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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trombetta et al. (US 2021/0078793) (hereinafter Trombetta).
Regarding Claim 1
Trombetta teaches a recyclable container structure (below – Fig. 12 and 13) comprising: a polymeric rigid tray (12) comprising a bottom wall and at least one upwardly extending sidewall, wherein the at least one sidewall terminates in a flange (38) and wherein the flange comprises at least one peelable zone (56) and at least one permanently affixed zone (58); a flexible polymeric film lidding (18), wherein the lidding is permanently affixed to the flange in the permanently affixed zone, and wherein the flexible polymeric lidding is peelably affixed to the flange in the peelable zone, wherein the flexible polymeric film lidding is heat sealable, and wherein the flexible polymeric film lidding is heat sealed directly to the polymeric rigid tray in the permanently affixed zone and in the peelable zone; and wherein the heat or pressure applied within the peelable zone heat seal is less than the heat or pressure applied within the permanently adhered zone (Fig. 17b); and wherein the polymeric rigid tray and the polymeric film lidding comprise polypropylene (Paragraphs [0049], [0051], [0063], and [0073]-[0076]).
PNG
media_image1.png
286
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
277
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
230
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8
Trombetta teaches the polymeric film lidding is inherently sealable to the polymeric rigid tray, inasmuch as Applicant teaches.
Regarding Claim 9
Trombetta teaches the flange (38) has a top surface and the permanently affixed zone (58) and the peelable zone (56) are located on the top surface of the flange.
Regarding Claim 19
Trombetta teaches the lidding additionally comprises a thumb tab (52).
Regarding Claim 21
Trombetta teaches the peelable zone (56) comprises a first heat seal formed at a first temperature (T1) and a first pressure, and the permanently affixed zone (58) comprises a second heat seal formed at a second temperature (T2) and a second pressure, wherein the first temperature and the second temperature are different.
Regarding Claim 22
Trombetta teaches the first temperature is less than the second temperature.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 19, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 3398876) in view of Trombetta et al. (US 2021/0078793) (hereinafter Trombetta).
Regarding Claim 1
Ward teaches a recyclable container structure (below – Fig. 1, 5, and 6) comprising: a polymeric rigid tray comprising a bottom wall (26) and at least one upwardly extending sidewall (21-24), wherein the at least one sidewall terminates in a flange (31-34) and wherein the flange comprises at least one peelable zone (31/33/34) and at least one permanently affixed zone (32); a flexible polymeric film lidding (36), wherein the lidding is permanently affixed to the flange in the permanently affixed zone, and wherein the flexible polymeric lidding is peelably affixed to the flange in the peelable zone, wherein the flexible polymeric film lidding is heat sealable, and wherein the flexible polymeric film lidding is heat sealed directly to the polymeric rigid tray in the permanently affixed zone and in the peelable zone; and wherein the polymeric rigid tray and the polymeric film lidding comprise thermoplastic material (Col. 1, Ln. 71 – Col. 2, Ln. 21; and Col. 2, Ln. 35-59).
PNG
media_image4.png
259
739
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
194
365
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
266
286
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ward does not specifically teach the heat or pressure applied within the peelable zone heat seal is less than the heat or pressure applied within the permanently adhered zone, or the polymeric rigid tray and the polymeric film lidding comprise polypropylene.
Trombetta teaches a recyclable container structure (Fig. 12 and 13) comprising: a polymeric rigid tray (12) comprising a bottom wall and at least one upwardly extending sidewall, wherein the at least one sidewall terminates in a flange (38) and wherein the flange comprises at least one peelable zone (56) and at least one permanently affixed zone (58); a flexible polymeric film lidding (18), wherein the lidding is permanently affixed to the flange in the permanently affixed zone, and wherein the flexible polymeric lidding is peelably affixed to the flange in the peelable zone, wherein the flexible polymeric film lidding is heat sealable, and wherein the flexible polymeric film lidding is heat sealed directly to the polymeric rigid tray in the permanently affixed zone and in the peelable zone; and wherein the heat or pressure applied within the peelable zone heat seal is less than the heat or pressure applied within the permanently adhered zone (Fig. 17b); and wherein the polymeric rigid tray and the polymeric film lidding comprise polypropylene (Paragraphs [0049], [0051], [0063], and [0073]-[0076]).
Ward and Trombetta are analogous inventions in the field of container structures having peelable lidding attached by heat welding. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the thermoplastic material of the rigid tray and lidding with the teachings of the rigid tray and lidding being polyethylene, as polyethylene is a known thermoplastic used in making trays and lids as shown by Trombetta. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polyethylene container of Ward in Trombetta with applying the technique of the heat or pressure applied within the peelable zone heat seal being less than the heat or pressure applied within the permanently adhered zone as taught by Trombetta to the polyethylene container of Ward for the predictable result of heat sealing the tray to the lidding with a peelable and permanently affixed zone. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 6
Ward in view of Trombetta (hereinafter “modified Ward”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ward further teaches the tray comprises four sidewalls (21-24) and the permanently affixed zone (32) of the flange is aligned with one of the four sidewalls (22), as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Ward teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Ward further teaches the peelable zone (31/33/34) is aligned with three of the four sidewalls (21/23/24), as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Ward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Ward further teaches the polymeric film lidding (36) is inherently sealable to the polymeric rigid tray (Col. 2, Ln. 19-21).
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Ward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ward further teaches the flange (31-34) has a top surface and the permanently affixed zone (32) and the peelable zone (31/33/34) are located on the top surface of the flange, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 19
Modified Ward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ward further teaches the lidding additionally comprises a thumb tab (34b).
Regarding Claim 21
Modified Ward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Trombetta teaches the peelable zone (56) comprises a first heat seal formed at a first temperature (T1) and a first pressure, and the permanently affixed zone (58) comprises a second heat seal formed at a second temperature (T2) and a second pressure, wherein the first temperature and the second temperature are different.
Regarding Claim 22
Modified Ward teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above. Trombetta teaches the first temperature is less than the second temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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 at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733