pressure at the specific actuation area as the lid is in the closed position, wherein, the clearance is such that, as the actuation pressure is applied, the second sidewall contacts the distal edge.”.
US 11932468 discloses a support element attached to the inner surface of the lid , the support element is position with a clearance about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm to both of the first and second sidewalls. US11932468 does not disclose “a top flap hinged to a top portion of a first sidewall of the sidewalls, the top flap being foldable between an open orientation and a closed orientation, wherein the top flap covers at least part of the opening when in the closed orientation, the top flap having a distal edge separated from a second sidewall of the sidewalls opposite the first sidewall by a clearance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736