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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, since they are not modified by functional language. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 15 does not refer back in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 15 has not been further treated on the merits.
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) 1-2 and 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel (US-20150210442-A1) in view of Vukkisila (US-20180303260-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frankel discloses a packaging for an article (Fig. 1) comprising: a three-dimensionally shaped packing bottom (4), the packing bottom being adapted to receive an article to be packaged and comprising: a bottom support surface (14), a bottom side wall (16) surrounding the bottom support surface, and a bottom edge (18) arranged at an end of the bottom side wall, the end being distal with respect to the bottom support surface, wherein the bottom edge protrudes outwardly from the bottom side wall (par. 0046), and a packaging cover (2) with inwardly protruding flaps (10a-10d), wherein the packaging cover is arranged on the packaging bottom such that the flaps and an inner side of the packaging cover at least partially encompass the bottom edge, so that the packaging cover is fixed in its relative position with respect to the packaging bottom (Fig. 2a)
Frankel fails to teach a leaf material of a plant.
Vukkisila teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a packing bottom out of a leaf material of plant (par. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the bottom out of plan, in order to adjust costs and since 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 5-13, the modified packaging of Frankel teaches wherein at least one of the flaps is formed as a foldable projection formed on the edge of the packaging cover (Frankel, par. 0033), wherein at least one of the flaps is formed as a tongue which is formed by means of an incision in the packaging cover and which is foldable with respect to the packaging cover (Frankel, pars. 0045, 0050), wherein at least one of the flaps is formed with a circular segment shape (Frankel, Figs. 3, 4), wherein the packaging cover is three-dimensionally shaped or flat (Frankel, Fig. 1), wherein the leaf material is a palm leaf material (Vukkisila, par. 0031), wherein the packing bottom is a container from the following group: tray, plate, cup and bowl (Frankel, Fig. 1), wherein the bottom edge comprises rectilinear and/or curved portions (Frankel, Fig. 6), wherein the packaging cover is uncoated (Vukkisila, par. 0006), wherein the packaging cover consists of recycled and/or recyclable material (Vukkisila, par. 0031), wherein the inner side of the packaging cover comes to rest on the bottom edge such that a contact line between the packaging cover and the packaging bottom forms a closed curve (Frankel, Figs. 2a, 2b).
Regarding claim 14, Frankel fails to teach wherein the packaging cover is formed to be at least partially transparent.
Vukkisila teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a transparent cover (par. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the cover to be transparent, so that contents of the packaging could be observed.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel (US-20150210442-A1) and Vukkisila (US-20180303260-A1) in view of Messerle (US-20200283202-A1).
Frankel fails to teach wherein the projection is partially glued to the inner side of the packaging cover, wherein the projection and/or a further projection each comprise a central portion and lateral portions, wherein the lateral portions are glued to the inner side of the packaging cover and the central portion is free of gluing such that the central portion protrudes further with respect to the inner side of the packaging cover and/or the central portion is glued to the inner side of the packaging cover and the lateral portions are free of gluing such that the lateral portions protrude further with respect to the inner side of the packaging cover.
Messerle teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a packaging with a foldable projection wherein the projection is partially glued to an inner side (par. 0033), wherein the projection and/or a further projection each comprise a central portion and lateral portions, wherein the lateral portions are glued to the inner side and the central portion is free of gluing such that the central portion protrudes further with respect to the inner side and/or the central portion is glued to the inner side and the lateral portions are free of gluing such that the lateral portions protrude further with respect to the inner side (Figs. 12, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the projections with glue, as taught by Messerle, in order to secure the flaps in specific orientations and since such a modification would be a substitution of known securing projections for a packaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733