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 Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper grammar “for the secure connection of (a/the/said) covering sheet”. 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 32-62 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 32 recites the broad recitation “A single-use container system for storing and transporting food”, and the claim also recites “in particular meal trays” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the upper edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "this region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the container edges". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "various materials". It is unclear what materials are or are not included in the claim. Further, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining what is or is not considered within the set of “various materials”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the lateral edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the foodstuffs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the inside". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the secure connection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "connection of covering sheet and containers". However, it is unclear whether “containers” in this instance references the “two or more containers” of claim 32, or additional/different containers, or which containers of the two or more containers. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a secure connection of the covering sheet and the two or more containers”.
The terms “low and high temperatures” in claim 53 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “low” and “high” are 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.
Claim 56 recites the limitation "the base of the containers". However, it is unclear which base of the two or more containers is being referenced by “the base”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the bases of the two or more containers”.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the container". However, it is unclear which container of the two or more containers is being referenced by “the container”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the two or more containers”.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the structure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "the container edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 61 recites the limitation "the container". However, it is unclear which container of the two or more containers is being referenced by “the container”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the two or more containers”.
Claim 62 recites the limitation "the container systems". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 32-37, 40-48, 51-56, 58, and 60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,290,856 (Rumberger hereinafter) in view of US Patent No. 4,944,317 (Thal hereinafter).
In re claim 32, Rumberger discloses: A single-use container system (20) for storing and transporting food, in particular meal trays, having two or more containers of the same or different volumes (61a, 61b, see Fig. 6), wherein each container respectively comprises: a base, side walls connected to the base, and an opening opposite the base (see below), wherein a common covering sheet (23) is provided that is securely connected to the upper edge (22) of the containers such that a multi-layer structure is formed in this region, wherein the covering sheet comprises removable container lids (tearout sections 65, 66) that have the contour of the respective container openings, and in that a skeleton of the covering sheet remains that stays connected to the container edges after the container lids are removed (column 6, lines 61-63, and column 7, lines 17-20).
[AltContent: textbox (Height)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Bases)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Side Walls)][AltContent: textbox (Opening)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
648
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rumberger fails to disclose wherein the containers are separate.
However, with reference to Fig. 2 below, Thal discloses separate containers (7) mounted to a common cover sheet (16).
PNG
media_image2.png
161
273
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have separated the containers of Rumberger as taught by Thal, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, V, C. Please note that in the instant application, page 10, lines 14-17, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 33, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the containers each have a flattened (22/62), circumferential edge of a certain width (see Figs. above).
In re claim 34, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention except wherein the edge of the containers has a width between 1 and 8 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have assigned a width dimension/range to the edge of Rumberger in view of Thal, 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 Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, pages 3-4, lines 23-6 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 35, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the containers and the covering sheet are heat-sealable (Rumberger, “applying suitable heat” column 6, lines 16-22).
In re claim 36, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the covering sheet serves as a lid for the containers (See Figs. 2-9 above).
In re claim 37, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the covering sheet is rigid (column 11, lines 15-17), transparent (column 6, lines 38-49) or opaque, imprinted (column 11, lines 32-35) or not imprinted, and can consist of various materials that are compatible with the material of the container (column 5, lines 1-7, lines 26-28, and column 11, lines 37-41).
In re claim 40, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the container lids are formed by perforations, partial perforations, incisions or half-incisions (column 6, lines 61-63, and column 7, lines 17-20).
In re claim 41, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the covering sheet comprises openings that are substantially congruent with the openings of the containers (see Figs. 6 and 7, openings of cover sheet formed after tearout of sections 65, 66 for example).
In re claim 42, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the openings of the covering sheet can be sealed with a pull-off film (container can be sealed with cellophane, column 6, lines 50-58).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. having the ability to be sealed by such a film) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
In re claim 43, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the connection between the film and the covering sheet is formed by means of a hot seal (heat sealable as in re claim 35 above).
In re claim 44, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the containers are adapted to be conical or cylindrical (column 7, lines 41-48).
In re claim 45, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the containers each have the same height and in that the openings are equal to or greater than the base surface (see Figs. 2 and 6 above).
In re claim 46, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the containers and the covering sheet are made of materials that are biodegradable and compostable (paper, paperboard, etc., column 5, lines 1-7, column 11, lines 32-41).
In re claim 47, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the base and the side walls of the containers are produced from a laminate with a respective carrier layer made of cardboard, a single or multi-layer paper (paperboard, column 5, lines 1-7), cellulose (column 11, lines 47-49), and at least one barrier layer made of a grease-, water- and heat-resistant material on the side facing the foodstuffs to be stored (“cellophane”/cellulose hydrate, as evidenced by Strack et al. below, meets these limitations, see Rumberger column 6, lines 50-55, and Applicant’s specification page 7, lines 23-28 and page 8, lines 11-14).
While Rumberger in view of Thal does not disclose whether a cardboard/paper is produced from mechanically comminuted pulp, whether fibers are secondary fibers made of renewable raw materials, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized such papers/cardboards/cellulose fibers generated in the claimed fashions, 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. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, page 7, lines 17-28, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 48, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the container is made of cardboard or paper paperboard, (column 5, lines 1-7) and comprises one or more barrier layers (column 11, lines 32-41).
In re claim 51, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the covering sheet and the containers are both resistant to heat and cold (Rumberger, column 8, lines 51-54 “the contents in the container may be warmed or frozen without rupturing the seal”).
In re claim 52, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the container can be used at temperatures between −80° C. and 215° C (note that Applicant has not specified the temperatures as an entire workable range, only that the container can be used at temperatures which are within the range, such as room temperature or a common refrigerator/freezer temperature; Rumberger, column 8, lines 51-54).
In re claim 53, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including an adhesive is used for the secure connection of covering sheet and containers, said adhesive being suitable for contact with foodstuffs (container suitable to contain food, Rumberger column 8, lines 31-41) and resistant to low and high temperatures (Rumberger, column 8, lines 51-54).
In re claim 54, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the containers are imprinted (column 11, lines 32-34).
In re claim 55, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein one of the containers comprises one or more intermediate walls (since Rumberger teaches rectangular containers, a wall located between adjacent walls can be considered an intermediate wall).
In re claim 56, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the side walls and the base of the containers are thinner than the covering sheet (see embodiment of Rumberger in Fig. 16 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
135
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 58, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the covering sheet has a thickness of at least 0.3 mm (Rumberger “paperboard sheet material as one ply of the laminated sheet which may have a thickness as great as .03 inch” which is 0.762 mm, column 11, lines 37-41).
In re claim 60, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the covering sheet and the container edge together have a thickness of at least 0.6 mm (sheet alone is 0.762 mm, as in re claim 58 above).
In re claim 61, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the container has a constant wall thickness (cross sections shown in Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9 show walls which are of constant thickness at least in the regions shown in the views).
In re claim 62, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the container systems can be stacked on top of one another after at least two container systems are used.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. the ability to be stacked) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
Claim(s) 38 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumberger in view of Thal as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Us PG Pub No. 5,002,223 (Bolte et al. hereinafter).
In re claims 38 and 39, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention except wherein pull-off tabs are provided on the container lids, the pull-off tabs are provided on the lateral edge of the covering sheet.
However, with reference to Figs. 1-5 below, Bolte et al. discloses a pull-off tab (65) provided on a container lid (60), the pull-off tab provided on the lateral edge of the covering sheet.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Container Lid)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Covering Sheet)][AltContent: textbox (Lateral Edge)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
689
479
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided pull off tabs on the container lids of Rumberger in view of Thal as taught by Bolte et al. for the purposes of assisting a user in opening/removing of the container lid from the container and remainder of the covering sheet (column 3, lines 19-28).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumberger in view of Thal as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 9,856,608 (Chung et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 49, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention except wherein the container and/or the covering sheet is coated on the inside with a water-based emulsion that provides grease and moisture resistance and hot sealing properties.
However, Chung et al. teaches fiber based food containers (Title/Abstract) wherein a container utilizes a topical coat of water based emulsions as an oil barrier, water barrier by way of grease and oil repellent additives (column 10, lines 18-34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized a coating of a known water based emulsion for repelling of water and grease/oil, 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. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, page 8, lines 7-10, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumberger in view of Thal as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2011/0019940 (Strack et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 50, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein a barrier layer is cellophane (column 6, lines 50-58), but not wherein the barrier layer comprises a cellulose hydrate film.
However, Strack et al. discloses wherein a plastics material, in particular cellulose hydrate (cellophane) is used as a barrier layer in foodstuffs packaging (Abstract, and paragraph 0014).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized known material as a barrier layer, 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. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, page 8, lines 7-10, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumberger in view of Thal as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,535,891 (Murdick et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 57, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention except wherein the base of the container comprises depressions and/or projections to strengthen the structure.
However, with reference to Figs. 2 and 4, Murdick et al. teaches reinforcing a paper/pulp tray (10) by way of a rib (36).
PNG
media_image5.png
682
529
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a rib as a projection to the base of the container(s) of Rumberger in view of Thal for the purposes of reinforcing the base of the container (Murdick et al., column 2, lines 24-30).
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumberger in view of Thal as applied to claim32 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 8,801,899 (Reed et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 59, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Rumberger in view of Thal discloses the claimed invention including wherein the laminate is rigid (Rumberger column 11, lines 15-17), but no wherein the covering sheet has a Taber bending moment for 15° of at least 7 mNm, in a transverse direction.
However, Reed et al. teaches stiffness as a benefit to paperboard as a packaging material (column 1, lines 21-29), wherein the stiffness is measured utilizing Taber units (Reed et al. claim 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized a version/thickness, or otherwise of the material of Rumberger in view of Thal, such that the material/structure would be capable of meeting a stiffness requirement, for example to prevent crushing and/or damage to the container, 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 Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 9, lines 15-25, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights