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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The Office notes that Applicant has removed “a series of inner side pads extending around the inner perimeter of the of the inner side panel, the outwardly projecting rim extending over a top edge of the series of inner side pads”. The reference Jenk has thereby been removed. Nevertheless, in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that Jenk still discloses the above. For example, with respect to a series of inner side pads extending around the inner perimeter of the of the inner side panel, the outwardly projecting rim extending over a top edge of the series of inner side pads, the Office notes that Jenk discloses all of the above (adjacent 12 that rests below the rim of the device as in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Jenk (by providing the above inner pads around the inner perimeter of the inner side panel and sitting below the rim) in order to provide additional protection for the intended contents, such as the liner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claim(s) 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (JP2006341875) in view of Sullivan (20110114713) and Caldwell (US 20100320206 A1) and Sierra Gomez (20050247764).
Fujii discloses:
39. A packaging assembly (figs 1-4), comprising: a self-supporting liner (2), the self-supporting liner comprising: side walls defining an open area at an open top end of the self-supporting liner (side portions of 2 with opening at the upper portion), a bottom wall defining a closed bottom end of the self-supporting liner with the side walls (portion opposite the opening), an outwardly projecting rim connected to the side walls around the open area (upper most portion of 2), the outwardly projecting rim comprising a flange portion defining a surface around the open area (“flange portion 7”); and a peel-reseal lidding material arranged over the surface and sealed to the self- supporting liner (3, 5), sealing a volume defined by the self-supporting liner and the peel-reseal lidding material (as in fig 1a), the peel-reseal lidding material comprising: a resealable outer layer including an outer layer edge (5 with perimeter portion); and an interior second layer disposed between the resealable outer layer and the volume (3), the interior second layer having a center portion and a remaining portion (portion within 8 and 4 and also portion not within 8 and 4), the center portion being at least partially separable from the remaining portion along a periphery of the center portion such that the center portion is movable to form an opening through the second layer (capable of performing the above intended use, such as via portion 8 and 4).
With respect to an inner side panel extending around at least a portion of the inner perimeter of the sidewalls, the outwardly projecting rim resting on an upper edge of the inner side panel, Sullivan discloses and an inner side panel extending around at least a portion of the inner perimeter of the sidewalls, the outwardly projecting rim resting on an upper edge of the inner side panel (element 102 includes 102 with rim of 126 resting thereon; Sullivan teaches the concept of multiple containers interacting with one another in a telescoping manner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fujii (by providing an outer container with side walls) in order to provide stability to the system while also further protecting the contents of the device.
With respect to Applicant’s amendment to metallized polymer film, Caldwell discloses the above material within an outer layer (paragraph 16, as well as paragraph 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Caldwell (by providing the above material within an outer layer) in order to provide known materials that are food safe as well as providing a desired degree of bending stiffness in order to retain shape and provide protection.
With respect to a lidding material between the peel-reseal lidding material and the volume, the lidding material extending across the open area, wherein the lidding material is positioned between the self-supporting liner and both the center portion and the remaining portion of the interior second layer, Sierra-Gomez discloses a lidding material between the peel-reseal lidding material and the volume, the lidding material extending across the open area, wherein the lidding material is positioned between the self-supporting liner and both the center portion and the remaining portion of the interior second layer (adjacent element 62, though not required the Office notes that reference also discloses two layers above as 16, 20 with volume below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Sierra Gomez (by providing the above layer between the existing second layer material with portions and liner) in order to provide additional protection for the contents while also providing further indication that the device has been opened.
Fujii further discloses:
40. The packaging assembly of claim 39, wherein the peel-reseal lidding material is hermetically heat-sealed to the rim of the self- supporting liner. The claim is being treated as product-by-process limitations and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art discloses sealing (as in fig 1). The Office notes that if there is any question to hermetically heat-sealed, Official Notice is taken, that it is old and conventional to the above Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of the Official Notice to hermetically heat-sealed in order to provide a package that remains secure as desired while protecting the intended contents and permits desired opening. The Office notes that Sullivan also discloses heat sealing (paragraph 26 with material and liner).
41. The packaging assembly of claim 39, wherein the peel-reseal lidding material is laminated to the rim of the self-supporting liner. The claim is being treated as product-by-process limitations and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
42. The packaging assembly of claim 39, wherein the peel-reseal lidding material is sufficiently flexible to be folded over itself or rolled- up while open (capable of performing the above intended use, as for example in fig 2 when the device is folded over or rolled).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 39 and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
41. The packaging assembly of claim 39, wherein the peel-reseal lidding material is laminated to the rim of the self-supporting liner. The claim is being treated as product-by-process limitations and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art discloses sealing (as in fig 1). Because Applicant has not traversed Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the fact that is it well known to provide laminated is taken to be admitted prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of Applicant's admitted prior art to provide laminated in order provide a package that remains secure as desired while protecting the intended contents and permits desired opening.
2. Claim(s) 45-47, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (JP2006341875) in view of Sierra Gomez (20050247764) and Caldwell (US 20100320206 A1).
Fujii discloses:
45. A packaging assembly (figs 1-4), comprising: a self-supporting liner (2) having a closed bottom end (portion at the lower end of 2) and an open top end (opposite the bottom), the open top end defining a first opening extending into a volume of the self-supporting liner (empty space in between perimeter top portion), the self- supporting liner comprising a flange portion positioned around a periphery of the first opening (“flange portion 7”); and a peel-reseal lidding material connected to the flange portion and sealing the volume defined by the self-supporting liner (3, 5), the peel-reseal lidding material comprising: a resealable outer layer including an outer layer edge (5 with perimeter portion); and an interior second layer disposed between the resealable outer layer and the volume (3), the interior second layer having a center portion and a remaining portion (portion within 8 and 4 and also portion not within 8 and 4), the center portion being at least partially separable from the remaining portion along a periphery of the center portion such that the center portion is movable to form a second opening through the interior second layer (capable of performing the above intended use, such as via portion of 8 and 4), wherein: in a closed position of the peel-reseal lidding material the resealable outer layer is sealed to the remaining portion and the center portion of the interior second layer across the periphery of the center portion in order to seal the volume; in an open position of the peel-reseal lidding material the outer layer and the center portion of the second layer are moved to expose the volume (Capable of performing the above intended use as shown in figs 1-3 during the shown processes); and the outer layer is configured to be resealable to the remaining portion of the second layer, thereby allowing the peel-reseal lidding material to be moved from the closed position to the open position and back into the closed position (Capable of performing the above intended use as shown in figs 1-3 during the shown processes).
With respect to a tamper-evident system comprising a second lidding material disposed between the peel-reseal lidding material and the volume, wherein tamper-evident system is attached to the self-supporting liner and the peel-reseal lidding material is attached to the tamper-evident system and the self-supporting liner, Sierra Gomez discloses a tamper-evident system comprising a second lidding material disposed between the peel-reseal lidding material and the volume, wherein tamper-evident system is attached to the self-supporting liner and the peel-reseal lidding material is attached to the tamper-evident system and the self-supporting liner (adjacent element 62, though not required the Office notes that reference also discloses two layers above as 16, 20 with volume below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fujii in view of Sierra Gomez (by providing the above layer between the existing second layer material/tamper evident system with portions and liner/volume) in order to provide additional protection for the contents while also providing further indication that the device has been opened. With respect to “heat-sealed”, the Office notes that the claim is being treated as product-by-process limitations and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art discloses sealing (as in fig 1). The Office notes that if there is any question to hermetically heat-sealed, Official Notice is taken, that it is old and conventional to the above Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of the Official Notice to hermetically heat-sealed in order to provide a package that remains secure as desired while protecting the intended contents and permits desired opening. The Office notes that Sullivan also discloses heat sealing (paragraph 26 with material and liner).
With respect to Applicant’s amendment to metallized polymer film, Caldwell discloses the above material within an outer layer (paragraph 16, as well as paragraph 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Caldwell (by providing the above material within an outer layer) in order to provide known materials that are food safe as well as providing a desired degree of bending stiffness in order to retain shape and provide protection.
With respect to Applicant’s amendment to the periphery of the center portion terminating in an outwardly turning curve, the Office notes that Fujii also discloses the above as demonstrated in the below figure where the portion terminates at curve that turns outward toward the outside of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujii further discloses:
46. The packaging assembly of claim 45, wherein the self-supporting liner comprises: a side wall, and a bottom wall integrally formed with the side wall and cooperating with the side wall to define the volume of the self-supporting liner (walls of the liner shown in fig 1, such as at side, lower portions).
47. The packaging assembly of claim 45, wherein the peel-reseal lidding material is sealed to the self-supporting liner on the flange portion (as in figs 1-3).
50. The packaging assembly of claim 45, wherein the outwardly projecting rim is configured to receive a top edge of a carton for securing the self-supporting liner to the carton (the Office notes that Applicant has chosen to not positively claim the above, and the device is capable of receiving another elements such as in a telescoping manner).
3. Claim(s) 45-47, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (JP2006341875) in view of Sierra Gomez (20050247764) and Kocher (6033758) and Caldwell (US 20100320206 A1)
Fujii discloses:
45. A packaging assembly (figs 1-4), comprising: a self-supporting liner (2) having a closed bottom end (portion at the lower end of 2) and an open top end (opposite the bottom), the open top end defining a first opening extending into a volume of the self-supporting liner (empty space in between perimeter top portion), the self- supporting liner comprising a flange portion positioned around a periphery of the first opening (“flange portion 7”); and a peel-reseal lidding material connected to the flange portion and sealing the volume defined by the self-supporting liner (3, 5), the peel-reseal lidding material comprising: a resealable outer layer including an outer layer edge (5 with perimeter portion); and an interior second layer disposed between the resealable outer layer and the volume (3), the interior second layer having a center portion and a remaining portion (portion within 8 and 4 and also portion not within 8 and 4), the center portion being at least partially separable from the remaining portion along a periphery of the center portion such that the center portion is movable to form a second opening through the interior second layer (capable of performing the above intended use, such as via portion of 8 and 4), wherein: in a closed position of the peel-reseal lidding material the resealable outer layer is sealed to the remaining portion and the center portion of the interior second layer across the periphery of the center portion in order to seal the volume; in an open position of the peel-reseal lidding material the outer layer and the center portion of the second layer are moved to expose the volume (Capable of performing the above intended use as shown in figs 1-3 during the shown processes); and the outer layer is configured to be resealable to the remaining portion of the second layer, thereby allowing the peel-reseal lidding material to be moved from the closed position to the open position and back into the closed position (Capable of performing the above intended use as shown in figs 1-3 during the shown processes).
With respect to a tamper-evident system comprising a second lidding material disposed between the peel-reseal lidding material and the volume, wherein tamper-evident system is attached to the self-supporting liner and the peel-reseal lidding material is attached to the tamper-evident system and the self-supporting liner, Sierra Gomez discloses a tamper-evident system comprising a second lidding material disposed between the peel-reseal lidding material and the volume, wherein tamper-evident system is attached to the self-supporting liner and the peel-reseal lidding material is attached to the tamper-evident system and the self-supporting liner (adjacent element 62, though not required the Office notes that reference also discloses two layers above as 16, 20 with volume below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fujii in view of Sierra Gomez (by providing the above layer between the existing second layer material/tamper evident system with portions and liner/volume) in order to provide additional protection for the contents while also providing further indication that the device has been opened. With respect to “heat-sealed”, the Office notes that the claim is being treated as product-by-process limitations and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art discloses sealing (as in fig 1). The Office notes that if there is any question to hermetically heat-sealed, Official Notice is taken, that it is old and conventional to the above Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of the Official Notice to hermetically heat-sealed in order to provide a package that remains secure as desired while protecting the intended contents and permits desired opening. The Office notes that Sullivan also discloses heat sealing (paragraph 26 with material and liner). If there is any question to the peel-reseal material and system/second lidding material being heat sealed, the Office notes that Kocher teaches the above (fig 5, col. 14: 4-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view Kocher (by ensuring the above layers of material are heat sealed) in order to improve bond strength between the layers to ensure that the elements remain attached until separation from the device is desired by the user.
With respect to Applicant’s amendment to metallized polymer film, Caldwell discloses the above material within an outer layer (paragraph 16, as well as paragraph 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Caldwell (by providing the above material within an outer layer) in order to provide known materials that are food safe as well as providing a desired degree of bending stiffness in order to retain shape and provide protection.
With respect to Applicant’s amendment to the periphery of the center portion terminating in an outwardly turning curve, the Office notes that Fujii also discloses the above as demonstrated in the below figure where the portion terminates at curve that turns outward toward the outside of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujii further discloses:
46. The packaging assembly of claim 45, wherein the self-supporting liner comprises: a side wall, and a bottom wall integrally formed with the side wall and cooperating with the side wall to define the volume of the self-supporting liner (walls of the liner shown in fig 1, such as at side, lower portions).
47. The packaging assembly of claim 45, wherein the peel-reseal lidding material is sealed to the self-supporting liner on the flange portion (as in figs 1-3).
50. The packaging assembly of claim 45, wherein the outwardly projecting rim is configured to receive a top edge of a carton for securing the self-supporting liner to the carton (the Office notes that Applicant has chosen to not positively claim the above, and the device is capable of receiving another elements such as in a telescoping manner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the modification with the additional layer would render the secondary reference inoperable for its intended purpose. Applicant’s argument is moot as the intended purpose of the secondary reference is not in question. The layer of the secondary reference is added between the liner and existing material of the primary reference. Furthermore, the intended purpose of the primary reference is store contents in a secure manner while providing access thereto and therefore the intended purpose is enhanced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fujii in view of Sierra Gomez (by providing the above layer between the existing second layer material/tamper evident system with portions and liner/volume) in order to provide additional protection for the contents while also providing further indication that the device has been opened. Furthermore, in Applicant’s own invention, Applicant has provided “ [0100] To access the contents within the plastic liner 1050, the lidding material 1006 can be broken, torn, cut, pierced through, or the like. For example, an X shaped cut may open the lidding material 1006 to provide access into the container. An example cut 1023 through the lidding material is illustrated in FIG. 13D. Preferably, the lidding material 1006 can be broken, torn, or pierced through using a sharp object such as a knife, scissors, or the like. In some configurations, an indicator or marking can be provided instructing a user the preferred area to cut.”. Applicant then states that the prior art does not disclose heat sealing. With respect to a tamper-evident system comprising a second lidding material disposed between the peel-reseal lidding material and the volume, wherein tamper-evident system is attached to the self-supporting liner and the peel-reseal lidding material is attached to the tamper-evident system and the self-supporting liner, Sierra Gomez discloses a tamper-evident system comprising a second lidding material disposed between the peel-reseal lidding material and the volume, wherein tamper-evident system is attached to the self-supporting liner and the peel-reseal lidding material is attached to the tamper-evident system and the self-supporting liner (adjacent element 62, though not required the Office notes that reference also discloses two layers above as 16, 20 with volume below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fujii in view of Sierra Gomez (by providing the above layer between the existing second layer material/tamper evident system with portions and liner/volume) in order to provide additional protection for the contents while also providing further indication that the device has been opened. With respect to “heat-sealed”, the Office notes that the claim is being treated as product-by-process limitations and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art discloses sealing (as in fig 1). The Office notes that if there is any question to hermetically heat-sealed, Official Notice is taken, that it is old and conventional to the above Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of the Official Notice to hermetically heat-sealed in order to provide a package that remains secure as desired while protecting the intended contents and permits desired opening. The Office notes that Sullivan also discloses heat sealing (paragraph 26 with material and liner). If there is any question to the peel-reseal material and system/second lidding material being heat sealed, the Office notes that Kocher teaches the above (fig 5, col. 14: 4-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view Kocher (by ensuring the above layers of material are heat sealed) in order to improve bond strength between the layers to ensure that the elements remain attached until separation from the device is desired by the user.
Accordingly, Applicant/Appellant has not demonstrated error in the factual findings or reasoning set forth by the Office and the Office must maintain the rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-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, 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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735