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 .
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species: A) Figures 1-4; B) Figures 5 and 6; and C) Figures 7 and 8. The species are independent or distinct because the covering blank and resultant covering are of distinct constructions comprising patently distinct constructions. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-11 and 13-14 are held generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The individual constructions of the three different covering blanks and coverings would require individual consideration and search..
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone exchange with Rohini Garg on March 17, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A, claims 1-11 and 13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 12 and its dependent claim 14 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “Aspects of the disclosure relate to” is an impliable phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 1 “for forming package” is ungrammatical. In claim 13, line 2, “wherein linear dimension” is ungrammatical. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 8, line 3, “the first one of pair of foldable flaps” is ungrammatical and lacks antecedent basis. In line 4, “the second one of pair of foldable flaps” is ungrammatical and lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 13, lines 1-2, a single “end flap” is not hingedly connected to each end of the base panel as recited, rather respective end flaps are hingedly connected to each end of the base panel.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dreyfus (4,871,068). Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartness (4,848,651). Each discloses a combination of a tray blank (forming 1 or Figure 9; forming 12) and a covering blank (forming 2 or Figures 6 or 8; forming 14) for forming a package, the covering blank comprising a top panel (20; 28) and a pair of foldable flaps (24, 25 or 26, 27; 30, 32 or 34, 36) hingedly connected to respective ones of opposed edges (longitudinal edges of 20; lateral edges of 14) of the top panel, each of the foldable flaps extending to a free end, wherein the free end of a first one of the foldable flaps is disposed at a first distance (approximately the width or length of 20; approximately the width or length of 14) from the free end of a second one of the foldable flaps when the covering blank is in an erected form (Figures 3 or 5 or 7; Figure 4) in which the foldable flaps are folded out of a plane of the top panel and wherein the first distance is equal to or less than a first linear dimension (length of 1; length of 14) of a tray erected from the tray blank.
As to claim 9, the tray blank forms a tray and the covering blank forms a covering together defining a package.
As to claims 2 and 10-11, each discloses the tray blank (forming 1 or Figure 9; forming 12) or tray (1 or formed from Figure 9; 12) comprises a base panel (4 or 64; planar bottom panel of 12) and a pair of opposing panels (5 and 6 or 58 and 59; 16 and 18) hinged to the base panel and wherein the linear dimension of the tray is defined between a pair of opposing edges (connecting the opposing panels 5 and 6 or 58 and 59 to the base panel; connecting the opposing panels 16 and 18 to the base panel) of the base panel.
As to claim 3, each discloses the tray blank (forming 1 or Figure 9; forming 12) or tray (1 or formed from Figure 9; 12) comprises a base panel and a pair of opposing panels (5 and 6 or 58 and 59; 16 and 18) hinged to the base panel and wherein the linear dimension of the tray is defined between the opposing panels when the tray blank is in an erected form (Figures 3 or 5 or 7; Figure 4) in which the opposing panels are folded out of a plane of the base panel.
As to claim 4, each discloses the covering blank (forming 2; forming 14) is in the erected form (Figure 3; Figure 4) when the package is formed wherein the foldable flaps (24, 25 or 26, 27; 30, 32 or 34, 36) are arranged at least partially to enclose opposed ends or sides of the package, the tray blank comprising a base panel (4 or 64; planar bottom panel of 12) and a pair of opposing panels (5 and 6 or 58 and 59; 16 and 18) hinged to the base panel, and wherein the linear dimension of the tray is defined between the opposing panels when the tray blank is in an erected form (Figures 3 or 5 or 7; Figure 4) in which the opposing panels are folded out of a plane of the base panel, and wherein the tray blank is in the erected form when the package is formed in which the opposing panels partially enclose the opposed ends or sides of the package.
As to claim 5, each discloses the linear dimension (length of 1; length of 14) extends parallel to the first distance (approximately the length of 20; approximately the length of 14).
As to claim 6, each discloses the linear dimension (length of 1; length of 14) and the first distance (approximately the width or length of 20; approximately the width or length of 14) extends transversely of the package.
As to claim 7, each discloses the linear dimension (length of 1; length of 14) and the first distance (approximately the length of 20; approximately the length of 14) each extend longitudinally of the package.
As to claim 8, Dreyfus (Figure 8) discloses each of the foldable flaps (24-27) further comprises a corner-forming panel (48-51) for forming a beveled corner and wherein the first distance is defined between a first corner-forming panel forming part of a first one of a pair of foldable flaps (one of 48-51) and a second corner-forming panel (60-63) forming part of a second pair of foldable flaps.
As to claim 13, each discloses the tray (1 or formed from Figure 9; 12) comprises a base panel (4 or 64; planar bottom panel of 12) and a respective end flap (5 and 6 or 58 and 59) hingedly connected to each end of the base panel and wherein the linear dimension (length of 1 or length of Figure 9; length of 14) of the tray is defined between an outer surface of the end flap at a first end of the base panel and an outer surface of the end flap at a second opposing end of the base panel.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 Aviles-Bosques, can be reached on (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 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.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG