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
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) 1-11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiepek (Germany Patent Application Publication DE4426025A1) hereinafter SCHIEPEK, in view of Dony (Germany Patent DE102017114027B3) hereinafter DONY.
Regarding claim 1, SCHIEPEK teaches (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 below) a packaging 16 comprising
a packaging base 16 for receiving a product 14 and
a lid part 22 glued to opposite side walls 58 of the packaging base 16,
wherein the lid part 22 comprises an adhesive 46, 48 exclusively in regions glued to the opposite side walls 58 of the packaging base 16.
SCHIEPEK fails to teach wherein the lid part 22 comprises a self-adhesive label peeled off a carrier tape and having an underside provided with an adhesive 46, 48.
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) wherein at least the peripheral edge is provided with an adhesive layer 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 lid part 22 in the packaging 16 of SCHIEPEK 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
673
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
673
830
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
546
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
760
1107
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SCHIEPEK fails to teach (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) packaging 16, wherein the self-adhesive label 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 in the packaging 16 of SCHIEPEK 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, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SCHIEPEK further teaches (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) packaging 16, wherein the underside is provided with the adhesive 46, 48 in opposite edge regions only.
Regarding claim 4, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of SCHIEPEK (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 16, wherein the underside is provided with the adhesive 46, 48 in opposite edge regions only, up to outer edges of the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label).
Regarding claim 5, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of SCHIEPEK (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 16, wherein the adhesive 46, 48 is formed as strips on the underside of the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label).
Regarding claim 6, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of SCHIEPEK (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 16, wherein the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) is made of plastic, of paper or of a cardboard.
Regarding claim 7, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SCHIEPEK fails to teach (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) packaging 16, wherein the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) 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 glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) comprising polypropylene in the packaging 16 of SCHIEPEK 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, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SCHIEPEK fails to teach (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) packaging 16, wherein an upper side of the self-adhesive label facing away from the product 14 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 glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) free of silicone in the packaging 16 of SCHIEPEK 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, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of SCHIEPEK (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 16, wherein the packaging base 16 is a cardboard tray or a plastic tray.
Regarding claim 10, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SCHIEPEK further teaches (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) packaging 16, wherein the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) is glued to outer sides of the opposite side walls 58 of the packaging base 16.
Regarding claim 11, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of SCHIEPEK (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) and DONY (see Fig. 1 above) further teaches packaging 16, wherein, on the opposite side walls 58 above the regions in which the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) is glued, adhesive-free contact regions are formed between the underside of the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) and the opposite side walls 58.
Regarding claim 13, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SCHIEPEK fails to teach (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) packaging 16, wherein the self-adhesive label has, along its perimeter S3-02, cut-outs.
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 perimeter S3-02 [i.e., with cut-outs] in the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) of SCHIEPEK 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 14, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SCHIEPEK fails to teach (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) packaging 16, wherein the cut-outs are formed as rounded cut-outs, 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 [i.e., formed as rounded cut-outs, located opposite to one another] in the glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) of SCHIEPEK 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 SCHIEPEK, in view of DONY, in further view of Valdiserri (Italy Patent Application Publication IT202000017824A1) hereinafter VALDISERRI.
Regarding claim 12, SCHIEPEK and DONY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SCHIEPEK fails to teach (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 4 above) packaging 16, wherein the self-adhesive label 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 glued-on closure labels (i.e., self-adhesive label) in the packaging 16 of SCHIEPEK and DONY with sealing film 1 as taught in the sealing film 1 of VALDISERRI for venting.
PNG
media_image5.png
546
890
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
531
801
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONY.
Regarding claim 15, DONY teaches (see Fig. 1 above) [albeit with different phraseology] a method for producing a packaging (i.e., glued-on closure labels, plastic cups), comprising
separating a self-adhesive label (i.e., glued-on closure labels), provided with an adhesive (i.e., adhesive layer) on its underside exclusively in regions to be glued to opposite side walls of a provided packaging base (i.e., plastic cups) of the packaging (i.e., glued-on closure labels, plastic cups), from a carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of a provided label roll (i.e., carrier roll), and
gluing the self-adhesive label (i.e., glued-on closure labels) as a lid part (i.e., glued-on closure labels) to the opposite side walls of the provided packaging base (i.e., plastic cups).
Regarding claim 16, DONY (as applied to claim 15 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. DONY further teaches (see Fig. 1 above) [albeit with different phraseology] method, wherein, by separating the self-adhesive label (i.e., glued-on closure labels) from the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6), the self-adhesive label (i.e., glued-on closure labels) is completely separated from a material from which the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) is made.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONY, in view of Tiainen et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20200410904A1) hereinafter TIAINEN.
Regarding claim 17, DONY (as applied to claim 15 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. DONY further teaches (see Fig. 1 above) [albeit with different phraseology] method, wherein, upon separating the self-adhesive label (i.e., glued-on closure labels) from the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6), the regions present on the underside of the self-adhesive label (i.e., glued-on closure labels) and provided with the adhesive (i.e., adhesive layer) are separated from carrier tape regions, formed on the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) and being adapted to the regions in terms of surface area.
DONY fails to teach carrier tape regions are silicone regions.
However, TIAINEN teaches (see Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b, Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b below) a food package 10, 50 wherein, upon separating the label 100 from the carrier tape 130, the regions present on the underside of the label 100 and provided with the adhesive 120 are separated from silicone regions (page 9, para. [0063], “… silicone …”) formed on the carrier tape 130 and being adapted to the regions in terms of surface area for ease of use.
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 carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of DONY with carrier tape 130 of TIAINEN for ease of use.
PNG
media_image7.png
447
533
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
320
534
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
215
920
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
319
908
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, DONY (as applied to claim 15 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. DONY further teaches (see Fig. 1 above) [albeit with different phraseology] method, wherein, by separating all of the self-adhesive labels (i.e., glued-on closure labels) from the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of the label roll (i.e., carrier roll), a carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) material remains.
DONY fails to teach carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) material remains that has a silicone content of less than 10 %.
However, TIAINEN teaches (see Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b, Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b above) a food package 10, 50 wherein by separating all of the labels 100 from the carrier tape 130 of the carrier tape 130, a carrier tape 130 material remains that has a silicone content (page 9, para. [0063], “… silicone …”) for ease of use.
However, TIAINEN fails to teach silicone content (page 9, para. [0063], “… silicone …”) of less than 10 %.
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 carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of DONY with carrier tape 130 of TIAINEN for ease of use.
Furthermore, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified range of remaining silicone content (i.e., less than 10 %) in the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of DONY, and TIAINEN to meet design requirements since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 19, DONY (as applied to claim 15 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. DONY further teaches (see Fig. 1 above) [albeit with different phraseology] method, wherein, after separating the self-adhesive label (i.e., glued-on closure labels) and any additional self-adhesive labels (i.e., glued-on closure labels) from the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of the label roll (i.e., carrier roll), a carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) material remains.
DONY fails to teach carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) material remains that has a silicone content of less than 7 %.
However, TIAINEN teaches (see Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b, Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b above) a food package 10, 50 wherein by separating all of the labels 100 from the carrier tape 130 of the carrier tape 130, a carrier tape 130 material remains that has a silicone content (page 9, para. [0063], “… silicone …”) for ease of use.
However, TIAINEN fails to teach silicone content (page 9, para. [0063], “… silicone …”) of less than 7 %.
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 carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of DONY with carrier tape 130 of TIAINEN for ease of use.
Furthermore, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified range of remaining silicone content (i.e., less than 7 %) in the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of DONY, and TIAINEN to meet design requirements since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 20, DONY, and TIAINEN (as applied to claim 19 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. DONY fails to teach (see Fig. 1 above) [albeit with different phraseology] method, wherein the silicone content of the carrier tape material is less than 5 %.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified range of remaining silicone content (i.e., less than 5 %) in the carrier tape (i.e., carrier film 6) of DONY, and TIAINEN to meet design requirements since it is regarded a result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
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