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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/05/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the tray" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has not claimed any “tray” so it is unclear if it is a new tray in addition to the “monolithic tray” or not. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the monolithic tray”. Claims 2-11, which depends from claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the tray” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has not claimed any “tray”, so it is unclear if it is a new tray in addition to the “monolithic tray”. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the monolithic tray” or not. Claims 3, which depends from claim 1, is similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the tray” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has not claimed any “tray”, so it is unclear if it is a new tray in addition to the “monolithic tray” or not. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the monolithic tray”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the tray” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has not claimed any “tray”, so it is unclear if it is a new tray in addition to the “monolithic tray” or not. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the monolithic tray”. Claims 3, which depends from claim 1, is similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the tray" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has not claimed any “tray” so it is unclear if it is a new tray in addition to the “monolithic tray” or not. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the monolithic tray”. Claims 13-16, which depends from claim 12, are similarly rejected.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,5,8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mena (US 5823352 A) and further in view of McDonald (US 8627958 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Mena teaches a packaging system comprising (see annotated fig.8 of Jones below for packaging system):
a base box having at least three walls defining an interior space, each of the walls having exterior surfaces and upper edges (see annotated fig.3 below for a base box having a plurality of walls, at least three, defining interior space and walls having exterior surface); and
a monolithic tray attached to the base box, the tray comprising (see annotated fig.3 below for a tray attached to the base box when assembled):
a primary panel with a recess that extends at least partially into the interior space of the base box, the primary panel comprising a planar portion that rests on the upper edge of each of the walls (see annotated fig.3 for primary panel with a recess that extends partially into interior space of the base box when places into the box and the planar portion i.e. the first flap when rests on the upper edge of the wall); and
at least two flaps extending from the primary panel and attached to corresponding exterior surface of the at least two walls, each of the walls having a corresponding one of the flaps attached to the exterior surface thereof (see annotated fig.3 of below for the two flaps extending from the primary panel and attached to the exterior surfaces of the at least two walls of the box and each flaps attached to the exterior surface thereof when folded down). Mena does not teach a front flap of the tray.
McDonal does teach a front flap pf the insert (fig.21 shows the front flap 104a with fold lines of insert 221a). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front edge of tray disclosed by Mena by adding the teaching of front flap of the tray as disclosed by McDonald in order to have three flaps in Mena’s tray so when the tray is suspended from the upper edges it offers more support hence holding more weight in the tray. Also, Mena discloses the claimed invention except for three flaps. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have another flap on the front side of tray in order to support the tray as it is suspended from the upper edges, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein opposing ends of each of the plurality of flaps comprises a chamfer (fig.4 shows the opposing end of the flaps comprising chamfer).
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Jones further teaches wherein the tray is formed of a moldable material (see annotated fig.3 above the tray is formed of moldable material i.e. paper blank and is foldable).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Mena as modified in claim 1 further wherein the each of the flaps has a dimension that is substantially equal to a dimension of the walls (see annotated fig.3 above where ethe flaps has a dimension that is substantially equal to a dimension of the walls; it is noted that by stating substantially walls do not that have-to-have exact same measurements).
Regarding claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Mena as modified in claim 1 further wherein the flaps cover an entirety or a substantial portion of the exterior surfaces of the wall panels (see annotated fig.3 above for the flaps that will cover the substantial portion of the exterior surfaces of the walls panels as they are designed to contact the walls of the container).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24 are allowed.
Claims 2-4,6-7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 2,7 and 10 also need attention regarding 112 issues.
Claims 12-16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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.
/PRINCE PAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights