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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 5/22/2026, wherein claims 1 and 19 were amended, claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12, and 17 are cancelled, claims 20-21 are new. Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 18-21 are pending. Claims 13 and 18 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 11, 14-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braverman (US 10994891 B2) in view of Guibert (US 4307286 A).
With respect to claim 1, Braverman discloses a package comprising a package lower part (26) for receiving a product, and a lid part attached to the package lower part for closing the package, wherein the lid part comprises a label (22 + 44 = 22) and a carrier layer section (46) to which the label is adhered, the carrier layer (46) section adhering to the label on a bottom side of the label (22), wherein the lid part is adhered to the package lower part (26) by means of the label (22 ) and the label comprises a plastic label (col 4 line 66 – col 5 line 2), and wherein the carrier layer section is manufactured so as to be adapted to an opening formed by the package lower part for inserting the product, the carrier layer section has a contour that is substantially identical to a contour of the opening formed by the package lower part (referring to figures 3 and 4, the contour of the carrier layer 46 is substantially identical to the openings 36 contour).
NOTE: On col 8 lines 45-50, Braverman teaches of the removal of the metal layer 22B. The figure below includes 22B, but it is understood that for interpretation 22B can be omitted from the drawings below.
Braverman failed to disclose wherein at least a portion of the lid part comprises a transparent material so that the product is viewable through the lid part and the package lower part comprises a cardboard tray, and the carrier layer is made of plastic. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packages with labels, Guibert taught of the combination of a plastic label that is a transparent in order to enable viewing of contents inside and a cardboard tray (col 12 lines 42-48) as being suitable for heat manipulation. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tray of Braverman to be cardboard and the lid to be a transparent plastic as taught by Guibert in order to allow for a heat-able tray as well as viewing of the stored product.
NOTE: In order to enable transparency, it would be required that carrier layer is made of a similar transparent plastic as taught by Guibert.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
738
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Braverman further discloses wherein the label forms a peripheral adhesive edge (edges of 44) on the lid part, which corresponds to a package edge (26/28) formed on the package lower part.
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein the carrier layer section has a thickness x defined by 30µm<x<50µm. , However, it is considered as a change of shape of Bravermans design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The implementation of a specific thickness of the carrier layer section is only a modification of shape of Braverman and still provides the same results as Braverman (i.e. serving as a barrier layer for the adhesive). Essentially, Braverman and the present invention operate the same with the same working pieces, the only difference is the thickness of Bravermans carrier layer is unspecified. In re Dailey established that a "change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results." The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their carrier layer section is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of creating a barrier between the adhesive layer and interior from Braverman’s invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
Examiner Note: This material thickness range has been demonstrated in prior art Mir (US 10589917 B1) on Col 31 lines 56-58.
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein the product comprises a fruit or a vegetable. On column 4 lines 30-33, Braverman teaches “Each chamber is configured to hold one or more drugs, tablets, capsules, liquids, ointments, lotions, botanicals or any other items desired to be packaged for dispensing.” Fruits are considered botanicals.
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Braverman further disclose wherein the label comprises an adhesive layer. (44)
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 14, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Braverman further disclose wherein the carrier layer section is configured to form a separating layer between the product accommodated in the package lower part and the label. (Inherent in the structure of Braverman)
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 14, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Braverman further disclose wherein the carrier layer section is configured to form a separating layer between the adhesive layer and the product accommodated in the package lower part. (inherent in the structure of Braverman)
With respect to claim 19, Braverman discloses a package comprising a package lower part (26) for receiving a product, and a lid part attached to the package lower part for closing the package, wherein the lid part comprises a label (22 + 44 = 22) and a carrier layer section (46) to which the label is adhered, the carrier layer (46) section adhering to the label on a bottom side of the label (22), wherein the lid part is adhered to the package lower part (26) by means of the label (22 ), wherein the carrier layer section (46) is manufactured so as to be adapted to an opening formed by the package lower part for inserting the product, the carrier layer section has a contour that is substantially identical to a contour of the opening formed by the package lower part.
Braverman failed to disclose wherein at least a portion of the lid part comprises a transparent material so that the product is viewable through the lid part and the package lower part comprises a cardboard tray and wherein the label and the carrier layer section are made of a transparent material. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packages with labels, Guibert taught of the combination of a plastic label that is a transparent in order to enable viewing of contents inside and a cardboard tray (col 12 lines 42-48) as being suitable for heat manipulation. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tray of Braverman to be cardboard and the lid to be a transparent plastic as taught by Guibert in order to allow for a heat-able tray as well as viewing of the stored product.
NOTE: In order to enable transparency, it would be required that carrier layer is made of a transparent plastic as taught by Guibert.
Braverman failed to disclose wherein the carrier layer section has a thickness x defined by 30pm<x<50pm. , However, it is considered as a change of shape of Bravermans design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The implementation of a specific thickness of the carrier layer section is only a modification of shape of Braverman and still provides the same results as Braverman (i.e. serving as a barrier layer for the adhesive). Essentially, Braverman and the present invention operate the same with the same working pieces, the only difference is the thickness of Bravermans carrier layer is unspecified. In re Dailey established that a "change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results." The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their carrier layer section is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of creating a barrier between the adhesive layer and interior from Braverman’s invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
Examiner Note: This material thickness range has been demonstrated in prior art Mir (US 10589917 B1) on Col 31 lines 56-58.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braverman (US 10994891 B2) in view of Guibert (US 4307286 A) and Mir (US 10589917 B1).
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein the lid part has at least one ventilation hole for the product received in the package. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely lidded containers, Mir taught of a container whose lid contains holes (190) to prevent fermentation of foods and spoilage (col 11 lines 65 – col 12 line 6). Presently, Braverman teaches of the ability to store botanicals (column 4 lines 30-33). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid of Braverman to include holes as taught by Mir in order to allow for ventilation/atmospheric control of stored products.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3715856 A, US 4416375 A, US 10589917 B1, US 20200410904 A1, US 10994891 B2, US 20210161327 A1, US 20230399161 A1, US 20240321145 A1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights