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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastanek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0211552) in view of Pham (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0155877).
Regarding claim 1: Kastanek discloses a blank cut for packaging a portion of food (via “beverage bottles and tins, for packaging food and beverage products”) comprising fold lines (Fig. 1; via the shown fold lines in blank 3) enabling said blank cut to be formed into an envelope (Figs. 1-5) in which said portion can be packaged before closing said envelope,
said fold lines defining a blank cut having a lower panel (via 17) intended to form a lower wall of said envelope, said lower panel being extended on either side by respective first and second side flaps each having a side panel (via 21/23) intended to form a side wall of said envelope and an upper panel segment (via 31/35) which has an edge connected to said side panel and an opposite edge (Figs. 1-5), said segments being arranged to form together an upper wall of the envelope by bringing their opposite edge together (Fig. 2-5; via 31/35 closed together), said blank cut being characterized in that;
wherein each of said opposite edges (via edges of 31/35) is equipped with an opening tab (Fig. 3; via 49a) having a base (Fig. 3; via body 125) extending from said opposite edge,
wherein said fold lines include transverse fold lines defined on each one of said upper panel segments between said opposite edges and said bases such that said opening tabs being arranged to fold over said upper wall, see for example (Figs. 3-4; via the shown multiple fold lines along base 125);
wherein said bases are configured such that when said opposite edges are brought together to form said upper wall, said bases are coupled to one another such that they peel off when the opening tabs are pulled, (Figs. 3-4; via when tab portion 49a pulled base body 125 gets peeled off), each of said side flaps having two tear lines (Fig. 1; via 105/115).
Kastanek does not specifically suggest the exact arrangements of the tear lines to extend, from one edge of the base of the tab, along the upper panel segment and the side panel, the lower panel being devoid of tear line.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kastanek’s blank with having a tear off line extending from one edge of the base of the tab, along the upper panel segment and the side panel, the lower panel being devoid of tear line, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Alternatively, Pham discloses similar blank cut with tear off lines to be extended, from one edge of the base of the tab, along the upper panel segment and the side panel, the lower panel being devoid of tear line, see for example (Figs. 1-9; via tear off lines for 110/310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kastanek’s blank with having a tear off line extending from one edge of the base of the tab, along the upper panel segment and the side panel, the lower panel being devoid of tear line, as suggested by Pham, in order to save and convey printed information on the interior surface of the tear off strip only after opening the container (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 2: Kastanek discloses that the upper panel segments have a similar dimension to form the two halves of the upper wall of the envelope (Figs. 2-3; via 103/105).
Regarding claim 3: Kastanek may not suggest that a complex comprising an outer layer based on cellulose fibers and an inner sealing layer. However, the Office takes an official notice that such use of blanks with outer layer is based on cellulose fibers and an inner sealing layer is old and well known in the art, see for example (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, AAPA; files specification, page 1, lines 11-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kastanek’s blank by having a complex comprising an outer layer based on cellulose fibers and an inner sealing layer, as a matter of design choice to be made, in order to improve the quality of the blank and be able to maintain and hold food articles safely.
Regarding claim 4: Kastanek discloses that the inner layers of the bases of the tabs are arranged to be peelably associated, see for example (Fig. 3; via 49a/125 is peel-ably).
Regarding claim 5: Kastanek discloses that at least one of the inner layers of the bases of the tabs is peelable and/or is provided with a peelable varnish (Fig. 3; via peelable portion 49a).
Regarding claim 6: Kastanek discloses that the tear lines are formed by at least partial ablation of only the outer layer (Fig. 3; via the shown tear lines of 125).
Regarding claim 7: Kastanek discloses that the upper panel segment and the side panel of each of the flaps are formed between two-fold lines, said lines extending over the base of the tab, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown fold lines between upper and side panels 23 & 103).
Regarding claim 8: Kastanek discloses that each of the tear lines extends relative to a fold line, forming a band between them (Fig. 1; via each of tear lines 105/115).
Regarding claim 9: Kastanek may not disclose that each of the bands has a width which is less than 10% of the width of the upper panel segments, in particular less than 5%.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kastanek’s bands to be with a width which is less than 10% of the width of the upper panel segments, in particular less than 5%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aler, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10: Kastanek discloses a transverse edge from which an opening tab extends, and an opposite transverse edge on which the other tab is formed, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via the shown two end tab portions 87a/87b and/or 49a/49b).
Regarding claim 11: Kastanek discloses two longitudinal borders extending on either side of the side flaps and the lower panel, said borders being equipped with fold lines for forming side walls of the envelope, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown longitudinal borders 51a/51b).
Regarding claim 12: Kastanek discloses that the lower panel and the side flaps each have a quadrilateral geometry to form a parallelepiped envelope, see for example (Figs. 2 & 5; via the shown top quadrilateral geometry).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Office draws applicant’s attention that the amended claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, in this case by amending the claims using multiple broad and/or intended use terms, such as “such that” render the claim broad and not positively citing the claimed features. Therefore, the amended claim limitations were not given much patentable weight.
The multiple use of phrase “such that” renders the claim indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
It is noted that, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights