DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 3, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 16-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli (US 20040232595) in view of Meadors (US 3,584,109) in view of Martin (US 4,192,701).
As to claim 1, Bartoli teaches a tool for thermoforming a container having a base and upstanding side walls. Bartoli provides a mould (Fig. 3, item 10) having a profile shaped to form an exterior of the container (13), a plug (11) adapted to be inserted in the mould to define an interior of the container, the plug having a lower face (11a on bottom of 11) adapted to define a base of the container, and a pressure box (14) engageable with the mould (10). The Bartoli pressure box is adapted to apply gas pressure to the interior and sidewalls of a container material forming the container into contact with the mould (16 and [0087]). Bartoli’s apparatus is configured to securely clamp material between the mould and the plug throughout the moulding process so that the side wall or walls of the container could be subjected to a first pressure either by pressurized air applied through hole 16 ([0087]) or by pressing the walls of the plug (11a) toward the mould walls (13). The second pressure is not stated to be associated with any particular apparatus feature and is therefore interpreted to be an intended use that could be met by Bartoli.
Bartoli is silent to (1) the lower face of the plug having a plurality of grooves adapted to form a plurality of ribs upstanding in the base of the container and a vacuum pipe connected to the lower face of the plug which permits simultaneous apply different pressures to the base and side walls, and (2) wherein the lower face of the plug has a peripheral groove or rib extending around a periphery of the base between the side wall or walls of the container and the base, wherein the peripheral groove or rib mates with a corresponding peripheral rib or groove on or in the mould to clamp the material between the mold and plug.
Regarding (1), Martin teaches a thermoforming tool for a container (Fig. 4) and a plug (20) adapted to define a base of a container with a plurality of grooves adapted to form a plurality of ribs upstanding in the base of the container by application of vacuum to the interior of the container at the base through a vacuum pipe (74) connected (through items 72 and 70) to the lower face of the plug. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Martin ribs into the Bartoli apparatus in order to provide physical strength and improved insulating characteristics (Martin, column 1) to the Bartoli article.
Regarding (2), Meadors teaches a thermoforming tool for a container having a base and upstanding wall (Fig. 2). The Meadors tool includes a mold having a profile shaped to form the exterior shape of the container and a plug inserted into the mold to define the interior of the container. The Meadors plug defines the profile of the base of the container and has a peripheral rib extending around the periphery of the base adjacent the sidewall of the container which mates with a corresponding peripheral groove on or in the mold in order to securely clamp material between the mold and plug. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Meadors peripheral rib and corresponding groove into the Bartoli apparatus in order to provide a rib for the Bartoli article to rest upon and to increase the stiffness of the base.
As to claim 16, Meadors and Martin collectively provide ribs in the base of a (Bartoli) container to provide a number of compartments having the claimed capability (Fig. 8). Since there is only one rib (102), Martin does not appear to meet the claimed “ribs”. However, duplication of parts to provide an article having a larger number of compartments would have been prima facie obvious. As to claim 17, Martin provides concentric ribs (Fig. 7) capable of receiving and locating a large fruit. As to claim 18, the relative height of the ribs in the Martin article provided to Meadors would be an obvious matter of design choice, and the ordinary artisan would have selected any appropriate height for the article being placed in the article formed in the Martin tool. As to claim 22, the Bartoli device is capable of providing pressure within the pressure box ([0087]) and vacuum at the lower face of the plug (through vertical item 16a). The order in which these occur (“while” or simultaneously) constitutes an intended use that does not change the structure of the apparatus.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli (US 20040232595) in view of Meadors (US 3,584,109) in view of Martin (US 4,192,701), and further in view of Treccani (US 20140374472). Bartoli, Meadors, and Martin teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 4, Bartoli, Meadors and Martin are silent to the grooves arranged in a spaced parallel relationship. Treccani provides a plug with grooves in a spaced parallel relationship (Fig. 8A, see 101). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the Treccani rib configuration for the similar rib configuration of Meadors and Martin.
As to claims 5, 6, and 7, Meadors teaches a replaceable insert (16), but is silent to the insert removably secured to a recess in the lower face of the plug to permit forming different base profiles.
Treccani teaches a plug/die (14) and aremovable inset (14’) located in a recess of the plug. In view of Treccani, one would have recognized that the Bartoli tool could be provided with a replaceable insert.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Treccanio insert into Bartoli because one would have found it desirable to change the insert configuration to produce different contours or prolong the life of the tool by replacing the insert.
Claims 5, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli (US 20040232595) in view of Meadors (US 3,584,109) in view of Martin (US 4,192,701), and further in view of Sawada (US 20090039556). Bartoli, Meadors and Martin teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 5, 6, and 7, Meadors teaches a replaceable insert (16), but is silent to the insert removably secured to a recess in the lower face of the plug to permit forming different base profiles.
Sawada teaches a plug/mold (10) and an inset (11) located in a recess of the plug. In view of Sawada, one would have recognized that the Bartoli tool could be provided with a replaceable insert.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Sawada insert into Bartoli because one would have found it desirable to change the insert configuration to produce different contours or prolong the life of the tool by replacing the insert.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli (US 20040232595) in view of Meadors (US 3,584,109) in view of Martin (US 4,192,701) and further in view of Roland (US 3,561,019). Bartoli, Meadors and Martin teach the subject matter of claim 17 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 18, Bartoli does not specifically teach the claimed increase in height away from the axis of the concentric ribs to form a shallow cup adapted to cushion and locate a fruit.
However, Roland teaches rib heights (5, 6, 9) that increase in height away from the center of an article being held in order to adapt to the curvature of the article. In the combination with Martin, one would have recognized from Roland that the Martin ribs could be provided with increasing height away from the center of the Martin ribs in order to conform to the curvature of an article being held.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Roland into Bartoli because conforming the package to a specific article would hold the article more securely within the package.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 3, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to be on the grounds that the claims have been amended to include a vacuum pipe connected to the lower face of the plug to apply vacuum to the interior of the container at the base and a pressure box engageable with the mold to provide gas pressure to the interior walls of the container. Applicant reviews the prior art in the existing rejection, and argues that there is no discussion of applying pressure and vacuum to the interior of a container.
While it is true that no single reference includes all claimed features, the Examiner maintains that the rejection over Bartoli in view of Meadors and Martin is valid and teaches all claimed features. The Examiner does not see any persuasive reason that the Bartoli pressure box would not provide gas pressure to the interior of the container at the side walls. Martin shows that a vacuum (applied through a pipe) can be beneficially provided to cause conformance of material to grooves in the lower face of a plug and form ribs. Especially in this claim directed to an apparatus without any mention of a controller, the Examiner maintains that the claimed apparatus features are provided by this combination of references. After affirmance of a rejection over these same references, the Examiner believes that a valid rationale or motivation is present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights