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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed on April 13, 2026 wherein: claim(s) 1, 15 were amended, claim(s) 10, 17 canceled, and claim(s) 21-22 new. Examiner notes amendments are directed to increase invention specificity to traverse claim(s) rejections under 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claim(s) 1-9, 11-16, 18-22 are pending and will be examined.
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) 1-9, 11, 13-14, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herkenrath (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20160304234A1) hereinafter HERKENRATH, in view of Dony (Germany Patent DE102017114027B3) hereinafter DONY.
Regarding claim 1, HERKENRATH teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 below) a packaging 10 comprising a packaging base H10-01 for receiving a product and a lid part H10-02 glued to opposite side walls H10-03 of the packaging base H10-01,
wherein the lid part H10-02 comprises an underside H10-04 provided with an adhesive exclusively in regions glued to the opposite side walls H10-03 of the packaging base H10-01 and wherein the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d is glued to outer sides (FIG. 8) of the opposite side walls H10-03 of the packaging base H10-01.
HERKENRATH fails to teach self-adhesive label 220a - 220d peeled off a carrier tape.
However, DONY teaches (see Fig. 1 below) a device 1 for closing half-open plastic dishes comprising a carrier film 6 with glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) peeled off a carrier tape 5 for automation purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified self-adhesive label 220a - 220d in the packaging 10 of HERKENRATH with glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) as taught in the device 1 of DONY for automation purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
871
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
397
821
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
854
701
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
760
1107
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HERKENRATH fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) packaging 10, wherein the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d is completely separated from a material from which the carrier tape is made.
However, DONY teaches (see Fig. 1 above) device 1, wherein the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) provided with an adhesive layer are completely separated from a material from which the carrier film 6 is made for automation purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified self-adhesive label 220a - 220d in the packaging 10 of HERKENRATH and DONY with glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) as taught in the device 1 of DONY for automation purposes.
Regarding claim 3, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HERKENRATH further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) packaging 10, wherein the underside H10-04 is provided with the adhesive in opposite edge regions only.
Regarding claim 4, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HERKENRATH (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 10, wherein the underside H10-04 is provided with the adhesive in opposite edge regions only, up to outer edges of the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d.
Regarding claim 5, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HERKENRATH (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 10, wherein the adhesive is formed as strips (FIG. 10) on the underside H10-04 of the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d.
Regarding claim 6, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HERKENRATH (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 10, wherein the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d is made of plastic, of paper or of a cardboard.
Regarding claim 7, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HERKENRATH fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) packaging 10, wherein the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d comprises polypropylene.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d comprising polypropylene in the packaging 10 of HERKENRATH and DONY to meet design requirements. 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HERKENRATH fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) packaging 10, wherein an upper side of the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d facing away from the product is free of silicone.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d free of silicone in the packaging 10 of HERKENRATH and DONY to meet design requirements. 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HERKENRATH (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 10, wherein the packaging base H10-01 is a cardboard tray or a plastic tray.
Regarding claim 11, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HERKENRATH (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 10, wherein, on the opposite side walls H10-03 above the regions in which the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d is glued, adhesive-free contact regions are formed between the underside H10-04 of the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d and the opposite side walls H10-03.
Regarding claim 13, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HERKENRATH further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) packaging 10, wherein the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d has, along its perimeter, cut-outs 42.
Regarding claim 14, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HERKENRATH fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) packaging 10, wherein the cut-outs 42 are formed as rounded cut-outs 42, located opposite to one another.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified form of cut-outs 42 [i.e., formed as rounded cut-outs 42, located opposite to one another] in the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d of HERKENRATH and DONY to meet design requirements 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. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 21, HERKENRATH teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) a packaging 10 comprising a packaging base H10-01 for receiving a product and a lid part H10-02 glued to opposite side walls H10-03 of the packaging base H10-01,
wherein the lid part H10-02 comprises a self-adhesive label 220a - 220d having an underside H10-04 provided with an adhesive exclusively in regions glued to the opposite side walls H10-03 of the packaging base H10-01, and
wherein the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d has, along its perimeter, cut-outs 42.
HERKENRATH fails to teach self-adhesive label 220a - 220d peeled off a carrier tape.
However, DONY teaches (see Fig. 1 above) a device 1 for closing half-open plastic dishes comprising a carrier film 6 with glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) peeled off a carrier tape 5 for automation purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified self-adhesive label 220a - 220d in the packaging 10 of HERKENRATH with glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) as taught in the device 1 of DONY for automation purposes.
Regarding claim 22, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 21 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HERKENRATH fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) packaging 10, wherein the cut-outs 42 are formed as rounded cut-outs 42, located opposite to one another.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified form of cut-outs 42 [i.e., formed as rounded cut-outs 42, located opposite to one another] in the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d of HERKENRATH and DONY to meet design requirements 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. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERKENRATH, in view of DONY, in further view of Valdiserri (Italy Patent Application Publication IT202000017824A1) hereinafter VALDISERRI.
Regarding claim 12, HERKENRATH and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HERKENRATH fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 8, FIG. 10 above) packaging 10, wherein the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d is configured with a plurality of holes and/or is printed on its upper side with a motif.
However, VALDISERRI teaches a container 2, wherein the sealing film 1 is configured with a plurality of holes 7 for venting (page 2, lines 1-2, “… steam …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified self-adhesive label 220a - 220d in the packaging 10 of HERKENRATH and DONY with sealing film 1 as taught in the sealing film 1 of VALDISERRI for venting.
PNG
media_image6.png
546
890
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
531
801
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim(s) 15-16, 18-20 are allowable because the prior art of record (i.e., HERKENRATH, DONY, and VALDISERRI) teaches --a method for producing a packaging 10--, they do not anticipate or make obvious --wherein, upon separating the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d from the carrier tape, the regions present on the underside H10-04 of the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d and provided with the adhesive are separated from silicone regions, formed on the carrier tape and being adapted to the regions on the underside H10-04 of the self-adhesive label 220a - 220d in terms of surface area--.
Moreover, it would not be obvious to further modify the respective references to satisfy these limitations, as such modifications would cause the references to operate in a fashion that is inconsistent with that which was intended by their respective inventors. Accordingly, such modifications would be highly indicative of the use of improper hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments / arguments regarding rejections of standing claim(s) 1-9, 11-14 under 35 USC § 103 in aforementioned reply have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections does not rely on exactly combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mir (U. S. Patent US10589917B1): Teaches a “device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Mcgillion (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20110056975A1): Teaches a “housing” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Calvert (U. S. Patent US5421510A): Teaches an “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Arippol (Brazil Patent Application Publication BR102017002787B1): Teaches a “label” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Schmeing (E. P. O. Patent Application Publication EP3882178A1): Teaches a “thermoforming sheet” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights