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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-16 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 claims 1-7, 9, and 10, the language “along a first direction” or “along a second direction” or “along a third direction” is indefinite because the directions are defined by two dimensional objects, not a linear object. For example, the limitation in line 2 of claim 1, “an opening at one end along a first direction” is indefinite because the opening is not a slit, it has a length and a width. For the purposes of examination, the prior art as applied below are three dimensional objects and teach the structure being at in a first, second, and third plane that intersect one another and correspond to the claimed directions.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “a side of the additional layer plate facing away from the first outer wall portion along the first direction is flush with the third inner wall portion,” is indefinite in light of applicant’s disclosure. The disclosure shows the side facing away from the FIRST OUTER (bottom) wall portion is the side that is against the first INNER wall portion, the side of the additional layer plate flush with the third inner wall portion is the side facing AWAY FROM the SECOND INNER wall portion (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 7, in the limitation, “and each two of the first direction, the second direction and the third direction intersect each other,” what does “each two” mean? For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean the first, second, and third directions intersect.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hauser (US 1005968).
Regarding claim 1, Hauser discloses a packaging box with a display function, comprising:
an outer box 2, comprising an opening at one end along a front (first direction); and
an inner box 3, disposed inside the outer box in a drawable manner through the opening and being capable of flipping relative to the outer box in a fully pulled-out state, to switch from the fully pulled-out state to a display state,
wherein the inner box comprises an open top (open side along a second direction), fig. 4, col. 2: 40-75, and a bottom wall (first inner wall portion) at 4 disposed opposite to the open side (along the second direction, and the second direction intersects the first direction);
the outer box comprises a bottom wall (first outer wall portion) at 10 disposed away from the open top side of the inner box (open side along the second direction) and the bottom wall of the outer box has a cutout portion (between parallel sides 8), fig. 3 and 5, contiguous with the front opening (indented inward along the first direction relative to the opening), and
in the display state, the bottom wall (first inner wall portion) is configured to abut against the bottom wall of the outer box (first outer wall portion), fig. 4;
an additional layer plate (elevation at 18, fig. 1 and 3, col. 2: 45-85, is disposed on an outer side of the bottom wall of the inner box (first inner wall portion facing away from the open side), and when the inner box is in a closed state, the additional layer plate is adjoined and flush with the bottom wall of the outer box (first outer wall portion along the first direction), fig. 1 and 3.
Regarding claims 3-5, Hauser discloses that the inner box comprises a back wall 13 (a second inner wall portion) and a front wall (a third inner wall portion) 17 disposed opposite to each other along the first direction, and in the closed state, the third inner wall portion is configured to block at least a part of the opening, fig. 3;
a side of the additional layer plate facing away from the first outer wall portion along the first direction is flush with the third inner wall portion, fig. 1 and 3.
Further regarding claim 4, Hauser discloses an outer surface of the back wall (second inner wall portion facing away from the third inner wall portion) is formed as an arc-shaped surface at 13 which arches outward, fig. 3 and 4,
the outer box comprises a top wall (second outer wall portion) disposed opposite to the bottom wall (first outer wall portion along the second direction), and
in the display state, the arc-shaped surface is configured to abut against the second outer wall portion, fig. 4.
Further regarding claim 5, Hauser discloses that the front wall (third inner wall portion) is provided with a recessed notch at 15, fig. 3 and 4, which is recessed along the second direction from an edge of the front wall (third inner wall portion) close to the open side.
Regarding claim 6, Hauser discloses that the inner box and the outer box are connected by a sliding mechanism, the sliding mechanism comprises a sliding rail 6 and a slider 5, the sliding rail extends along the first direction, the slider is slidably connected to the sliding rail, the sliding rail is disposed on one of the inner box and the outer box, and the slider is disposed on the other one of the inner box and the outer box, figs 3-5.
Regarding claim 7, Hauser discloses that the inner box comprises a back wall 13 (a second inner wall portion) and a front wall (a third inner wall portion) 14 disposed opposite to each other along the first direction, and two side walls (fourth inner wall portions) 12 disposed opposite to each other along a third direction, fig. 2, and in the closed state, the third inner wall portion is configured to block at least a part of the opening;
the outer box comprises two side walls (third outer wall portions) 8, fig. 1, disposed opposite to each other along the third direction, and each [[two]] of the first direction, the second direction and the third direction intersect each other;
the sliding rail is disposed on an inner side of the outer box side walls (the two third outer wall portions) facing the inner box, fig. 3 and 5, and
the slider is disposed on an outer end of the inner box side walls (the two fourth inner wall portions adjacent to the second inner wall portion), fig. 1, 3, and 5.
Regarding claim 10, Hauser discloses that the sliding rail is closed at an end adjacent to the opening along the first direction, fig. 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 11, Hauser discloses that the inner box is pivotally connected to the outer box in the fully pulled-out state, fig. 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 12, Hauser discloses that in the display state, the first inner wall portion is configured to abut against the first outer wall portion in an inclined manner, and the inner box is flipped from the fully pulled-out state to the display state with an obtuse angle, fig. 4.
Regarding claim 14, Hauser discloses that wherein in the fully pulled-out state, the inner box is pivotally connected to the outer box at an end close to the third inner wall portion, and the arc-shaped surface of the third inner wall portion is configured to guide the flipping of the inner box, fig. 4, col. 2: 65-70, Hauser discloses that the shape is particularly designed for free swinging, the curved wall at 13 is capable of being used as a guide.
Regarding claim 15, as seen in fig. 3-5 Hauser discloses that the sliding rail is disposed on the outer box, the slider is disposed on the inner box, and in the fully pulled-out state, the inner box is pivotally connected to the outer box through the slider.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rud (US 9573746).
Regarding claim 2, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. Hauser does not teach the additional layer plate (stepped portion at 18, fig. 1 and 3) comprises a concave portion recessed along the second direction from an outer surface of the additional layer plate facing away from the first inner wall portion.
Rud teaches container at 10 with a lid a groove 76, fig. 1 and 2, for inserting a finger in order to slid a lid open or closed, col. 4: 25-35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer side of the bottom thickened surface at 18 of Hauser to include a detent for a thumb or finger in order to aid in sliding as per the teaching of Rud.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horvath (US 3888350).
Regarding claim 13, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach that an outer surface of the bottom wall of the inner box (first inner wall portion facing away from the open side) is formed as a frosted or roughened surface.
However, it is known to provide a roughed surface to prevent a propped object from sliding relative to another object and in order to provide enhanced gripping.
For example, Horvath, fig. 2 teaches a rough surface at 8 on a bottom wall that enables the thumb to better grasp the drawer, col. 3: 20-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outside surface of the bottom wall of Hauser in order to provide a frictional area as taught by Horvath in order to prevent slipping or to aid in gripping for the fingers when the container is opened or closed.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stamoulis et al. (US 10583954).
Regarding claim 16, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach that packaging box is made of paper materials.
Stamoulis is analogous art in regard to drawer in shell containers and discloses an outer box at 106 and an inner box (tray) 124), fig. 6A, that can be made from molded paper pulp, col. 7: 1-15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container materials of Hauser to be made from paper pulp as per the teaching of Stamoulis so that the container is biodegradable thereby reducing waste in landfills.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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: none of the prior art teaches the additional reinforcement plates in combination with the other claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799