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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1, 19 were amended, claim 4, 10, 12 was canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13-19 are pending. Claims 13, and 17-18 are withdrawn.
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 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.
The term “the lid part comprises a transparent material so that the product is viewable through the lid .... the label comprises a paper label or plastic label” in claim 1is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the lid part comprises a transparent material so that the product is viewable through the lid .... the label comprises a paper label or plastic label” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is said that the lid part is comprised of the label and carrier layer (attached to one another). In order to achieve the claimed function, both the label and carrier label would need to be transparent. How can a paper label be considered a transparent material? What paper materials meet the claim limitations? Transparent paper (that is not considered plastic) is an unclear limitation, as the material list is unknown and not taught by the disclosure. Claims 2-3, 5-9, 11, and 14-16 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
The term “wherein the label comprises the paper label” in claim 5is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wherein the label comprises the paper label” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Same reasoning asFor the purposes of examination, any prior art using the term “sheet” shall be understood as meeting the claimed limitation. Paper shall be read as a thin material.
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, 5-8, 11, 14-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braverman (US 10994891 B2) in view of Herman (US 2138241 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 paper label or plastic label (col 4 line 66 – col 5 line 2).
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. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packages with plastic labels, Herman taught of cardboard tray (col 2 lines 31-40) with a label that is a plastic label/lid. A cardboard material helps to enclose cigarettes, chewing gums, material in powdered or granulated form such as coffee, sugar, medicine and the like. 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 plastic as taught by Herman in order to allow for storage of the aforementioned products.
Further with respect to transparency, Herman did teach of a transparent material in a lid part (item 45 and page 2, col 4, lines 3-6) which would allow the articles stored to be exposed to view in the closed condition (page 3, col 5, lines 45-53). 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 part of Braverman to include a transparent material in at least a portion of the lid part as taught by Herman in order to allow visibility of the stored items.
NOTE: A cardboard tray and plastic lid part is also taught by Herman (US 2138241 A). The combination of a cardboard tray and plastic lid does not produce any unexpected results and is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art. Further, 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.”
PNG
media_image1.png
738
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Braverman further discloses 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.
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 5, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further disclose wherein the label comprises the paper label. Herman refers to cellophane as sheet. Braverman also teaches of a sheet. See 112b for interpretation.
Examiner Note: The term paper has been used in conjunction with cellophane (Hermans material) in col 1 lines 0-5 of Evans (US 1836019 A).
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The reference further disclose wherein the label comprises the plastic label. This is taught by the combination of Braverman and Herman, refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further disclose wherein the carrier layer section is made of plastic. Braverman does not directly disclose a material for the liner patches. However, Herman taught of the combination of a plastic (cellophane) lid and cardboard tray as being compatible for the storage of certain items (refer to claim 1 rejection, above). The inner material of Hermans lid being of plastic material. 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 carrier layer of Braverman to be plastic as taught by Herman in order to allow for storage of appropriate items.
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. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packages with plastic labels, Herman taught of cardboard tray (col 2 lines 31-40) with a label that is a plastic label/lid. A cardboard material helps to enclose cigarettes, chewing gums, material in powdered or granulated form such as coffee, sugar, medicine and the like. 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 plastic as taught by Herman in order to allow for storage of the aforementioned products.
Further with respect to transparency, Herman did teach of a transparent material in a lid part (item 45 and page 2, col 4, lines 3-6) which would allow the articles stored to be exposed to view in the closed condition (page 3, col 5, lines 45-53). 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 part of Braverman to include a transparent material in at least a portion of the lid part as taught by Herman in order to allow visibility of the stored items.
NOTE: A cardboard tray and plastic lid part is also taught by Herman (US 2138241 A). The combination of a cardboard tray and plastic lid does not produce any unexpected results and is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art. Further, 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.”
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 Herman (US 2138241 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and19 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. The Herman reference has not been previously used to demonstrate transparency. Accordingly, the applicants arguments do not address the present combination.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant believes that the specific material thickness of Braverman does not teach away from the desired utility or claimed thickness. The mention of Mir was to demonstrate that material thicknesses as claimed has been achieved in prior art with regards to closures. The applications particular thickness for the carrier layer is well within the scope of Braverman’s invention and isn’t 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. Further, cellophane, a material taught by Herman, is commonly produced in thicknesses within the claimed range.
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.
Conclusion
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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735