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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 (Figures 25-29) in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2001213478 A; hereinafter Nakamura) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses an item packaging structure and method of making from a single tray blank comprising a bottom panel (2); the single tray blank further comprises a side panel (5) extending outwardly from at least a portion of the second end of the bottom panel (see Fig. 2), the side panel joined to the bottom panel along a first fold line (4) defining a joint between the bottom panel and the side panel, the side panel defining a first end, a second end, a third end, and a fourth end (Examiner notes that the sides have four distinct ends); wherein the first fold line is interrupted by at least one perforation line segment defining a standoff (8) extending laterally from the first fold line and terminating in a standoff edge, the standoff configured to separate from the side panel as the side panel is rotated upwardly about the first fold line during assembly of the single tray blank into the tray (see Fig. 1); and a wing extending outwardly from the third end of the side panel (Examiner considers the wing to be the portion of the side wall that folds over adjacent panel 6 as shown in Fig. 1), the wing joined to the side panel along a second fold line defining a joint between the side panel and the wing, the wing defining a front end, a rear end, a proximal end, and a free end; and the method comprises the steps of rotating the side panel upwardly about the first fold line to cause the standoff to separate from the side panel; and rotating the wing downwardly about the second fold line (Examiner considers the wing to rotate “downward” when the tray is oriented with side 5 positioned above of all other tray panels). Nakamura lacks teaching that the bottom panel is configured to support a bottom of a bag comprising a portion of a meal kit and cold pack. However, Examiner is taking Official Notice that meal kits are bags that contain refrigerated items and cold packs and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to use Nakamura’s tray to hold a bag comprising a meal kit and cold pack.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simone (GB 2205083 A) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 8, Simone discloses boxes formed from blanks and a method of collapsing a bottom panel (10), a side panel (14) extending outwardly from at least a portion of the second end of the bottom panel, the side panel joined to the bottom panel along a first fold line defining a joint between the bottom panel and the side panel (see Fig. 1), the side panel defining a first end, a second end, a third end, and a fourth end (Examiner notes that the side has four distinct ends); a wing (16) extending outwardly from the third end of the side panel, the wing joined to the side panel along a second fold line defining a joint between the side panel and the wing, the wing defining a front end, a rear end, a proximal end, and a free end; and an end panel (12) extending from the first end of the bottom panel, the end panel joined to the bottom panel along a third fold line defining a joint between the bottom panel and the end panel, the end panel defining a first end, a second end, a third end, and a fourth end; wherein the end panel defines a corner located at an intersection of the first end of the end panel with the fourth end of the end panel; and wherein a transverse fold line (34) extends from the corner to the second end of the end panel, the transverse fold line subdividing the end panel into a primary section (see Fig. 1; central trapezoidal portion of 12) and a secondary section (see Fig. 1; lateral triangular portions of 12); and the method comprises the step of causing the secondary section to be folded atop the primary section (see Figures 3-4). Simone lacks teaching that the bottom panel is configured to support a bottom of a bag comprising a portion of a meal kit and cold pack. However, Examiner is taking Official Notice that meal kits are bags that contain refrigerated items and cold packs and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to use Simone’s tray to hold a bag comprising a meal kit and cold pack.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are 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