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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the filing of 07/14/2025. Claims 13-25 are currently pending.
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 (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 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 inventio n 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) 13-14, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Beer (USP 5820953) and further in view of Halek (USP 4223128).
Regarding Claim 13, Beer discloses a method for the production and filling of
containers (Column 1, lines 45-61, process of producing thermoformed multiple packages made of plastic to contain a packaged material) designed to contain food (Column 3, line 46, a thermoformed multiple packages for liquids such as jam), the method including the following steps:
- shaping a sheet (Figs. 1-7 and Column 3, lines 42-63, system 30 is in the form of a sheet of thermoformed multiple packages, cups 32, wherein a process of shaping a sheet is required to produce the thermoformed packages, additionally, the action of laser 20 on system 30 to produce break points 12 is a shaping process on a sheet, film 10 and cup 32) made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) (Column 2 lines 50-60, polyethylene terephthalate is a preferred type of plastic used) in order to provide a plurality of accommodation receptacles (32-Fig.
7) provided with at least one access inlet (Fig. 6, open-end of cup 32),
filling, through said access inlet, said accommodation receptacles with at least one food (Column 3, lines 42-63, the fill product, jam, can only be placed into cup 32 through the open end of cup 32),
sealing said at least one access inlet by means of a closure film (Column 3, lines 42-63 and Figs. 6-7, film 10 is sealed to cups 32), and
providing a weakened portion (12-Fig. 7) at a connecting edge between at least two adjacent accommodation receptacles (Fig. 7, system 30 is a plurality of adjacent cups 32), said provision step comprising a step of emission of laser radiation (22-Fig.
1) at least one portion of said connecting edge (Fig. 7, point 12 is about the perimeter of cup 32) in order to provide a localized reduction of a transverse cross-section of said
connecting edge along said weakened portion (Column 4, lines 3-9, the predetermined breaking points can be produced by perforations formed by means of laser beams, wherein it is noted that forming a perforation requires at least some removal of material from the breaking points, which is equivalent to a localized reduction of a transverse cross-section).
However, Beer is silent regarding:
said PET sheet having an initial degree of crystallinity lower than or equal to 10%; and
a final degree of crystallinity at said weakened portion after said step of emission of laser radiation having a deviation of 3% from the initial degree of crystallinity, whereby the degree of crystallinity is the initial degree of crystallinity in the range of 5% to 10%.
Halek teaches a PET sheet having an initial degree of crystallinity in the range of 5% to 10% (Column 4, lines 65-68, the amorphous PET has crystallinity of less than 10% with a typical range of 4-8%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the PET material as disclosed by Beer, to have incorporated the PET material as taught by Halek, so incorporate an amorphous PET material with a low crystallinity, which can be heated above the glass transition temperature of the material, in order to allow the material to be shaped into a desired container shape, (Halek, abstract).
Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541
F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d
1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim
reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
In this instance, Halek discloses a PET material used in container making which has a crystallinity of less than 10% and a preference of 4-8%, wherein the PET material of Halek has an overlapping range of crystallinity with that of the applicant’s range of crystallinity.
Regarding the limitation of “a final degree of crystallinity at said weakened portion after said step of emission of laser radiation having a deviation of 3% from the initial degree of crystallinity, whereby the degree of crystallinity is the initial degree of crystallinity lower than or equal to 10%”.
The examiner notes that, Beer and as modified by Halek, wherein the PET material of Beer would have the initial crystallinity as claimed by the applicant, and the examiner notes that crystallinity of a PET is a mechanical or physical property of the PET material and that Beer discloses modifying the mechanical properties of a plastic
film with laser beam (Column 1, line 62 to Column 2, line 2 and Column 3, lines 1-10, a laser beam modifies the mechanical property of the PET material, which may be regard as embrittlement, and the examiner notes that, wherein the laser would irradiate the PET material and increase the brittleness of the PET material by crystalizing the PET material, which would increase the fragility of the PET material; and applicant’s specification (page 2, lines 19-24) denotes that fragility is proportional to crystallinity, as such, the examiner is interpreting embrittlement
and crystallinity as the same mechanical or physical properties of the PET
Material because they both pertain to the fragility of the PET material), and while
Beer, as modified by Halek, discloses the claimed invention except for 3% deviation
from the initial crystallinity of the PET material after the material is irradiated by the laser. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify Beer such that the irradiation of the PET material with a laser would produce the claimed 3% deviation from the initial crystallinity by adjusting the power of the laser and/or the time the PET material is exposed to the laser emissions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, Applicant has not provided any criticality to the specific 3%.
Regarding Claim 14, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses wherein the thickness of said connecting edge is comprised between 300
microns and 1800 microns (Claim 5, plastic film has an overlapping thickness range of 6-1000 microns).
Regarding Claim 18, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses wherein said provision step is adapted to provide a localized reduction of said connecting edge that is substantially constant along a longitudinal extension of said weakened portion (Column 3, lines 42-63, excess material between the cups at the break points can be removed by a laser, which is interpreted as a localized reduction of the longitudinal connecting edge, Fig. 3, point 12 is considered excess material between the cups).
Regarding Claim 22, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses wherein said step of provision of a weakened portion is performed after said sealing step (Fig. 1, laser 20 is applied to predetermine points 12 on a seal form to seal cups 32 as shown in Figs. 6-7, wherein the seal has to be formed before laser 20 creates points 12).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer (USP
5820953) and further in view of Halek (USP 4223128) as applied to the parent claim, and further in view of Murschall (USP 6187422).
Regarding Claim 15, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses the sheet of made of PET.
However, Beer is silent regarding the sheet of PET being transparent.
Murschall teaches said sheet made of PET comprises a sheet made of transparent PET (Column 2, lines 16-19, transparent sheet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the sheet made of PET as disclosed by Beer, to have incorporated the transparent sheet of PET as taught by Murschall, so have a PET sheet with good optical properties, in order to allow the PET sheet to be utilized in packaging which requires the contents of the package to be viewed for the outside of the packaging.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer
(USP 5820953) and as modified Halek (USP 4223128) in the parent claim, and further in view of Huang (US Pub 20130284711).
Regarding Claim 16, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses wherein the provision step comprises a step of emission of laser radiation which has a power, and a travel speed across the connecting edge.
However, Beer and as modified by Halek is silent regarding the emission of laser
radiation which has a power comprised between 250 W and 1500 W, and a travel speed across the connecting edge comprised between 15 m/min and 170 m/min.
Huang teaches a laser (abstract, high-focalized continuous wave
laser beam) with an emission of laser radiation which has a power comprised between 250 W and 1500 W (Abstract, 1000-3000 W), and a travel speed across the connecting
edge comprised between 15 m/min and 170 m/min (Abstract, scanning speed is 100-400 m/min).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the laser as disclosed by Beer, to have incorporated the laser with the laser emission as taught by Huang, so to utilize a laser with high powered laser emission in a packaging process, in order to increase the speed at which the laser can score a packaging material (Huang, paragraph [0001]).
Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d
1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim
reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art referenc e] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
The examiner further notes Beer (Column 3, lines 28-36), the intensity of the laser beam employed is dependent on material thickness and chemical composition,
and the intensity of the laser output is sufficient to be able to carry out all the steps at conventional packaging speeds, Beer discloses the claimed invention except for the laser emission of the claimed power and travel speed, but, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have adjust the laser emission of the claimed power and travel speed based on the thickness and type of material used in the packaging process, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is laser power and scanning speed which achieves the recognized result of watts and speed parameter to modify the material properties of the material used in the packaging process, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6
(CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). OR if
you have ranges without a result effective variable, you can argue routine experimentation. 2144.05. II.A.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art disclose(s) the invention as claimed above, Beer
further discloses wherein the provision step comprises a step of emission of laser radiation which has a power of more than 500 W and a travel speed across the connecting edge greater than 60 m/min (Abstract, wattage and scan speed are greater than the claimed limitations).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer (USP
5820953) and as modified Halek (USP 4223128) in the parent claim, and further in view of Henke (US Pub 20090314664).
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art disclose(s) the invention as claimed above, Beer
Further discloses wherein said provision step is adapted to series of points along said connecting edge which are mutually spaced in order to provide said weakened portion (Figs. 2-4, laser 20 creates a series of mutually spaced points 12 along a weakened portion 14).
However, the prior art is silent that the step is adapted to provide a plurality of through openings on the weakened portion of the connecting edge.
Henke teaches a step is adapted to provide a plurality of through openings (paragraph [0047], the perforations between the cavities are formed through the sheet by a laser) on the weakened portion (6-Fig. 3) of the connecting edge (Fig. 3, tear-off aid 6 creates a linear connecting edge between cavities 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified process of the laser modifying the mechanical properties of the material along a linear section of break points, to have incorporated the laser perforating the break points as through holes, so to further enhance the linear section with a perforation, in order to allow the cups to be separated from one another along the linear section (Henke, paragraph [0048]).
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Beer (USP 5820953) and as modified Halek (USP 4223128) in the parent claim, and further in view of Okamura (US Pub 20110051053).
Regarding Claim 20, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses the method of the parent claim, and the use of a laser to modify a mechanical property, and Halek teaches a sheet of PET material having the initial degree of crystallinity, wherein the crystallizable thermoplastic is measured (Abstract).
However, Beer and Halek are silent regarding:
wherein a calculation of the degree of crystallinity of a region of interest is subjected to the step of emission of the laser radiation is obtained by performing analysis by Raman microscopy on at least three points of the specimen and by means of interpolation in a calibration curve of a mean value of FWHH calculated on a signal that covers a Raman shift interval comprised between 1700-1760 cm-1.
The examiner notes that, the applicant is claiming a means to determine the crystallinity of the PET material, and Halek discloses the crystallinity of a sheet of PET material, and that a means for determining the crystallinity must be employed to determine the crystallinity of the material of Halek, as such, the means for determine the crystallinity of the material are equivalent because both means solve the same problem of determining crystallinity of the PET material.
Additionally, the examiner cites Okamura, paragraph [0140] and Fig. 2A, wherein Okamura teaches the use of micro-Raman spectrometry to determine the crystallinity of
a film, wherein in Fig. 2A, the film is the region of interest and the change in color dictates crystallinity at different points in the film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have substitute the measurement means to determine the crystallinity of a material, as taught by Okamura, to incorporated the micro-Raman spectrometry of a film to determine the crystallinity of a material; because the substitution would have yield predictable result of the crystallinity of the material and the substitution would solve the same problem of localized crystallinity at multiple points on sheet of film.
Regarding Claim 21, Beer and as modified Halek and Okamura in the parent
claim, Beer has disclosed the method of production and filling and the localized reduction of the weakened portion of the connecting web between the cups; Halek has taught the crystallinity of the material; and Okamura has taught the crystallinity degree at least three points on a sheet of material.
The examiner notes the recitation of “or” in line 5 presents an alternative choice to which limitations the “or” pertains to, and the examiner has chosen to examiner the limitations proceeding the “or” alternative choice.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer
(USP 5820953) and as modified Halek (USP 4223128) in the parent claim, and further in view of Py (US Pub 20130008137).
Regarding Claim 23, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses the shaping step for forming the containers in the parent claim.
However, Beer and modified by Halek is silent regarding a sterilization step performed upstream or downstream of said shaping step.
Py teaches method of production and filling of containers (Fig. 1) and a step of sterilization a container (Fig. 1, station 14 sterilizes device 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the method of packaging as disclose by Beer, to have incorporated the sterilization step as taught by Py, so to ensure the food product packaged within a container is free of biological contaminants, in order to prevent food spoilage.
Regarding Claim 24, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses said emission step,
However, Beer and modified by Halek are silent regarding a step of extraction of gases and volatile substances.
Py teaches a step of extraction of gases and volatile substances (Fig. 1, step 18, vacuum device 46 removes gases and volatile substances from device 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the method of packaging as disclose by Beer, to have incorporated the vacuum device as taught by Py, so to evacuate the container of air before filling the container with a food product, in order to prevent food spoilage.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer (USP
5820953) and as modified Halek (USP 4223128) in the parent claim, and further in view of Clarke (US Pub 20180305074).
Regarding Claim 25, Beer and as modified Halek in the parent claim, Beer
discloses the localized reduction of the transverse cross-section.
However, Beer and as modified by Halek is silent regarding “wherein the localized reduction of the transverse cross-section is at least equal to 50%, at least equal to 70%, or at least equal to 80% with respect to the initial cross-section”
Clarke teaches wherein a localized reduction (20-Fig. 2), formed by a laser (paragraph [0026]), of a transverse cross-section (10-Fig. 2) is at least equal to 50%, at least equal to 70%, or at least equal to 80% with respect to the initial cross-section (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0026], groove 20 has a depth which is from 40 to 80% of the thickness of layer 12, the examiner notes that a groove is equivalent to a transverse cross-section and the thickness of 12 outside of groove 20 is the initial cross-section thickness, wherein groove 20 is a percentage of reduction of material from layer 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application, to have modified how the laser modifies the transverse cross-section, as disclosed by Beer, to have incorporated the transverse cross-section, with a groove cut by a laser, with a depth of 40-80% in the original thickness of layer of material, as taught by Clarke, so to create a frangible
weakened line portion in a lid portion, in order to allow the lid to be removed from the package (Clarke, paragraph [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 6, regarding: “limitation (a), Applicant respectfully asserts that there is no motivation to combine Beer with Halek/Halek teaches away (increase rigidity) from the intended crystallization (increase embrittlement) of the primary reference of Beer.
The examiner disagrees as the references are reasonably combinable in that Halek teaches an initial crystallinity of 4% to 8%; page 5 lines 2-5 of Halek teaches the relationship/correlation of crystallinity with the rigidity of the product. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would be able to determine the optimal range of crystallinity for the desired rigidity of the product based on the teachings of Halek.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 7, regarding: “limitation (b), particularly "said connecting edge in order to provide a localized reduction of a transverse cross-section of said connecting edge along said weakened portion". The Examiner alleges, at page 5 of the Action, that forming a perforation is equivalent to a localized reduction of a transverse cross-section. Applicant respectfully disagrees”
The examiner disagrees because the claim language requires “said connecting edge in order to provide a localized reduction of a transverse cross-section of said connecting edge along said weakened portion”, wherein the localized reduction of the
transverse cross-section can be interpreted as a perforation, because to form a perforation, the process would require the laser to remove material from portions of the transverse cross-section, which results in a localized reduction of the transverse cross-section.
In response to applicant’s argument on pages 7-8, regarding: “limitation (c), the Examiner concedes at page 7 of the Action, that Beer modified by Halek does not disclose the 3% deviation from the initial crystallinity of the PET material. The Office Action generally alleges, without a reasonable basis, that it would have been obvious to modify Beer such that the irradiation of the PET material with a laser would produce the claimed 3% deviation because essentially it involves only routine skill in the art.
Applicant respectfully disagrees”
The examiner disagrees because applicant’s specification fails to provide any criticality for the claimed 3% deviation, as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the claimed 3% deviation can be achieved by routine testing, such as varying the power of the laser and/or the laser exposer time on the material, wherein the claimed 3% deviation would not be considered a novel concept.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANNA K KINSAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731