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 § 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 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 pack" in lines 2, 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for –the hinged-lid pack--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hinge" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for –a hinge--. Also see claim 13.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "lid side wall in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for –the lid side wall--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pack" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for –the hinged-lid pack--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "each pack" in lines 2, 5, 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for --each parallelepiped-shaped hinged-lid pack --.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the parallelepiped-shaped packs " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for –the parallelepiped-shaped hinged-lid packs --.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the packs " in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for –the parallelepiped-shaped hinged-lid packs --.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said packs " in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for –the parallelepiped-shaped hinged-lid packs --.
Claims 2,4-6,8-11 and 14-19 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 or 12.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau (WO 2020/212079) in view of Rehders (EP 2,985,239).
In re claim 1: Grau teaches a hinged-lid pack 10 for delivery systems, the hinged-lid pack 10 being substantially parallelepiped in shape having a width and a height greater than the width, the hinged-lid pack 10 comprising a base 20 and a lid 30, the lid 30 being rotatable relative to the base 20 between an open position and a closed position in which the lid 30 and the base 20 meet at a line of juncture 50, and a label 60 attached to the hinged-lid pack 10 that bridges the line of juncture 50, wherein the label 60 has a length and a width, the length being longer than the width, wherein the length of the label 60 is such that the label extends over at least a height of the hinged-lid pack, said label 60 being configured to be broken to allow the lid 30 to be rotated about the hinge 40 into an open position for the first time, to provide a visible indication that the lid 30 has previously been rotated into an open position when the lid 30 is subsequently closed (see figure 1 of Grau).
Grau discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Rehders:
Rehders teaches the provision of a hinged-lid pack that includes a label 1
wherein the length of the label 1 is such that the label 1 extends over at least a majority of the height of the hinged-lid pack 100 (see figures 7-11 of Rehders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the label of Grau with the elongated label as taught by Rehders in order to provide additional child-resistant features and a larger surface area of attachment (see figures 7-11 of Rehders).
In re claim 2: the base comprises a base 20 front wall 23 and the lid 30 comprises a lid front wall 33, the base front wall 23 and the lid front wall 33 meeting at said line of juncture 50 and defining a front wall 23/33 of the hinged-lid pack 10 (see figure 1 of Grau).
In re claim 3: the base 20 comprises a base side wall 22a/22b and the lid 30 comprises a lid side wall 32a/32b, the base side wall 22a/22b and the lid side wall 32a/32b meeting at said line of juncture 51a and defining a side wall 32a/22a/32b/22b of the hinged-lid pack 10 (see figure 1 of Grau).
In re claim 4: the label 1 bridges the line of juncture 122 between the base front wall and lid front wall and extends over at least a majority of the height of the front wall of the hinged-lid pack 100 (see figure 7 of Rehders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the label of Grau in view of Rehders for the same reason as discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 5: the label 60 bridges the line of juncture 50 between the base side wall 22a and lid side wall 32a and extends over at least a majority of the height of the side wall 22a/32a of the hinged-lid pack 10 (see figure 1 of Grau).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the label of Grau in view of Rehders for the same reason as discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 6: the label 60 comprises a line of weakness 90, the label 60 being configured to separate along said line of weakness 90 to allow the lid 30 to be rotated into an open position for the first time (see figure 1 of Grau).
In re claim 7: the label 60 is attached to the hinged-lid pack 10 such that it bridges the line of juncture 50 in a direction extending across the length of the label 60 with the line of weakness 90 extending along the width of the label 60 (see figure 1 of Grau).
In re claim 8: the line of weakness 12 comprises a tear tape 34 formed in the label 1 (see figure 7 of Rehders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the label of Grau with the label assembly of Rehders for the same reason as discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 9: the tear tape 34 comprises a tab 38 to enable tearing of the tear tape 34 (see figure 7 of Rehders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the label of Grau with the label assembly of Rehders for the same reason as discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 10: the line of juncture 122 is linear and the line of weakness 12 in the label 1 is non-linear (see figure 7 of Rehders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the label of Grau with the label assembly of Rehders for the same reason as discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 11: the line of weakness 12 comprises a zig-zag or tortuous path that repeatedly extends across the line of juncture 122 (see figure 7 of Rehders).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau (WO 2020/212079) in view of Polloni et al. (IT 202000015694).
In re claim 12: A parallelepiped-shaped hinged-lid pack 10 for delivery systems, each pack having a base 20 and a lid 30, the lid 30 being rotatable relative to the base 20 between an open position and a closed position in which the lid 30 and the base 20 meet at a line of juncture 50, wherein a label 60 is attached to a non-contacting face of the pack so as to bridge the exposed portion of the line of juncture 50 of the pack, said label 60 having a first line of weakness 90, wherein the label 60 is configured to separate along said first line of weakness 90 (see figure 1 of Grau).
Grau discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Polloni et al.:
Polloni et al. teaches the provision of a collation of parallelepiped-shaped hinged-lid packs G for delivery systems wherein the parallelepiped-shaped packs G are arranged in the collation such that a face of each pack lies against a face of an adjacent pack along a contact plane, and a portion of the line of juncture between the lid Gi and the base Gii of each pack is exposed on non-contacting faces of the packs G, wherein a label 2 or 4 is attached to said non-contacting faces of the packs, said label 2 or 4 having a first line of weakness 6 aligned with the contact plane between adjacent packs G, wherein the label 2 or 4 is configured to separate along said first line of weakens 6 between adjacent packs G when one of said packs G is removed from the collection (see figure 6b and figures 1-3 of Polloni et al.). With this in mind it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the parallelepiped-shaped side labeled hinged-lid pack of Grau with a plurality of packs all labeled together as taught by Polloni et al. in order to provide a bulk amount of packs that can be removed as needed while still providing tamper evidence (see figure 6b) and figures 1-3 of Polloni et al.).
In re claim 13: the label 60 comprises a second line of weakness 90, the label 60 being configured to separate along the second line of weakness 90 to allow the lid 30 of said pack 10 removed from the collation to be rotated about a hinge 40 into an open position for the first time, to provide a visible indication that the lid 30 has previously been rotated into an open position when the lid 30 is subsequently closed (see figure 1 of Grau).
In re claim 14: the label has parallel edges and the second line of weakness is parallel to said edges.
In re claim 15: the second line of weakness 90 is offset so that it is closer to one edge 63a than to the other edge 63b (see figure 1 of Grau).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau (WO 2020/212079) in view of Polloni et al. (IT 202000015694) and in further view of Rehders (EP 2,985,239). Grau in view of Polloni et al. teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Rehders:
Rehders teaches the provision of a hinged-lid pack that includes a label 1
wherein the length of the label 1 is such that the label 1 extends over at least a majority of the height of the hinged-lid pack 100 (see figures 7-11 of Rehders) and further teaches
In re claim 16: the second line of weakness 12 comprises a tear tape 34 formed in the label 1 (see figure 7 of Rehders).
In re claim 17: the tear tape 34 comprises a tab 38 to enable tearing of the tear tape 34 (see figure 7 of Rehders).
In re claim 18: the exposed portion of the line of juncture 122 is linear and the line of weakness 12 in the label 1 is non-linear (see figure 7 of Rehders).
In re claim 19: the second line of weakness 12 comprises a zig-zag or tortuous path that repeatedly extends across the line of juncture 122 (see figure 7 of Rehders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the label of Grau with the elongated label as taught by Rehders in order to provide additional child-resistant features and a larger surface area of attachment (see figures 7-11 of Rehders).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for prior art that teaches and suggests structural limitations of the claimed and disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights