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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/07/2025 and 10/21/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
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 5, 8-9, 12 and 16 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.
As to claim 5, applicant recites “the lip” in line 3. However, claim 1 never mention “a lip” and thus the limitation is lack of proper antecedent basis. Claims 2 and 3 start to claim “a lip”, maybe claim 5 should depended on claim 2? Clarification is required.
As to claim 8, applicant recites the phrase “optionally” which is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “optionally” are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “optionally” are consider to be optional limitations.
As to claim 8, applicant recites “substantially” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim(s), 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.
As to claim 9, applicant recites “substantially” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim(s), 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.
As to claim 9, applicant recites the phrase “optionally” which is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “optionally” are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “optionally” are consider to be optional limitations.
As to claim 12, applicant recites “substantially” which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim(s), 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.
As to claim 16, applicant recites “for example” which renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Ex Parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gics (5,492,703).
As to claim 1, Gics discloses a container assembly (Figure 1) comprising: a plastic container (tray 22 is made of plastic, column 2, lines 57-59) comprising a base, and a container wall (side wall 32) extending from and surrounding the base and terminating at a container flange (34, Figure 7) extending around the container wall to define a mouth of the container (Figure 6); a support (Figure 8, 50)) comprising a support wall (52 and 54) arranged to surround the container wall (surround at least the part of the wall as shown in Figure 1), said support wall terminating at a support flange (52a as shown in Figure 7); and a flexible container lid (26) attached to an upper surface of the container flange by a first heat sealing material (the paper lid is heat sealed to the plastic material which the lid requires sealing material in between the paper lid and the plastic material), wherein the support flange is configured and arranged to abut against a lower surface of the container flange, and wherein the support flange is attached to the lower surface of the container flange by a second heat sealing material (as shown in Figure 7, the lid is heat sealed to the flange 34 and the support flange 52a is also heat sealed to the lower surface of the container flange 36 via adhesive 70).
As to claims 2-3, Gics further discloses the container flange comprises a downwardly projecting lip (38) extending from a peripheral edge of the container flange (36) in a direction towards the base, and wherein the lip opposes the container wall to define a channel (Figure 7) therebetween receiving the support flange therein, the support flange is mechanically secured between the lip and the container wall (column 3, lines 19-33, teaches that the food package jacket 24 is secured to the food package tray 22 by a heat seal die pressing against the outer surface of the food package jacket 24 in space 39).
As to claim 15, Gics further discloses the container wall is substantially linear in a direction between the base and the contain and tapers in the direction towards the base (Figure 7).
As to claim 22, Gics further disclose the support is formed from a fibrous material such as paper product (column 2, line 60).
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.
Claims 1, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Artusi (4,801,017) further in view of Gics (5,492,703).
As to claim 1, Artusi discloses a container assembly (Figure 2) comprising: a plastic container (tray 2 is shaped in one piece from plastic, column 3, line 33) comprising a base, and a container wall extending from and surrounding the base and terminating at a container flange (15) extending around the container wall to define a mouth of the container (Figure 5); a support (1) comprising a support wall (7, 8) arranged to surround the container wall, said support wall terminating at a support flange (9 and 10); and a flexible container lid (3) attached by sealing to an upper surface of the container flange and the support flange is configured and arranged to abut against a lower surface of the container flange. However, Artusi does not specifically discloses the container lid is heat sealed to the container flange and the support flange is attached to the lower surface of the container flange by a second heat sealing material. Nevertheless, Gics discloses a container assembly (Figure 1) comprising: a plastic container (tray 22 is made of plastic, column 2, lines 57-59) comprising a base, and a container wall (side wall 32) extending from and surrounding the base and terminating at a container flange (34, Figure 7) extending around the container wall to define a mouth of the container (Figure 6); a support (Figure 8, 50)) comprising a support wall (52 and 54) arranged to surround the container wall (surround at least the part of the wall as shown in Figure 1), said support wall terminating at a support flange (52a as shown in Figure 7); and a flexible container lid (26) attached to an upper surface of the container flange by a first heat sealing material, wherein the support flange is configured and arranged to abut against a lower surface of the container flange, and wherein the support flange is attached to the lower surface of the container flange by a second heat sealing material (as shown in Figure 7, the lid is heat sealed to the flange 34 and the support flange 52a is also heat sealed to the lower surface of the container flange 36 via adhesive 70).
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 sealing of the lid and the support to the upper and lower portion of the flange of Artusi with heat sealing method as taught by Gics in order to provide quick sealing and conventional sealing method to provide quick and easy sealing of the lid and the support to the flange of the plastic container.
As to claims 10-11, Artusi as modified further discloses the support wall comprises a plurality of support wall panels (7 and 8, four sidewalls), and wherein the support flange (9 and 10) comprises a support flange part extending from a distal edge of each support wall panel and the support flange parts are configured and arranged such that they form a continuous support flange around the support wall (as shown in Figure 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gics (5,492,703), further in view of Coyle et al (2014/0030390).
As to claim 5, Gics as modified does not disclose the support comprises a tab projecting from a distal edge of the support flange so as to extend beyond a distal end of the lip. Nevertheless, Coyle discloses a container comprises a channel (Figure 2), a support (200) comprises a flange portion that is sealed to within the channel (Figure 2), a tab (202) projecting from the support flange so as to extend beyond a distal end of the lip (156). 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 support flange of Gics with additional tab project extend beyond the support flange as taught by Coyle in order to provide a gripping mean to assist the removal of the paper support away from the plastic container for easier recycling purposes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Artusi (4,801,017) and Gics (5,492,703), further in view of Garraway (D446719).
As to claim 6, Artusi as modified does not disclose wherein the container wall comprises a plurality of container wall panels defining corner regions at an intersection between adjacent container wall panels and the base, and wherein each corner region is tapered or chamfered. Nevertheless Garraway discloses a food tray with bottom wall and side walls, the corner region at an intersection between adjacent container wall panels and the base, the each corner region is chamfered. 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 corner region of Artusi as modified with chamfer corner as taught by Garraway in order to easily scrape and remove the residue inside the corner portion of the container.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Artusi (4,801,017) and Gics (5,492,703), further in view of Lee (7,549,540).
As to claims 7-9, Artusi as modified does not disclose the container wall comprises eight wall panels, the container wall comprises a plurality of container wall panels including a first pair of opposing side wall panels, a second pair of opposing end wall panels, and four corner container wall panels, each corner container wall panel extending between a side wall panel and an adjacent end wall panel, optionally wherein container wall panels define a substantially octagonal container, the container flange defines a perimeter that is substantially rectangular; optionally, wherein the perimeter defines a rectangle with curved corners. Nevertheless Lee discloses a food container comprises a container portion (10) with the container wall comprises eight wall panels (Figure 2), the container wall comprises a plurality of container wall panels including a first pair of opposing side wall panels, a second pair of opposing end wall panels, and four corner container wall panels, each corner container wall panel extending between a side wall panel and an adjacent end wall panel, optionally wherein container wall panels define a substantially octagonal container (Figure 7 shows that the container body in the form of octagon shape), the container flange (13) defines a perimeter that is substantially rectangular; optionally, wherein the perimeter defines a rectangle with curved corners (Figure 7). 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 portion of Artusi as modified octagonal shape as taught by Lee since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 12-14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Artusi (4,801,017) and Gics (5,492,703), further in view of Auffray (FR2962718, cited prior art).
As to claims 12-14 and 24, Artusi as modified further discloses the wall being four sidewalls and support flange defines a rectangle with curved corner, but does not disclose the support wall comprises a plurality of support wall panels including a first pair of side support wall panels, a second pair of end support wall panels, and four corner support wall panels each corner support wall panels extending a support side wall panel and an adjacent support end wall panel; optionally wherein the support wall panels define a substantially octagonal support and the support wall comprises eight support wall panels.
Auffray discloses a support (Figure 1) supporting a plastic container, the support wall comprises a plurality of support wall panels including a first pair of side support wall panels (12 and 13), a second pair of end support wall panels (14 and 15), and four corner support wall panels (40) each corner support wall panels extending a support side wall panel and an adjacent support end wall panel; optionally wherein the support wall panels define a substantially octagonal support and the support wall comprises eight support wall panels (Figure 2). 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 support of Artusi as modified with octagonal shape as taught by Auffray in order provide a space between the container sidewall and support side wall if the container sidewall is rectangular in shape. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gics (5,492,703), further in view of Tuszkiewicz et al (2006/0191935).
As to claim 16, Gics does not specifically discloses that the container wall tapers at an angle in the range 5 degrees to 19 degrees, in the range 10 degrees to 18 degrees in the range 12 degrees to 16 degrees, for example approximately 14 degrees. Nevertheless, Tuszkiewicz discloses a tray container (Figure 4), the side wall portion (42) extends upwardly form base section 40) and projection outward from the bottom to top [0040] and the angle relative to a horizontal plane in the range from about 70 to about 89 degree, which is equivalent to angle about range from 1 degree to about 19 degrees. The angle of 14 degrees falls into the applicant’s claimed range 5 degrees to 19 degrees, in the range 10 degrees to 18 degrees in the range 12 degrees to 16 degrees, for example approximately 14 degrees. 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 tapered angle of Gics with range between 1 degree to about 19 degrees as taught by Tuszkiewicz in order to provide a tapered angle to provide a stacking feature of multiple containers for storage or reduce space needed for the used stacked container for disposal.
Claims 20-21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gics (5,492,703), further in view of Gruetzmacher et al (2018/0079577).
As to claim 20-21 and 25, Gics further discloses the material for the heat sealing is heat activate adhesive, but does not specifically disclose the first heat sealing material is selected from a polymeric film such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and/or polyethylene terephthalate, the second heat sealing material is selected from: a non-plastic heat sealable material such as polylactic acid; an aqueous heat-sealing material; polyethylene; polypropylene; and/or polyethylene terephthalate and the melting temperature of the second heat sealing material is less than the melting temperature of the first heat sealing material. Nevertheless, Gruetzmacher discloses a tray container with a flexible lidding film (50), the lidding film 50 is heat sealed to the sealing flange (40) of the container. Gruetzmacher further discloses a various type of heat sealing material that can be use to heat seal the flexible lidding film onto the container, such as polyethylene terephthalate [0009, 0027] and the heat sealing strength can be vary with the different composition of the material as taught in [0065]. 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 heat sealing material of Gics with polyethylene and possible with various adhesive strength due to different composition of the heat sealing material as taught by Gruetzmacher in order to provide a greater sealing strength to the lidding portion and able to provide easily removably of the support for recycling purposes. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known material for heat sealing material as taught in Gruetzmacher, to provide a greater sealing strength to the lidding portion and able to provide easily removably of the support for recycling purposes. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Orlando E Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736