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 Objections
Claims 8, 13 and 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the first or the second side wall…” should read “…the first side wall or the second side wall…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 34, the phrase, “…the fourth side wall side…” should read “…the fourth side wall [[side]]…” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 19, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the first and third folding edges…”should read “…the first folding edge and the third folding edge[[s]]…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 1-19 is/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.
In claim 1, ln. 8, the phrase, “…can be…”is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “can” are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “can” are consider to be optional limitations.
In claim 13, ln. 16, the phrase, “…can be…”is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “can” are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “can” are consider to be optional limitations.
In claim 13, ln. 9-12, the phrases, “…a first side wall…”, “…a second side wall…”, “…a third side wall…” and “…a fourth side wall…” all renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is encompassing the same “a first side wall, a second side wall, a third side wall, a fourth side wall” (claim 13, ln. 3-4) OR are these all different “side walls” altogether? In other words, are they the same side walls or different side walls? Further clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, examiner will treat “side walls” (of ln. 9-12) to be the same “side walls” (of ln. 3-4) in the art rejection below; emphasis added.
In claim 13, ln. 14, the phrase, “…the front surface…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant has not established “a front surface” per se in claim 13. Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 19, ln. 2, the phrase, “…significantly longer…” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term "significantly longer" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As for claims 2-12 and 14-19, due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 13 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-10, 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Appelt (DE 19532162 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Appelt).
Regarding claim 1, Appelt discloses a packaging embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-3) comprising a tray (3) and a lid (2),
the tray and the lid enclosing an interior space of the packaging,
the tray having a front face (i.e. front wall (1) or front side (32)) and at least a first side wall (i.e. top side surface (31)), and
a first folding edge (6 or 7) has a predetermine breaking point, so that packaging can be opened by tearing at the predetermined breaking point (see Appelt bottom of pg. 4 to middle of pg. 5 and claim 14).
Examiner’s note: Appelt teaches the following, “…Folding lines 6 formed in the front wall 1 , which form the connection between a respective side surface 31 of the container 3 and a connection area 5 a, 5 b, 5 c, 5 d of the front wall 1 , are perforated to form one or more predetermined dividing lines where the front wall can be torn open. This enables the packaging to be opened by pressing in a side surface 31 of the container 3 formed in the front wall 1 , so that the product can be removed easily. In this embodiment, since all the fold lines 6 on which the front wall is folded to form a side surface 31 of the container 3 are perforated, it is also possible to run the entire area of the front wall 1 which forms the container 3 along the perforated lines. Separate fold lines 6 from the remaining areas of the front wall to open the packaging. That is, the product can remain in the container 3 while the back of the container 33 is removed together with the remaining parts of the packaging…” And, claim 14 reads, “…Packaging according to one of claims 7 to 13, characterized in that at least one of the fold lines ( 6 , 7 ) is perforated for tearing open the packaging along the fold line…”
Which examiner construed to mean that all of the folding lines (either 6 or 7) provided on the tray are all perforated, essentially the front face as well as all of the side walls ARE all removable. Which allows user to tear upon whichever section of the tray they desire to gain access to the content within the tray without fully destroying the entire packaging. Therefore, Appelt discloses or teaches the claimed first folding edge having a predetermine breaking point; emphasis added.
Regarding claim 13, Appelt discloses a packaging embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-3) comprising a tray (3) and a lid (2),
the tray and the lid enclosing an interior space of the packaging,
the tray has a front face (i.e. front wall (1) or front side (32)), a first side wall (i.e. top side surface (31)), a second side wall (i.e. left side surface (31)), a third side wall (i.e. bottom side surface (31)), a fourth side wall (i.e. right side surface (31)), wherein the first side wall, the second side wall, the third side wall and the fourth side wall are consecutive in circumferential direction of the tray and wherein the first side wall extends orthogonal to the second side wall, wherein the second side wall extends orthogonal to the third side wall, wherein the third side wall extends orthogonal to the fourth side wall and wherein the fourth side wall extends orthogonal to the first side wall,
wherein a first folding edge (6 or 7) extends between the front face and the first side wall, wherein a second folding edge (6 or 7) extends between the front face and the second side wall, wherein a third folding edge (6 or 7) extends between the front face and the third side wall, wherein a fourth folding edge (6 or 7) extends between the front face and the fourth side wall,
wherein the tray has a first sealing edge (5a), a second sealing edge (5b), a third sealing edge (5c), and a fourth sealing edge (5d), wherein each sealing edge faces away from the front surface wherein each sealing edges glued to the lid (see Appelt claim 36);
wherein the first folding edge has a predetermined breaking point (please refer to the examiner’s note after the rejection of claim 1 above), so that the packaging can be opened by tearing at the predetermined breaking point, wherein the predetermined breaking point being formed by a perforation and wherein a section of the predetermined breaking extends onto the first side wall and wherein the predetermined breaking point extends from the first folding edge over the second folding edge to the third folding edge (see Appelt bottom of pg. 4 to middle of pg. 5 and claim 14).
Regarding claim 2, Appelt further discloses wherein the predetermined breaking point is formed by a perforation (see Appelt bottom of pg. 4 to middle of pg. 5 and claim 14).
Regarding claim 3, Appelt further discloses wherein a section of the predetermined breaking point extends on the first side wall (please refer to the examiner’s note after the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Appelt further discloses wherein the tray and the lid consist of a cellulosic material (specifically cardboard; see Appelt claim 30).
Regarding claim 5, Appelt further discloses wherein the tray and the lid are glued to one another (see Appelt claim 36).
Regarding claim 6, Appelt further discloses wherein the first side wall has a first sealing edge (5a), which is angled away from the interior, the lid being glued to the first sealing edge (see Appelt Figs. 1a-2a).
Regarding claim 7, Appelt further discloses wherein the tray has a second side wall (i.e. left side surface (31)) which is adjacent to the first side wall (i.e. top side surface (31)), a second folding edge running between the front face and the second side wall, and the predetermined breaking point also extending to the second folding edge (please refer to the examiner’s note after the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Appelt further discloses wherein the tray has a third side wall (i.e. bottom side surface (31)) which is adjacent to the second side wall (i.e. left side surface (31)), a third folding edge running between the front face and the third side wall, and the predetermined breaking point also extending to the third folding edge (please refer to the examiner’s note after the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Appelt further discloses the tray having a viewing window (see Appelt pg. 6, 3rd ¶).
Examiner’s note: Appelt teaches the following, “…Portions of the container 3 can have an opening to allow viewing of the product without having to open the packaging. These container openings can also be closed by transparent material or film for viewing the product in order to completely close off the interior of the container from the outside. Part of the packaging or container 3 can also be made of transparent material or film in order to be able to view the product…”
Which examiner construed to mean that the container (i.e. the claimed tray) is provided with openings and/or these the openings covered with a transparent material or film. Therefore, the openings (of Appelt) whether covered or uncovered allow the user to see the content within the tray without initial opening the overall packaging. Therefore, Appelt discloses or teaches the claimed viewing window provided on the tray; emphasis added.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Appelt further discloses wherein the lid has a recess (8 and 81) for hanging the packaging (see Appelt bottom of pg. 4 and top of pg. 5 and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Appelt further discloses wherein the section of the predetermined breaking point is provided on the first side wall (please refer to the examiner’s note after the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, Appelt further discloses wherein the packaging has an elongated shape and the first [folding edge] and the third folding edge[s] are each significantly longer than the second folding edge and the fourth folding edge (see annotated Appelt Fig. 1a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
706
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelt (DE 19532162 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Appelt) in view of Sarkar et al. (US 6726011 B2; hereinafter Sarkar).
Regarding claim 18, Appelt as above teaches all the structural limitation(s) as set forth in claim 13, except for wherein the interior space contains a toothbrush.
Sarkar is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Appel, which is a perforated packaging. Sarkar teaches a perforated packaging (10) comprising a tray (66) having perforations or weakened areas (30, 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40) and a lid (64), the tray and the lid enclosing an interior space (i.e. any one of the plurality of recesses (52, 54, 56, 58, 60 and 62) – is what examiner equates to claimed interior space), the tray having a front face and at least a first side wall, and a first folding edge runs between the front face and the first side wall, and
wherein the interior space contains a toothbrush (any of the toothbrushes (18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28); Sarkar Col. 2 ln. 41 – Col. 32 and Figs. 1-4).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the [horizontal] interior space (of Appelt) with a similar [horizontally orientated] toothbrush (as taught by Sarkar) because the resultant structure will work equally well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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 E. Avilés 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 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
