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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/26 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.
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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers (US 2011/0297681) in view of Broyles (US 2012/0188692) further in view of Targoff (US 10,421,583).
Regarding claim 10, Bowers (figs. 11B-C and paragraphs 0027-0028) discloses a package comprising:
a stack of interconnected tearaway bands having one or more perforation lines 20 between the tearaway bands, wherein the stack of interconnected tearaway bands form an external facing side of the package;
a seal formed with an edge of one of the interconnected tearaway bands such that the seal and the stack of interconnected tearaway bands are formed with one another to form a body of the package, the body contains a usable material 18, the body is a molded, semi-rigid material that is molded around the usable material such that the usable material is contained within the package, and a portion of the usable material is positioned beyond the interconnected tearaway bands such that the usable material is exposed;
wherein each of the interconnected tearaway bands is peelable from the body to access the usable material.
Bowers fails to disclose:
the body being biodegradable material; and
a removable cap configured to fit on each of the interconnected tearaway bands and configured to contain the portion of the usable material.
wherein each of the interconnected tearaway bands includes a mechanism 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.
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 peelaple strips of Bowers, 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.
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 11, Bowers further discloses perforation lines internally facing the usable material (figs. 6A-6D).
Regarding claim 12, Bowers further discloses the perforation lines are formed on an internal facing side of the stack of interconnected tearaway bands (figs. 6A-6D).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Bowers 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 Bowers 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 Bowers 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers (US 2011/0297681) in view of Broyles (US 2012/0188692) and Targoff (US 10,421,583) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Kaufmann (US 3,967,773)
Regarding claim 16, the modified Bowers discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 10 above but fails to disclose each of the tearaway bands includes a molded tab on the external facing side of the package and wherein the removable cap is configured to frictionally fit with each of the tearaway bands to connect the removable cap and the body.
However, Kaufmann teaches tearaway bands being provided with tabs 6 (figs. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the tearaway bands of the modified Bowers, tabs, so that the top band can be removed from an adjacent band by manual pulling as taught by Kaufmann in col. 3, lines 17-19.
Claims 18-19, 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers (US 2011/0297681) in view of Cage (US 2,969,902) further in view of Kaufmann (US 3,967,773).
Regarding claim 18, Bowers (figs. 11B-C and paragraphs 0027-0028) discloses a package comprising:
a molded frame 14 that includes a plurality of peelable strips interconnected by perforation lines 20 between the plurality of peelable strips, wherein the molded frame is molded around a usable material such that the usable material is contained within the package; and
a seal that is bonded to an edge of the molded frame.
Bowers fails to disclose a film in-mold labeled around 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, wherein a portion of ends of the films overlap to establish the tab of each of the peelable layers, and 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;
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, 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 Bowers device, a film with perforation lines, as taught by Cage in order to provide a label.
Regarding the film being in-mold labeled, 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.
Further, Kaufmann teaches tearaway bands being provided with tabs 6 (figs. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the tearaway bands of the modified Bowers, tabs, so that the top band can be removed from an adjacent band by manual pulling as taught by Kaufmann in col. 3, lines 17-19.
Regarding claim 19, it is noted that the ends of the film of the modified Bowers overlap to establish a tab for each of the peelable layer.
Regarding claim 27, Bowers further discloses the external facing layer is without the plurality of perforation lines (fig.6A or 6B).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Bowers further discloses each peelable layer and the corresponding one of the plurality of peelable strips are removable with one another during peeling (fig. 1 of Cage).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bowers (US 2011/0297681), Cage (US 2,969,902) and Kaufmann (US 3,967,773) as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Sarson (US 2015/0210443).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Bowers discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the molded frame being injection molded frame and the film being a paper, biodegradable layer fused to the molded frame.
However, Sarson teaches food containers being made from bio-based resin (paragraphs 0101-0102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the film and the frame of the modified Bowers of bio-based resin, to prevent the container from being a litter that is both an eyesore and damaging to the environment, as taught by Sarson in paragraph 0009. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims1, 4-7, 23-24, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers (US 2011/0297681) in view of Broyles (US 2012/0188692) further in view of Targoff (US 10,421,583) and Sarson (US 2015/0210443).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Bowers (figs. 6B and 11A-11D) discloses a package 10 comprising:
a body 12 including peelable strips defined by perforation lines 20, the peelable strips forming all of an external facing side of the body and
wherein the perforation lines 20 are on an internal facing side 34 of the body and are equatorial relative to the body, and wherein the external facing side of the body is without any perforation lines, including the perforation lines that define the peelable strips.
Bowers fails to disclose:
the peelable strips being recyclable or biodegradable and the peelable strips being formed from a single bio-based resin film layer that is configured for molding equatorially around a usable material,
a removable cap configured to snap fit or friction fit on each of the peelable strips, wherein each of the peelable strips provides mechanical retention of the removable cap; and
a seal that is separate from the body and that is fused on to a lower most edge of a lower most one of the peelable strips, wherein each of the peelable strips is peelable from the body to access a-the usable material contained within the package.
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 peelaple strips of Bowers, 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.
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 the seal being separate from the body and 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 Bowers, a bottom fused to the sidewalls, as taught by Sarson, to improve strength, and leak resistance.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Bowers further discloses the removable cap being configured for fitting back on remaining peelable strips when one of the peelable strips is peeled away from the body(col. 4, lines 60-67 and col. 5, lines 1-4 of Targoff).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Bowers further discloses the perforation lines are formed by slitting the body (figs. 6A-D and figs. 11A-11D). 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 discloses the body being a molded frame that is molded around the usable material (figs. 11B-C and paragraphs 0027-0028).
Regarding claim 24, it is noted that the removable cap of the modified Bowers is configured to contain an exposed portion of the usable material contained within the package, the usable material exposed past the peelable strips (figs. 11B-11C of Bowers).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Bowers 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 Bowers 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers (US 2011/0297681) in view of Broyles (US 2012/0188692), Targoff (US 10,421,583) and Sarson (US 2015/0210443) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kaufmann (US 3,967,773)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Bowers discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above but fails to disclose each of the peelable strips includes a tab for peeling away the peelable strips.
However, Kaufmann teaches tearaway bands being provided with tabs 6 (figs. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the tearaway bands of the modified Bowers, tabs, so that the top band can be removed from an adjacent band by manual pulling as taught by Kaufmann in col. 3, lines 17-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims 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.
Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to provide evidence of interconnected tearaway bands that each include a mechanism for retaining a removable cap. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The interconnected tearaway bands are disclosed in Bowers and the mechanism for retaining a removable cap is taught in Targoff (col. 4, lines 60-67 and col. 5, lines 1-4 of Targoff). 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.
Applicant argues that Sarson appears to disclose a seal located internal to a body of a package, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., seal integrally formed with an edge of a tearaway band) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the film being in-mold labeled, 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.
Conclusion
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