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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0238997 to Sarnoff et al. (Sarnoff) in view of US Patent No. 3,037,677 to Debs and US 2023/0312202 to Mueller et al. (Mueller).
Regarding claim 1, 3, Sarnoff discloses a packaged pan and lid (Fig 8) comprising a pan (100) having a well (102) with a bottom surface (104) and single continuous wall surface (106) extending upwardly from the bottom surface (104), a rim (108) extending outwardly from an upper edge of the wall surface and a lip (110) extending upwardly from a terminus of the rim, a recyclable lid (130) having at least one bi-lateral fold line (132) across the lid such that the lid is configurable into a folded configuration (Fig 11), the lid (130) being configured into the folded configuration (Fig 11) and being removably secured within the well (102) of the pan (100) (Fig 9) such that the lid (130) is removable from the well (102) and unfolded to substantially flat configuration (Fig 14), wherein the lip (110) is configured to bend over the edge of the lid (130) when the lid is unfolded to a substantially flat configuration (Fig 14) and positioned such that the perimeter of the lid is positioned on the rim (Fig 14), wherein the lid (130) is made out a recyclable cardboard material (€0008) and includes a first surface being coated with a repulpable barrier substrate (aluminum, €0008) defined to provide a water, oil and grease barrier and wherein a second surface which is opposed to the first surface maintains a cardboard finish (€0034, €0038). Sarnoff does not teach the cardboard finish configured with an area of indicia printable on the surface. However, Debs discloses a food package (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a lid (20) configured with area of indicia (22) printable on the surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate area of indicia to the top surface of the Sarnoff lid as suggested by Debs in order to identify content material and advertisement (Debs, col. 2, ll. 8-10). In particular, the area of indicia includes a writable region configured to receive handwritten markings applied therto by a consumer since it has the structure as recited. Sarnoff does not teach the recited percentage of barrier substrate in relation to lid. However, Mueller discloses packaging with a pan and lid (Fig 2) and in particular discloses lid (13) comprising a barrier (3-5) that represents 10%/5% or less of the total mass of the lid (the lid having a base paper weight of up to 120 g/msup2, the barrier of 1 g/msup2 each). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the percentage of the barrier substrate of Sarnoff such that it lied in the range as recited in order to facilitate packaging of food since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach the recited percentage of barrier substrate and an area of indicia that includes a writable region. This is not persuasive because Debs discloses an area of indicia which has a region that can be written on since it is made of paper and furthermore, Mueller discloses lid packaging where the barrier is less than 10/5 percent of the total mass/weight of the lid. Taken as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to change the percentage of the barrier substrate of Sarnoff such that it lied in the range as recited in order to facilitate packaging of food since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735