DETAILED ACTION
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
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, line 2 “panels extending for at least partially around” should read “panels extending at least partially around”.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, all the panels lack antecedent basis because the dependency is on claim 6 instead of claim 7.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12-15, 17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3478950 issued to Stevens et al. (hereinafter “Stevens”) in view of US Pub 20050205652 by Clohessy (hereinafter “Clohessy”).
Regarding claim 1, Stevens teaches a tray for holding articles (Title “Trays for packaging jars” shown in Fig 3), the tray comprising:
a plurality of panels extending at least partially around an interior of the tray (Figs 1 & 3, walls 1, 2 and 3 are panels extending around an interior of the tray defined by the walls), the tray comprising a bottom panel (Fig 3, “base panel 1” is bottom), at least one side panel (Fig 1, “sidewalls 2”), at least one end panel (Fig 1, “end walls 3”), and at least one corner panel forming a curved corner between the at least one side panel and the at least one end panel (Figs 1 & 3, curved corner portions of 2a between 2 and 3),
But Stevens does not explicitly teach a particular structure of the material used for the tray’s blank (Stevens, Abstract, “cardboard tray”).
Clohessy, however, discloses a similar tray wall comprising:
a first ply, a second ply, and a fluted layer positioned between the first ply and the second ply, the fluted layer arranged along a flute direction, the corner extending upwardly from the bottom panel along the flute direction (Figs 2 & 4-5 (top view) [0027] “Sidewalls 12… of liners 38 and flutes 40” are shown having at least a first ply 38, second ply 38, flute 40 between them, the flute extending upwardly along with the upward sidewall corner (upward relative to the bottom)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the curved corner panels and side panels of Stevens to be fluted with two ply as taught by Clohessy in order to advantageously “provide high top-to-bottom compression strength, which supports other cartons in a vertically stacked configuration” (Clohessy [0027]).
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the flutes and ply of Clohessy being the material in the curved corner panels of Stevens.
Regarding claim 9, Stevens teaches a blank (Fig 1) for forming a tray for holding articles (Title “Trays for packaging jars” shown in Fig 3), the blank comprising:
a plurality of panels extending at least partially around an interior of the tray formed from the blank (Figs 1 & 3, walls 1, 2 and 3 are panels extending around an interior of the tray defined by the walls), the tray comprising a bottom panel (Fig 3, “base panel 1” is bottom), at least one side panel (Fig 1, “sidewalls 2”), at least one end panel (Fig 1, “end walls 3”), and at least one corner panel for forming a curved corner between the at least one side panel and the at least one end panel when the tray is formed from the blank (Figs 1 & 3, curved corner portions of 2a between 2 and 3),
But Stevens does not explicitly teach a particular structure of the material used for the tray’s blank (Stevens, Abstract, “cardboard tray”).
Clohessy, however, discloses a similar tray wall comprising:
the blank comprising a first ply, a second ply, and a fluted layer positioned between the first ply and the second ply, the fluted layer arranged along a flute direction such that the curved corner is for extending upwardly from the bottom panel along the flute direction when the tray is formed from the blank (Figs 2 & 4-5 (top view) [0027] “Sidewalls 12… of liners 38 and flutes 40” are shown having at least a first ply 38, second ply 38, flute 40 between them, the flute extending upwardly along with the upward sidewall corner (upward relative to the bottom)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the curved corner panels and side panels of Stevens to be fluted with two ply as taught by Clohessy in order to advantageously “provide high top-to-bottom compression strength, which supports other cartons in a vertically stacked configuration” (Clohessy [0027]).
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the flutes and ply of Clohessy being the material in the curved corner panels of Stevens.
Regarding claims 4 and 12 (similar limitation, different dependency), Stevens further teaches a plurality of end flaps foldably connected to a respective panel of the plurality of panels (Figs 1 & 3, “extensions 2a” are flaps shown foldably connected to a respective panel), the plurality of end flaps comprising at least one end flap foldably connected to the at least one corner panel and attached to the at least one end panel to form at least one end wall of the tray (Fig 3 shown at least one 2a foldably connects to one curved corner panel and attaches to at least one end panel 3, thereby forming an end wall of the tray).
Regarding claim 5, Stevens further teaches the bottom panel comprises at least one corner edge aligned with the curved corner of the tray (Fig 3 shows aligned a curved corner edge of 1 to curved corner).
Regarding claim 17, Stevens teaches a method of forming a tray for holding articles (Title “Trays for packaging jars” shown in Fig 3, shown formed via a method from Fig 1), the method comprising:
obtaining a blank (Fig 1), the blank comprising a plurality of panels (Figs 1 & 3, walls 1, 2 and 3 are panels extending around an interior of the tray defined by the walls) comprising a bottom panel (Fig 3, “base panel 1” is bottom), at least one side panel (Fig 1, “sidewalls 2”), and at least one corner panel (Figs 1 & 3, curved corner portions of 2a between 2 and 3);
positioning the plurality of panels extending at least partially around an interior of the tray (walls 1, 2 and 3 are panels positioned extending around an interior of the tray defined by the walls); and
But Stevens does not explicitly teach a particular structure of the material used for the tray’s blank (Stevens, Abstract, “cardboard tray”).
Clohessy, however, discloses a similar tray wall comprising:
a first ply, a second ply, and a fluted layer positioned between the first ply and the second ply, the fluted layer arranged along a flute direction, positioning the at least one corner panel forming a curved corner between the at least one side panel and the at least one end panel, the curved corner extending upwardly from the bottom panel along the flute direction (Figs 2 & 4-5 (top view) [0027] “Sidewalls 12… of liners 38 and flutes 40” are shown having at least a first ply 38, second ply 38, flute 40 between them, the flute extending upwardly along with the upward sidewall corner (upward relative to the bottom)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the curved corner panels and side panels of Stevens to be fluted with two ply as taught by Clohessy in order to advantageously “provide high top-to-bottom compression strength, which supports other cartons in a vertically stacked configuration” (Clohessy [0027]).
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the flutes and ply of Clohessy being the material in the curved corner panels of Stevens.
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 22 (similar limitation, different dependency), Stevens further teaches the at least one corner panel is foldably connected to the at least one side panel, and the at least one end flap is foldably connected to the at least one corner panel (Fig 1, not folded, Fig 3 folded, connected as claimed).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 23 (similar limitation, different dependency), Stevens further teaches the at least one side panel is a first side panel, the plurality of panels further comprises a second side panel, the at least one end panel is a first end panel, the plurality of panels further comprises a second end panel, the at least one corner panel is a first corner panel, the plurality of panels further comprises a second corner panel, a third corner panel, and a fourth corner panel (Fig 3, four curved corner panels, two side panels two end panels as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Stevens further teaches the bottom panel comprises at least one corner edge for being aligned with the curved corner of the tray when the tray is formed from the blank (Fig 3 shows aligned a curved corner edge of 1 to curved corner).
Regarding claim 20, Stevens further teaches the blank further comprising a plurality of end flaps foldably connected to a respective panel of the plurality of panels (Figs 1 & 3, “extensions 2a” are flaps shown foldably connected to a respective panel), the plurality of end flaps comprising at least one end flap foldably connected to the at least one corner panel, and the method further comprises attaching the at least one end flap to the at least one end panel to form at least one end wall of the tray (Fig 3 shown at least one 2a foldably connects to one curved corner panel and attaches to at least one end panel 3, thereby forming an end wall of the tray).
Regarding claim 21, Stevens further teaches the bottom panel comprises at least one corner edge, and the method further comprises aligning the at least one corner edge with the curved corner of the tray (Fig 3 shows aligned a curved corner edge of 1 to curved corner).
Claims 2-3 and 8, 10-11, 16, 18-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3478950 issued to Stevens et al. (hereinafter “Stevens”) in view of US Pub 20050205652 by Clohessy (hereinafter “Clohessy”) in view of US Pat 3425543 issued to Harvey (hereinafter “Harvey”).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18 (similar limitation, different dependency), Stevens/Clohessy does not explicitly teach the at least one corner panel comprises a plurality of spaced apart fold lines extending therealong facilitating at least partial formation of the curved corner.
Harvey, however, discloses a similar tray comprising:
at least one corner panel comprises a plurality of spaced apart fold lines extending therealong facilitating at least partial formation of the curved corner (Figs 14-15, “crease lines 44” are shown in upward extending in corner panels, necessarily facilitate formation of folding the blank into the curve).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the curved corner panels of Stevens/Clohessy to have spaced apart fold lines as taught by Harvey in order to advantageously increase ease of corner forming for a wider variety of users versus no fold lines due to stress concentration of the lines, as known to a POSITA.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19 (similar limitation, different dependency), Stevens/Clohessy/Harvey further teaches the plurality of spaced apart fold lines are oriented along the flute direction (Clohessy flutes and Harvey fold lines extend upward so are along the same direction). See details in the parent claims 2/10/18 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 8, Stevens/Clohessy does not explicitly teach four sets of spaced apart fold lines facilitating corner panel forming.
Harvey, however, discloses a similar tray comprising:
the curved corner is a first curved corner of the tray between the first side panel and the first end panel, and each of the second corner panel, the third corner panel, and the fourth corner panel comprises a plurality of a plurality of spaced apart fold lines extending therealong facilitating at least partial formation of a second curved corner between the first side panel and the second end panel, a third curved corner between the second end panel and the second side panel, and a fourth curved corner between the second side panel and the first end panel (Figs 14-15, four “crease lines 44” are shown in upward extending in corner panels, necessarily facilitate formation of folding the blank into the curve).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the curved corner panels of Stevens/Clohessy to each have spaced apart fold lines as taught by Harvey in order to advantageously increase ease of corner forming for a wider variety of users versus no fold lines due to stress concentration of the lines, as known to a POSITA.
Regarding claims 16 and 24 (similar limitation, different dependency), Stevens/Clohessy does not explicitly teach four sets of spaced apart fold lines facilitating corner panel forming.
Harvey, however, discloses a similar tray comprising:
the curved corner is a first curved corner of the tray formed from the blank between the first side panel and the first end panel, and each of the second corner panel, the third corner panel, and the fourth corner panel comprises a plurality of a plurality of spaced apart fold lines extending therealong facilitating at least partial formation of a second curved corner between the first side panel and the second end panel when the tray is formed from the blank, a third curved corner between the second end panel and the second side panel when the tray is formed from the blank, and a fourth curved corner between the second side panel and the first end panel when the tray is formed from the blank (Figs 14-15, four “crease lines 44” are shown in upward extending in corner panels, necessarily facilitate formation of folding the blank into the curve).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the curved corner panels of Stevens/Clohessy to each have spaced apart fold lines as taught by Harvey in order to advantageously increase ease of corner forming for a wider variety of users versus no fold lines due to stress concentration of the lines, as known to a POSITA.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
