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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“or is constituted of the outer skeleton” in line 2 should be omitted (because it means the same thing as “comprises the outer skeleton” in line 2 and is therefore redundant).
“and” in line 2 should be omitted.
“edge, connected to the perimetric edge, and” in lines 4-5 should read “edge connected to the perimetric edge and”.
“step, and wherein:” in line 8 should read “step, wherein:”.
“at the” in line 13 should read “at a location of the”.
“temperature of between” in line 16 should read “temperature between”.
“compartment;” in line 20 should read “compartment; and”.
“and wherein, during” in line 21 should read “during” (because “wherein:” has been recited in line 8).
“of panels” in line 23 should read “of superposed panels”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: “panels, which is in” in line 3 should read “panels in”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“two first” in line 2 should read “two of the first”.
“obtaining” in line 2 should read “to obtain”.
“that pair” in line 3 should read “the pair”.
“it facing” in line 4 should read “the one of the first panels facing”.
“other panel” in line 5 should read “other of the first panels which constitute the pair of superposed panels”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“sheet comprises” in line 1 should read “panels comprise” (because the panels recited after the phrase are the same first panels recited in claim 2).
“panels one” in line 4 should read “panels, one”.
“projection, configured” in line 5 should read “projection configured”.
“other radial first panel” in line 5 should read “other of the two radial first panels”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“is in” in line 3 should read “are in”.
“wherein during” in line 5 should read “during” (because “wherein:” has been recited in line 1).
“a first panel” in line 5 should read “one of the first panels”.
“a second panel” in line 5 should read “one of the second panels”.
“a pair” in line 6 should read “a second pair” (to clearly distinguish from the “pair of superposed panels” first mentioned in lines 6-7 of claim 1).
“panels;” in line 6 should read “panels; and”.
“and wherein one” in line 7 should read “one” (because “wherein:” has been recited in line 1).
“first panel” in line 7 should read “one of the first panels”.
“second panel” in line 7 should read “one of the second panels”.
“that pair” in line 8 should read “the second pair”.
“with said heat-activatable glue” in line 8 should read “with heat-activatable glue” (because this heat-activatable glue is physically separate and different from the “heat-activatable glue” recited in claim 1).
“other panel” in line 9 should read “other of the one of the first panels and the one of the second panels”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein in the assembled outer skeleton” in lines 1-2 should read “wherein, after assembly of the outer skeleton,”.
“of first” in line 2 should read “of the first”.
“panels separate” in line 2 should read “panels that are separate”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the first panels separate” in lines 1-2 should read “the group of the first panels that are separate”.
“are also” in line 2 should read “are/is also”.
“said heat-activatable glue” in line 3 should read “heat-activatable glue” (because this heat-activatable glue is physically separate and different from the “heat-activatable glue” recited in claim 1).
“glue and wherein,” in line 3 should read “glue, wherein,”.
“that heat-activatable” in line 4 should read “the heat-activatable”.
“activation of that” in line 5 should read “the activation of the”.
“the first panels separate” in line 6 should read “the group of the first panels that are separate”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“container wherein:” in line 1 should read “container, the method comprising:”.
“an outer skeleton is made using the method” in line 2 should read “a method for making an outer skeleton” (because claims 15, 18, and 19 refer back to “the method for making the outerskeleton”).
“is carried out,” in line 4 should be omitted.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprises,” in line 2 should read “further comprises,”.
“one first” in line 3 should read “a first”.
“panels, which is” in line 3 should read “panels”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“two first” in line 1 should read “two of the first”.
“obtaining” in line 2 should read “to obtain”.
“that pair” in line 3 should read “the pair”.
“other panel” in line 4 should read “other of the first panels which constitute the pair of superposed panels”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“sheet comprises” in line 1 should read “panels comprise” (because the panels recited after the phrase are the same first panels recited in claim 15).
“panels one” in line 4 should read “panels, one”.
“projection, configured” in line 4 should read “projection configured”.
“other radial first panel” in line 5 should read “other of the two radial first panels”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: “15 wherein” in line 1 should read “15, wherein”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“is in” in line 3 should read “are in”.
“wherein during” in line 6 should read “during” (because “wherein:” has been recited in line 1).
“one first panel” in line 6 should read “one of the first panels”.
“one second panel” in line 6 should read “one of the second panels”.
“obtaining pair” in line 7 should read “obtaining a second pair” (to clearly distinguish from the “pair of superposed panels” first mentioned in lines 6-7 of claim 1).
“panels;” in line 7 should read “panels; and”.
“and wherein at” in line 8 should read “at” (because “wherein:” has been recited in line 1).
“first panel” in line 8 should read “one of the first panels”.
“second panel” in line 8 should read “one of the second panels”.
“that pair” in line 8 should read “the second pair”.
“with said heat-activatable glue” in line 9 should read “with heat-activatable glue” (because this heat-activatable glue is physically separate and different from the “heat-activatable glue” recited in claim 1).
“surface of it facing” in line 9 should read “surface facing”.
“panel” in line 10 should read “of the one of the first panels and the one of the second panels”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“18 wherein” in line 1 should read “18, wherein”.
“first panels separate” in line 2 should read “the first panels that are separate”.
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 1-9 and 15-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “preferably” in lines 16 and 17 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 1 as if the limitation “preferably between 50°C and 200°C, more preferably between 100°C and 200°C and even more preferably between 100°C and 150°C” in lines 16-18 has been omitted.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pick-up step" in line 3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the first pick-up step mentioned in claim 2 or to the second pick-up step mentioned in claim 5. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the second pick-up step”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the perimetric flange" in line 2 and the limitation “the continuous annular panel” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitations would have proper antecedent basis if claim 7 depended from claim 5 instead of claim 4. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if claim 7 depends from claim 5 instead of claim 4.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the pick-up step" in line 3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the first pick-up step mentioned in claim 15 or to the second pick-up step mentioned in claim 18. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the second pick-up step”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the assembled outer skeleton" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 20 as if “wherein in the assembled outer skeleton the” in line 1 instead reads “wherein, after assembly of the outer skeleton, the”.
Claims 2-9 and 15-20 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royal (US 4,052,933).
Regarding claim 1, Royal discloses a method for making an outer skeleton (the bottom and side walls of the “box” formed from blank 10, collectively) for a container (the “box” formed from blank 10, which is described throughout the specification of Royal), wherein the container (“box”) comprises the outer skeleton (the bottom and side walls of the “box” formed from blank 10, collectively) (apparent from Figure 5), and wherein the outer skeleton (the bottom and side walls of the “box” formed from blank 10, collectively) comprises a bottom wall (12 in Figures 2-5), which has a perimetric edge (the top, bottom, left, and right edges/boundaries of 12 shown in Figure 1, collectively), and a lateral wall (the side wall of the “box” formed by all the panels 14 and 15 and flaps 16 in Figures 1-5), which extends between a lower edge (the edge of the lateral wall connected to bottom wall 12), connected to the perimetric edge (the top, bottom, left, and right edges/boundaries of 12 shown in Figure 1, collectively) (apparent from Figures 2-5), and an upper edge (top edge of the lateral wall) which defines an upper opening (the top opening of the “box” shown in Figures 3-5) (apparent from Figures 3-5), the bottom wall (12) and the lateral wall (the side wall of the “box” formed by all the panels 14 and 15 and flaps 16) together defining a compartment (the space inside the “box” shown in Figures 3-5), and wherein the lateral wall (the side wall of the “box” formed by all the panels 14 and 15 and flaps 16) has a pair of superposed panels (14 and 16) between which a heat-activatable glue (24 in Figure 1) is present (apparent when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figures 2-5);
the method comprising an initial step (the step in which blank 10 in moved to the position shown in Figure 2), an inserting step (the step in which mandrel 48 in Figures 6-9 is fully inserted into the “box” after the box shape of the “box” has been formed) and a pressing step (the step in which mandrel 48 is transversely expanded), and wherein:
during the initial step (the step in which blank 10 in moved to the position shown in Figure 2) the outer skeleton (the bottom and side walls of the “box” formed from blank 10, collectively) is positioned inside a housing defined by a supporting element (42 in Figure 7) (apparent when Figure 7 is viewed in relation to Figure 2), with the pair of superposed panels (14 and 16) detached from each other (apparent from Figure 2, Col. 2 lines 44-49 and 63-67);
during the inserting step (the step in which mandrel 48 in Figures 6-9 is fully inserted into the “box” after the box shape of the “box” has been formed) a pressing element (48 in Figures 6-9) is inserted inside the compartment (the space inside the “box”) (Col. 4 lines 37-56);
during the pressing step (the step in which mandrel 48 is transversely expanded) the pressing element (48) and the supporting element (42) are pressed against each other at the pair of superposed panels (14 and 16), squeezing the pair of superposed panels (14 and 16) (Col. 1 line 63 – Col. 2 line 2, Col. 5 lines 23-27);
the pressing step (the step in which mandrel 48 is transversely expanded) is carried out by expanding the pressing element (48) inside the compartment (the space inside the “box”), radially relative to a central axis (vertical axis passing through the center of the “box” in Figures 3-5) the compartment (Col. 1 line 63 – Col. 2 line 2, Col. 5 lines 23-27);
and wherein, during the pressing step (the step in which mandrel 48 is transversely expanded), the squeezing of the pair of superposed panels (14 and 16) causes activation of the heat-activatable glue (24) which in turn causes an adhesive coupling between the pair of panels (14 and 16) (inherent because 24 is hot-melt adhesive as stated in Col. 6 lines 61-63; Col. 6 lines 61-63, Col. 1 line 63 – Col. 2 line 2, and Col. 5 lines 23-27).
However, Royal does not expressly disclose: during the initial step, the inserting step and the pressing step the pressing element and/or the supporting element is kept at a temperature of between 50°C and 250°C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have kept the pressing element and/or the supporting element at a temperature between 50°C and 250°C during the initial step, the inserting step and the pressing step, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since doing so would ensure that the heat-activatable glue is fully activated. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0067 and 0044 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Royal discloses, before the inserting step (the step in which mandrel 48 in Figures 6-9 is fully inserted into the “box” after the box shape of the “box” has been formed):
a first pick-up step (the step in which the “suction cups” described in Col. 6 lines 39-42 “pull down the lowermost blank”) in which a first sheet (10 in Figure 1) comprising a first plurality of first panels (12 and 14-18 in Figure 1), which is in a spread out configuration is picked up (Col. 6 lines 39-51); and
a first folding step (the step in which panels 15 are first folded from their horizontal rest position on support members 30) in which the first sheet (10) is folded (Col. 2 line 50 – Col. 3 line 1).
Regarding claim 3, Royal discloses that during the first folding step (the step in which panels 15 are first folded from their horizontal rest position on support members 30) two first panels (14 and 16) are superposed on each other obtaining said pair of superposed panels (14 and 16) (clear from Figure 2), and that one (14) of the first panels (14 and 16) which constitute that pair of superposed panels (14 and 16) is provided with said heat-activatable glue (24) on a surface of it facing the other panel (16) (clear when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Royal discloses that the first sheet (10) comprises a central first panel (12) configured to be part of the bottom wall (12) (clear when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figures 2-5), and a plurality of radial first panels (panels 14 and 15 in Figure 1) which extend radially outwards starting from the perimetric edge (the top, bottom, left, and right edges/boundaries of 12 shown in Figure 1, collectively), and that, for each pair (14 and 15) of adjacent radial first panels one (15) of the two radial first panels has a lateral projection (16) (apparent from Figure 1), configured to be superposed on the other radial first panel (15) when the outer skeleton (the bottom and side walls of the “box” formed from blank 10, collectively) is assembled (apparent when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figures 2-5).
Claims 9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royal in view of Romer et al. (CA 2353684 A1), hereinafter Romer.
Regarding claim 9, Royal discloses a method for making a container (the “box” formed from blank 10, which is described throughout the specification of Royal) wherein:
an outer skeleton (the bottom and side walls of the “box” formed from blank 10, collectively) is made using the method according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Royal does not disclose: a thermoforming step is carried out, during which a heated thermoformable film is thermoformed on an inner surface of the outer skeleton.
Romer teaches that it was known to carry out a thermoforming step (at forming station FS in Figures 1 and 8) during which a heated thermoformable film (134 in Figures 8 and 1) is thermoformed on an inner surface of an outer skeleton (10 in Figures 8 and 7) (Page 20 lines 1-28, as shown in Figure 8), in order to provide the outer skeleton (10) with an oxygen barrier and make the outer skeleton (10) oxygen-tight (Page 15 line 30 – Page 16 line 2, Page 21 lines 7-11, Page 30 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Royal to incorporate the teachings of Romer by carrying out a thermoforming step during which a heated thermoformable film is thermoformed on an inner surface of the outer skeleton, because doing so would provide the outer skeleton with an oxygen barrier and make the outer skeleton oxygen-tight.
Regarding claim 15, Royal discloses that the method for making the outer skeleton (the bottom and side walls of the “box” formed from blank 10, collectively) comprises, before the inserting step (the step in which mandrel 48 in Figures 6-9 is fully inserted into the “box” after the box shape of the “box” has been formed):
a first pick-up step (the step in which the “suction cups” described in Col. 6 lines 39-42 “pull down the lowermost blank”) in which a first sheet (10 in Figure 1) comprising one first plurality of first panels (12 and 14-18 in Figure 1), which is in a spread out configuration is picked up (Col. 6 lines 39-51); and
a first folding step (the step in which panels 15 are first folded from their horizontal rest position on support members 30) in which the first sheet (10) is folded (Col. 2 line 50 – Col. 3 line 1).
Regarding claim 16, Royal discloses that during the first folding step (the step in which panels 15 are first folded from their horizontal rest position on support members 30) two first panels (14 and 16) are superposed on each other obtaining said pair of superposed panels (14 and 16) (clear from Figure 2), and that one (14) of the first panels (14 and 16) which constitutes that pair of superposed panels (14 and 16) is provided with said heat-activatable glue (24) on a surface of said one (14) of the first panels facing the other panel (16) (clear when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 17, Royal discloses that the first sheet (10) comprises a central first panel (12) configured to be part of the bottom wall (12) (clear when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figures 2-5), and a plurality of radial first panels (panels 14 and 15 in Figure 1) which extend radially outwards starting from the perimetric edge (the top, bottom, left, and right edges/boundaries of 12 shown in Figure 1, collectively), and that, for each pair (14 and 15) of adjacent radial first panels one (15) of the two radial first panels has a lateral projection (16) (apparent from Figure 1), configured to be superposed on the other radial first panel (15) when the outer skeleton (the bottom and side walls of the “box” formed from blank 10, collectively) is assembled (apparent when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figures 2-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 18-20 (assuming claim 7 depends from claim 5 instead of claim 4, see 112(b) rejection of claim 7 above) would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art reference, Royal (see 103 rejection of claim 2 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious any of the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 6-8, they are indicated as being allowable solely because they depend from claim 5 (see 112(b) rejection of claim 7 above) which is allowable as explained above.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art reference, Royal (see 103 rejection of claim 15 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious any of the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, they are indicated as being allowable solely because they depend from claim 18 which is allowable as explained above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights