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 Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not further define independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 33 and 34 recites the limitation “the tab” or “the molded tab”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-7, 23-14, 28, 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 1,560,681) in view of Broyles (US 2012/0188692) and Bowers (US 2011/0297681) further in view of Sarson (US 2015/0210443).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Fisher (figs.1-6) discloses a package comprising:
a body including peelable strips 13, 14, 15 defined by perforation lines 10, 11, 12, the peelable strips 13, 14, 15 forming all of an external facing side of the body and the peelable strips being formed from a single layer that is configured for molding equatorially around a usable material 22, wherein:
each of the peelable strips 13, 14, 15 includes a tab 16 on an external facing side of the peelable strip for peeling away the peelable strips 13, 14, 15 from the body to access the usable material 22 contained within the package, the tab 16 being formed by an overlapping portion of the single layer,
the perforation lines 10, 11, 12 are equatorial relative to the body,
a removable cap 21 configured to fit on each of the peelable strips, wherein each of the peelable strips 13, 14, 15 provides mechanical retention of the removable cap, the removable cap is configured to snap fit or friction fit to each of the peelable strips, and the removably cap 21 is configured to contain an exposed portion of the usable material that is past the peelable strips; and
a seal 20 that is separate from the body, wherein a size of the seal is greater than a size of the body.
Fisher fails to disclose:
the peelable strips being recyclable or biodegradable and the peelable strips being formed from a single bio-based resin film layer;
the perforation lines 10, 11, 12 being on an internal facing side of the body and the external facing side of the body is without any perforation lines, including the perforation lines that define the peelable strips; and
the seal 20 being fused only to a lower most edge of a lower most one of the peelable strips.
However, Broyles teaches a mono-layer film having a total bio-based content of up to 100% capable of molding around a usable material (paragraphs 0009 and 00085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the material of the peelable strips of Fisher, a single bio-based resin film layer capable of molding equatorially around a usable material, as taught by Broyles, to reduce environmental impact and waste while maintaining adequate mechanical performance.
Further, Bowers teaches a package having perforation lines 20 located on an inner surface, outer surface or both (figs. 6A-6D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have located the perforation lines of Fisher on the internal facing side, as taught by Bowers, in order to maintain a clean or aesthetically pleasing exterior appearance while retaining the desired perforation functionality.
Regarding the seal being fused to an edge of one of the peelable strips, Sarson teaches a bottom being fused with a sidewall (paragraph 0342).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the seal of the modified Fisher, a bottom fused to the sidewalls, as taught by Sarson, to improve strength, and leak resistance.
Regarding claim 6, Fisher further discloses the removable cap 21 being configured for fitting back on remaining peelable strips when one of the peelable strips is peeled away from the body (col. 3, lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Fisher further discloses the perforation lines are formed by slitting the body (fig. 10). Also, 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.
Regarding claim 23, Bowers further teaches the body being a molded frame that is molded around the usable material (figs. 11B-C and paragraphs 0027-0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have formed the body of the modified Fisher around the usable material as further taught by Bowers, to simplify assembly by positioning and enclosing the contents in a single operation.
Regarding claim 28, the modified Fisher further discloses the body being a hybrid package that contains a combination of semi-rigid, flexible, composite, and paper-based materials (paragraph 0079-0083 of Broyles).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Fisher further discloses a size of the seal (i.e. diameter of bottom 48 in fig. 8B of Sarson) is greater than a size (i.e. diameter of end 40) of the body (fig. 8B of Sarson).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Fisher further discloses the tab 16 of each of the peelable strips being formed by the overlapping portion of the single bio-based resin film layer such that the tab is free of contact with a respective one of the peelable strips prior to a user grasping the tab (fig. 2).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 2,717,619) in view of Strait (US 2010/0230405), Bowers (US 2011/0297681) and further in view of Targoff (US 10,421,583).
Regarding claims 10-12, Whitman (figs. 1-4) discloses a package comprising:
a stack of interconnected tearaway bands 3 having one or more line of weaknesses 4 between the tearaway bands 3, wherein the stack of interconnected tearaway bands 3 form an external facing side of the package;
a seal 2 formed with an edge of one of the interconnected tearaway bands 3 such that the seal 2 and the stack of interconnected tearaway bands 3 are formed with one another to form a body of the package, the body contains a usable material,
the body is a molded, semi-rigid, that is molded to form an injection molded frame such that the usable material is contained within the package; and
a removable cap 5 configured to fit on each of the interconnected tearaway bands and capable of containing the portion of the usable material, wherein;
each of the interconnected tearaway bands 3 includes a mechanism (i.e., the curved shape) for retaining the removable cap and the seal is positioned external to the interconnected tearaway bands at an axial end of the body that opposes an end of the body configured to retain the removable cap; and
each of the interconnected tearaway bands is peelable from the body to access the usable material.
Whitman fails to disclose:
the one or more line of weaknesses 4 being one or more internal perforation lines;
the body being biodegradable material; and
a portion of the usable material is positioned beyond the interconnected tearaway bands such that the usable material is exposed; and
the mechanism for retaining the removable cap 5 includes a molded tab on an external facing side of the body, the removable cap is configured to connect to each of the interconnected tearaway bands via the molded tab.
However, Strait teaches a container made of injection molded biodegradable material (paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the body of Whitman, of a biodegradable material, as taught by Strait, to reduce environmental impact and waste while maintaining adequate mechanical performance.
Further, Bowers teaches line of weaknesses made by internal line of perforations, and
a portion of the usable material positioned beyond the interconnected tearaway bands such that the usable material is exposed (figs. 6A-D and 11B-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have located perforation lines on the internal facing side of the device of the modified Whitman, as taught by Bowers, in order to maintain a clean or aesthetically pleasing exterior appearance while retaining a desired perforation functionality.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have exposed a portion of the usable material of the modified Whitman, as taught by Bowers, for easy accessibility.
Targoff teaches a container having a replaceable cap 20 being snap/ friction fit to a top most peelable strip, wherein each of the peelable strips include a mechanical retention of the replaceable cap (col. 4, lines 60-67 and col. 5, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided top most peelable strip of the modified device of Bowers, snap and friction fit cap, wherein each of the peelable strips include a mechanical retention, as taught by Targoff, to protect the content and prevent the cap from being removed unintentionally. The bead 22 of Targoff can be located on the cover or the tearaway bands, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Whitman further discloses the removable cap being configured to snap fit to each of the interconnected tearaway bands (Targoff col. 4, lines 60-67 and col. 5, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Whitman further discloses the removable cap being configured to friction fit each of the interconnected tearaway bands (Targoff col. 4, lines 60-67 and col. 5, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Whitman further discloses each of the interconnected tearaway bands includes a mechanical retention of the removable cap (Targoff col. 4, lines 60-67 and col. 5, lines 1-4). The bead 22 of Targoff can be located on the cover or the tearaway bands, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Whitman further discloses the removable cap being configured to frictionally fit with the each of the tearaway bands to connect the removable cap and the body (figs. 1-4).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 2,717,619) in view of Strait (US 2010/0230405), Bowers (US 2011/0297681) and Targoff (US 10,421,583) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Fisher (US 1,560,681).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Whitman discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for a tab of each of the interconnected tearaway bands formed such that the tab is without contact with a respective one of the interconnected tearaway bands prior to a user grasping the molded tab.
However, Fisher teaches a container having tabs 16 (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the peelable strips of the modified Whitman tabs, as taught by Fisher, for easily grabbing and peeling the strips.
Claims 18, 27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 2,717,619) in view of Bowers (US 2011/0297681) and Timmerman (US 2013/0302591) and further in view of Cage (US 2,969,902).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Whitman (figs. 1-4) discloses a package comprising:
a molded frame that includes a plurality of peelable strips 3 interconnected by line of weakness 4 between the plurality of peelable strips 3, wherein the molded frame is an injection molded frame that is molded to contain a usable material within the package; and
a seal 2 that is bonded to an edge of the molded frame.
Whitman fails to disclose:
the line of weakness 4 being perforation lines;
a film that is a paper, biodegradable layer that is in-mold labeled around the molded frame to fuse the film to the molded frame during an injection molding process of the molded frame, wherein the film includes:
a plurality of perforation lines defining peelable layers, the plurality of perforation lines formed on an internal facing layer of the film, wherein the peelable layers are molded such that each of the peelable layers includes a tab on an external facing layer of the film, a portion of ends of the films overlap to establish the tab of each of the peelable layers, the film is in-mold labeled around the molded frame to position the peelable layers of the film with a corresponding one of the plurality of peelable strips of the molded frame, and an external facing side of the film is without the plurality of perforation lines, and
the seal 2 being bonded to an edge of the molded frame by fusing the seal to the edge of the film during the injection molded process of the molded frame,
wherein each peelable layer of the film is removeable with a respective one of the peelable strips of the molded frame to access the usable material contained within the package.
However, Bowers teaches line of weaknesses made by internal line of perforations (figs. 6A-D and 11B-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the line of weakness of Whitman, perforation lines on the internal facing side of the device of the modified Whitman, as taught by Bowers, in order to maintain a clean or aesthetically pleasing exterior appearance while retaining a desired perforation functionality.
Further, Timmerman teaches in-mold labeling of paper during the manufacturing of containers (paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the modified device of Whitman, an in-mold label made of paper, as taught by Timmerman, in order to provide a label.
However, Cage teaches a label or film 22 (having perforation lines) being molded around a body wherein peelable layer of the film is removeable with a respective one of the peelable strips of a container to access a useable material contained within the package (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the label of the modified device of Whitman, perforation lines, as taught by Cage in order to easily remove the label when a peelable strip is removed.
Further, 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.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Whitman further discloses each peelable layer and the corresponding one of the plurality of peelable strips are removable with one another during peeling (figs. 1-4 of Whitman).
Regarding claim 32, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 2,717,619) in view of Bowers (US 2011/0297681), Timmerman (US 2013/0302591), Cage (US 2,969,902) and further in view of Fisher (US 1,560,681).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Whitman discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the ends of the film overlap to establish a tab for each of the peelable layers.
However, Fisher teaches a container having tabs 16 (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the peelable strips of the modified Whitman tabs, as taught by Fisher, for easily grabbing and peeling the strips.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights