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 .
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on December 5, 2024, the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 10/09/2024), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 have been amended,
Claims 1, 8 were previously presented, and
Claims 15-17 have been added
Therefore, claims 1-17are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engdahl Jr. (4,782,944).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Engdahl discloses a blank (Figure 8) for forming an article carrier (Figure 5), the blank comprising: a plurality of primary panels (176, 180, 184, 172, 192) for forming walls of a tubular structure defining an interior chamber (Figure 5) , the plurality of primary panels being arranged in a longitudinally extending linear series hinged one to the next (as shown in Figure 8, the plurality of the primary panel are hinged to one another in a linear series); a first medial panel (212) hingedly connected to an end of the linear series (connected to the of the primary panel 192), and a second medial panel (220) hingedly connected to the first medial panel by a longitudinally extending first fold line (218), wherein the second medial panel has a free edge disposed at a position opposing the first fold line, the free edge of the second medial panel comprising: a longitudinally extending first linear portion, a longitudinally extending second linear portion spaced apart from the first linear portion, and a third linear portion extending between the first and second linear portions and obliquely disposed with respect to the first and second linear portions (as annotated above).
As to claim 5, Engdahl further discloses the second linear portion is spaced longitudinally apart from the first linear portion (as shown in annotated Figure 8 above ).
As to claim 15, Engdahl further discloses the first, second and third linear portions form a part of the free edge that is continuous and is a perimeter boundary of the second medial panel (as explain in the remark, the second and third linear portions that is on the panel are part of the panel 240, that specific panel is form from the second medial panel and a part of the second medial panel, the second and third linear portion are considered as an extension of the perimeter boundary of the second medial panel).
As to claim 16, Engdahl further discloses the free edge is defined entirely by an outer perimeter of the second medial panel (as explain in the remark, the second and third linear portions that is on the panel are part of the panel 240, that specific panel is form from the second medial panel and a part of the second medial panel, therefore, the free edge is defined entirely by an outer perimeter of the second medial panel).
As to claim 17, Engdahl further discloses the second linear portion is offset from the first linear portion in a direction transverse to a longitudinal direction, and the third linear portion extends obliquely between the first and second linear portions such that the free edge defines a stepped profile of the second medial panel (as shown in Figure 8 above).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engdahl Jr. (4,782,944) in view of Zacherle et al (20190300231).
As to claims 2-3, Engdahl further discloses each of the first (212) and second medial panels (220) is provided with two handle apertures and each of the first and second medial panels has an upper portion, wherein the one handle aperture is defined within the upper portion of each of the first and second medial panels (as shown in Figure 8 annotated above). However, Engdahl does not specifically disclose each of the first and second medial panel is provided with only one handle aperture. Nevertheless, Zacherle discloses a blank (Figure 1) for forming an article carrier (Figure 2), the blank comprising: a plurality of primary panels (12, 14, 16, 18, 20) for forming walls of a tubular structure defining an interior chamber (Figure 2) , the plurality of primary panels being arranged in a longitudinally extending linear series hinged one to the next (as shown in Figure 1, the plurality of the primary panel are hinged to one another in a linear series); a first medial panel (22) hingedly connected to an end of the linear series (connected to the of the primary panel 20), and a second medial panel (24) hingedly connected to the first medial panel by a longitudinally extending first fold line (23), each of the first and second medial panels is provided with only one handle aperture (A2 and A3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiple small handle aperture in first and second medial panel of Engdahl with a single greater handle aperture as taught by Zacherle in order to carry the article carrier with the palm of the hand instead of the putting pressure only to the fingers when carrying.
As to claim 4, Engdahl further discloses the first fold line defines part of a upper edge of each of the first and second medial panels. But does not disclose the first fold line defines part of a lower edge of each of the first and second medial panels. Nevertheless, Zacherle discloses the first and second medial panel connected each other along the first fold line (23) and the first fold line (23) defines part of a lower edge of each of the first and second medial panels (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second medial panel of Engdahl is hingedly connected to the lower edge of the first medial panel since It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144 (VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “ the alleged second linear portion as noted in the annotated Fig. 8 of Engdahl above is not part of the free edge of the alleged second medial panel 220. This is because the feature identified in the annotated Fig. 8 above as the "second linear portion" is the outer edge of a glue flap 242, which is a separate structural element foldably connected to panel 220 along a transverse fold line. See at least Fig. 8 and col. 5, lines 40-45 of Engdahl. The free edge of panel 220 in Engdahl itself terminates at that transverse fold line and everything beyond that fold line including the outer edge of glue flap 242 belongs to the glue flap, not to panel 220” Such argument is not found persuasive. In applicant’s claim 1, applicant recites “the second medial panel has a free edge disposed at a position opposing the first fold line, the free edge of the second medial panel comprising: a longitudinally extending first linear portion, a longitudinally extending second linear portion spaced apart from the first linear portion, and a third linear portion extending between the first and second linear portions and obliquely disposed with respect to the first and second linear portions.” Engdahl clearly discloses a second medial panel (220) hingedly connected to the first medial panel by a longitudinally extending first fold line (218), wherein the second medial panel has a free edge disposed at a position opposing the first fold line, the free edge of the second medial panel comprising: a longitudinally extending first linear portion, a longitudinally extending second linear portion spaced apart from the first linear portion, and a third linear portion extending between the first and second linear portions and obliquely disposed with respect to the first and second linear portions (as annotated above). Even with the second linear portion and the third linear portion form on the panel (glue flap 240), that specific panel (glue flap 240) is still part of the second medial panel (220) and form from the second medial panel (220) as shown in Figure 8 of Engdahl.
PNG
media_image2.png
354
379
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regarding to applicant’s argument that “second linear portion as noted in the annotated Fig. 8 of Engdahl above does not oppose the alleged first fold line”. Such argument is not found persuasive. It is clear that the second medial panel (220) includes four sides/edges. One of the side/edge that is connecting to the first medial panel via a first fold line (218). Second side being the free edge that is on the opposing side of the first fold line (218) which meet applicant’s claimed language. Applicant does not specifically claim that the free edge must within the same boundary or the same length as the first fold line. The structure of the second linear portion still meets the claimed language that “position opposing the first fold line” as claimed in claim 1.
With regarding to applicant’s argument that “the alleged second linear portion of Engdahl is not part of the free edge of panel 220, thus its spacing from the alleged first linear portion is immaterial”. Such argument is not found persuasive. As examiner state in above remark, even with the second linear portion and the third linear portion form on the panel (glue flap 240), that specific panel (glue flap 240) is still part of the second medial panel and form from the second medical panel (220). Furthermore, applicant’s claim limitation is basically a picture claim that describe the relationship of the free edge of second medial panel having the first, second and third linear portion. The panel (240) that is form from the second medial panel is also considered as part of the second panel and thus meeting applicant’s claimed language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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 Aviles can be reached at (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 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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
