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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anchor et al. (US 5738272 A; hereinafter Anchor).
Regarding claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, and 16-17, Anchor discloses a gable top carton and carton blank having reduced surface area per unit volume comprising at least a first transversal crease line (see Fig. 9 second generally horizontal fold line from the top) and a second transversal crease line (third generally horizontal fold line from the top) extending transversally to a longitudinal axis of the packaging blank and dividing the packaging blank into a top region (35b) containing a top crease pattern (top gable folds; see Fig. 9) and configured to form a top portion of the package; a bottom region containing a bottom crease pattern and configured to form a bottom portion of the package (35d); and an intermediate region (35c) contained between the first transversal crease line and the second transversal crease line (see Fig. 9), interposed between the bottom region and the top region and designed to form a side wall (see Fig. 10) of the package wherein the first transversal crease line delimits the top crease pattern wherein the second transversal crease line delimits the bottom crease pattern wherein the packaging blank further comprises a plurality of linear crease lines (four crease lines 170) extending from the first transversal crease line and towards the second transversal crease line and each one of the linear crease lines being parallel to the longitudinal axis wherein each linear crease line extends along only a portion of the intermediate region (see Fig. 9; Examiner notes that fold lines 170 and 175 only extend over a portion of the intermediate portion).
Regarding claim 7, Anchor discloses a gable top carton and blank for making
further comprising one or more linear crease lines (210) interposed between the first linear crease line and the second linear crease line.
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15, Anchor discloses a gable top carton and blank for making further comprising a plurality of auxiliary linear crease lines (four crease lines 175; see Fig. 9) extending from the second transversal crease line and towards the first
transversal crease line wherein each auxiliary linear crease line only extends along a portion of the intermediate region.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anchor.
Regarding claim 10, Anchor discloses the claimed invention except for the linear crease lines extending between 5 and 25mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice at the time of Applicant’s filing to have the linear crease lines extend between 5 and 25mm depending on how large one intends to make Anchor’s carton. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anchor in view of Barbieri et al. (WO 2019/201860 A1; hereinafter Barbieri).
Regarding claim 14, Anchor discloses the claimed invention except for V-shaped auxiliary linear crease lines. Barbieri teaches a sealed packaging container for a pourable food product and blank for making comprising a plurality of pairs of auxiliary linear crease lines (47); wherein the respective auxiliary linear crease lines of each pair are arranged such to define a V-shape (see Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have V-shaped auxiliary fold lines at bottom corners of Anchor’s carton in order to ease the folding of the carton (Barbieri; see Page 20 lines 10-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through 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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights