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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the protections that fit into the bases, claim 3, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: stacking should be changed to nesting. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what constitutes a “tight” coating. When is a coating not tight? For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as a biodegradable coating.
Claim 3 is amended to recite that the transparent protections 13, i.e. covers fit “into” the base, however as seen in fig. 5 and as described on page 11: 9-20 of the instant application, the covers fit onto the base. With this in mind, it is not clear why claim 5 was amended to change “onto” to “into.” For the purposes of examination, the covers/protections of the instant invention are understood to fit over the secondary bases in accordance with applicant’s disclosure. However, if applicant does intend the claim to read “into” a drawing objection has been made, see above.
Claim 9 defines the packaging in terms of itself, if the packaging is the overpackaging then how can the packaging be inserted into itself?
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
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, 2, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gualtieri (GB 2408732 A) in view of Galluch (US 8424700) and Laurin (US 2023/0159241).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 5, Gualtieri discloses a package for storage and presentation of food units (bakery products, page 1: 10-15) wherein the packaging comprises:
a main base, tray 2, fig. 6 and 7, made of a biodegradable material, page 15: 30-end, page 18: 15-20,
having a first bottom and a first flange extending from a periphery of said first bottom;
and a transparent (page 1: 23-26) cover 3 for protection and storage of the food, the cover fitting onto the main base, shown as having a truncated pyramid shape, fig. 6 and 7.
Gualtieri does not disclose a plurality of secondary bases, a biodegradable coating, or that the biodegradable material is based on sugar cane pulp.
Galluch teaches a plurality of rectangular containers 12 having a flange at 18, fig. 2, each filled with respective food portions 22, col. 4: 5-15, closed with a transparent plastic cover 24, fig. 4, col. 3: 64-end, and that it is known to package a plurality of individual containers together, fig. 3, for the purpose of transportation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the container of Gualtieri for baked goods to hold a plurality of individually wrapped baked goods as taught by Galluch in order to allow a plurality of the baked goods to be transported to be shared at a party or other event.
Neither discloses a biodegradable sugar cane based material or coating.
Laurin teaches that significant development work is ongoing in order to produce single use containers made from biodegradable materials in order to reduce waste [0002-0003].
Laurin teaches a container 12 made from sugar cane fibers [0012] and a biodegradable film layer 14 coated on the inner surface of the container, fig. 1 and 2, [0033], where the container can hold frozen foods and be placed and heated in a microwave [0004]. The film layer forms a liquid impermeable barrier [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trays of Gualtieri and Galluch to be made from the biodegradable materials, (sugar cane based and a biodegradable film for providing a liquid impermeable barrier) in order to help decrease the amount of waste caused by single-use plastics while still preventing as per the teaching of Laurin.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Gualtieri further discloses that the package has a machine readable code such as a bar code, bar codes contain information regarding to the contents within the package, page 5: 25-end.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gualtieri, Galluch, and Laurin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sauvageau (US 2009/0266818).
Regarding claim 3, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. Gualtieri as modified above by Galluch teaches transparent protectors (covers 24, fig. 4 of Galluch) each fitting on one of the secondary bases. The references applied above do not teach that the cover is biodegradable.
However, Sauvageau teaches a food packaging 22 made from a transparent biodegradable material, fig. 1 [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the material used for the covers of Gualtieri 3, fig. 6, and Gualtieri, 24, fig. 4, as modified above to be made from transparent biodegradable material in order to allow the packaging to be entirely biodegradable thereby reducing waste in landfills and oceans as per the teaching of Laurin.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gualtieri, Galluch, and Laurin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0301249).
Regarding claim 4, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. the references applied above further teach a biodegradable coating but not the claimed material.
Xu is analogous art in regard to packaging for food products, [0002]. Xu further teaches that it is known to coat containers or trays with APET or recycled polyethylene terephthalate [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gualtieri as modified to substitute one known film coating material of above with another known coating material, recycled polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Xu since the simple substitution of one known coating material for another yields the same expected result of providing a barrier on a food container.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gualtieri, Galluch, and Laurin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crawford et al. (US 2010/0034933).
Regarding claim 9, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. the references applied above do not teach that the package is inserted into overpackaging.
Crawford is analogous art in regard to packaging a plurality of baked goods, fig. 1, within a parallelepiped overpackaging inserted and extracted via a small side of the overpackaging [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the package of Gualtieri as modified above to be placed inside an overpackaging for ease of shipping or transportation or for ease of gift wrapping.
Regarding claim 10, the references applied above teach all of claim 9, as applied above. Gualtieri as modified by Crawford to be placed within a box does not disclose how the box is closed.
However, it is well-known to close box flaps with a piece of tape or glue (single-use securing). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to close the box of Gualtieri as modified by Crawford with glue or tape in order to seal the container.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gualtieri, Galluch, and Laurin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bemiss (US 3866816).
Regarding claim 11, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a stop for controlled stacking of covers. Bemiss is analogous art in regard to food containers and teaches a truncated pyramid shaped container with nesting stops at 16, fig. 2, for limiting the extent that the containers can nest within one another, col. 1: 45-50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container lid of Gualtieri to have nesting stops in order to prevent a series of nested covers from being wedged together as taught by Bemiss.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vukkisila (US 10004345) teaches a biodegradable rectangular tray with a flange and a transparent truncated cover, fig. 5 and abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799