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 § 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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows (US 5,139,140) in view of Kennedy (US 3,021,993).
Regarding claim 1, Burrows (figs. 1-4 and col. 2,lines 65-68) discloses hinged-lid pack for delivery systems, the hinged-lid pack comprising:
a base 15; and
a lid 20 rotatable relative to the base 15 between open and closed positions about a hinge 118 defined by a line about which the material of the pack folds.
Burrows fails to disclose the line discussed above being discontinuous wherein the material of the pack creases when the lid is rotated about the hinge118 into an open position for the first time such that the discontinuous line becomes a continuous line to provide a visible indication that the lid has previously been in an open position when the lid is subsequently closed.
However, Kennedy teaches a score line of a hinge provided with an interruption 26 wherein the material creases when the hinge is folded for the first time such that the discontinuous line becomes a continuous line (figs. 1-3 and col. 2, lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the hinge of Burrows an interruption, to increase the resistance of that portion to folding movement, as taught by Kennedy in col. 2, lines 18-22 and to improve structural durability of the hinge region.
Regarding the limitation that the discontinuous line becomes a continuous line to provide a visible indication that the lid has previously been in an open position when the lid is subsequently closed, such deformation of scored hinge regions upon initial actuation is an inherent and predictable result of folding along weakened lines, and it would have been obvious to utilize such deformation as an indicator of prior opening.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Burrows further discloses the discontinuous line extending linearly (fig. 1 of Kennedy).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Burrows further discloses the discontinuous line comprising a plurality of spaced lines of weakness. (col. 2, lines 65-68 of Burrows).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that the modified Burrows discloses the discontinuous line being configured so that the spaces between the plurality of lines of weakness visibly crease when the lid is rotated into an open position for the first time to create the continuous line, because such deformation of scored hinge regions upon initial actuation is an inherent and predictable result of folding along weakened lines.
Regarding claim 5, Burrows further discloses the plurality of lines of weakness are a plurality of cuts (col. 3, lines 64-68).
Regarding claim 6, Burrows further discloses the plurality of cuts or slits extend through the material of the pack (col. 3, lines 64-68).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Burrows further discloses the discontinuous line extends non-linearly because of stress reliever 145 (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Burrows further discloses the pack comprises a rear wall 55 in which the hinge 118 is formed and side walls 45, 50 depending from each edge of the rear wall 55, wherein the discontinuous line comprises a pair of lines of weakness, each of the pair of lines of weakness having a first linear section (section of hinge not including the section between stress reliever 145) in said rear wall that extends linearly toward each other from respective side walls of the pack and a second section 145 about which the material of the pack folds when the lid is opened.
Regarding claim 10, Burrows further discloses the second section 145 extending in a direction perpendicular to the first linear section (fig. 4) but fails to disclose the second section 145 being linear. However, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 12, Burrows further discloses the second section 145 being non-linear (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Burrows further discloses the pair of lines of weakness being cuts (col. 3, lines 64-68).
Regarding claim 15, Burrows further discloses the cuts or slits extend through the material of the pack (col. 3, lines 64-68).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers (US 2,247,870) in view of Smith (US 6,460,712).
Regarding claim 16, Chalmers (figs. 1-3) discloses a hinged-lid pack for delivery systems, the hinged-lid pack comprising:
a base; and
a lid rotatable relative to the base between open and closed positions about a hinge line 24,wherein the hinge line 24 comprises a region 25, 26, wherein when the lid is rotated about the hinge line into an open position for the first time such that said region 25, 26 separates from the pack and a window (i.e., square window formed around the hinge in fig. 2) is formed in the material of the pack.
Chalmers fails to disclose the region 25, 26 being delimited by a line of weakness, said line of weakness being configured to break when the lid is rotated about the hinge line into an open position for the first time such that said region separates from the pack to provide a visible indication that the lid has previously been in an open position when the lid is subsequently closed.
However, Smith teaches a container having a region of a hinge being delimited by a line of weakness 70A, 70B configured to break when the lid is rotated (figs. 4, col. 5, lines 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the region 25 and 26 of Chalmers, a line of weakness, to provide tamper-indicating function, as taught by Smith.
Claims 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows (US 5,139,140) in view of Kennedy (US 3,021,993) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Chalmers (US 2,247,870).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Burrows further discloses the pair of lines of weakness are spaced from one another (fig. 1 of Burrows).
However, the modified Burrows fails to disclose the material of the pack being configured to visibly crease when the lid is rotated into an open position for the first time such that two visible creases form in the space between the pair of lines of weakness, each visible crease being parallel to and spaced from each other.
Chalmers teaches a hinged-lid pack having a material of the pack being configured to visibly crease when the lid is rotated into an open position for the first time such that two visible creases (top and bottom) form in the space between the pair of lines of weakness (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have creased the top and bottom portions defined by stress reliever 145, when opening the lid, to reduce the tendency for the box to be broken or torn along the hinge during the opening of the lid, as taught by Chalmers in page 2, col. 2, lines 1-9.
Regarding claim 11, Burrows further discloses the second section 145 defining an incomplete substantially quadrilateral shape in the material of the pack.
However, the modified Burrows fails to disclose the material of the pack being configured to visibly crease and form a complete substantially quadrilateral shape when the lid is rotated about the hinge into an open position for the first time.
Chalmers teaches a hinged-lid pack having a material of the pack being configured to visibly crease when the lid is rotated into an open position for the first time such that two visible creases (top and bottom) form in the space between the pair of lines of weakness (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have creased the top and bottom portions defined by stress reliever 145, when opening the lid, to reduce the tendency for the box to be broken or torn along the hinge during the opening of the lid, as taught by Chalmers in page 2, col. 2, lines 1-9.
Regarding claim 13, Burrow further discloses the second section 145 defining an incomplete substantially elliptical shape in the material of the pack.
However, the modified Burrow fails to disclose the material of the pack being configured to visibly crease and form a complete substantially elliptical shape when the lid is rotated about the hinge into an open position for the first time.
Chalmers teaches a hinged-lid pack having a material of the pack being configured to visibly crease when the lid is rotated into an open position for the first time such that two visible creases (top and bottom) form in the space between the pair of lines of weakness (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have creased the top and bottom portions defined by stress reliever 145, when opening the lid, to reduce the tendency for the box to be broken or torn along the hinge during the opening of the lid, as taught by Chalmers in page 2, col. 2, lines 1-9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights