PACKAGING AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A PACKAGING

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 . Response to Amendment This office action is in response to the reply filed on 8/24/2026, wherein claims 1, 4-5 were amended, claims 2 and 17 are cancelled, claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 are pending. Claims 15-16 and 18-20 were withdrawn. Newly submitted claims 21-22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The new claims remove the limitation of a "self-adhesive which was not required of the original species. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 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, 3-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Sinha (US 20150367990 A1) in view of Exner reference 2 (US 20060257599 A1). With respect to claim 1, Sinha discloses a packaging comprising a lower packaging part, which is in a form of a packaging tray (fig 7) with a tray edge (rim of tray in fig 7) projecting all around, and a lid part (figure 4A and 4B), which is adhesively bonded (36) to the tray edge, wherein the lid part comprises a self-adhesive label which is removed from a carrier band and to its underside adhesive is applied circumferentially exclusively in a region of a label edge to be adhered to the tray edge. Sinha failed to directly disclose and wherein the adhesive is present in a form of an adhesive track composed of adhesive segments, in a form of a striped adhesive track and/or in a form of a dotted adhesive track. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely food containers, Exner reference 2 taught of a food container that uses dot or stripe patterned adhesive to reduce the amount of sealant required (page 4 [0035]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive of Sinha to be in the form of dots or stripes as taught by Exner reference 2 in order to allow for less sealant to be used. Examiner Note: The limitation “which is removed from a carrier band and to its underside adhesive is applied circumferentially exclusively in a region of a label edge to be adhered to the tray edge” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).) The carrier band is not part of the finished product and is only directed towards its method of production. It is also well known in the art to have a carrier band in combination with an adhesive label. Most adhesive stickers include a carrier band to remove the sticker from. PNG media_image1.png 542 330 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further disclose wherein the adhesive track forms an area of adhesive which corresponds to at least 70% of an area formed by the tray edge and facing the lid part. Examiner Note: Both “areas” are broad. As indicated from Sinha, the track is intended to cover the perimeter of the container (page 3 [0041]) With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further disclose wherein the adhesive track forms an area of adhesive which corresponds to at least 80% of an area formed by the tray edge and facing the lid part. Examiner Note: Both “areas” are broad. As indicated from Sinha, the track is intended to cover the perimeter of the container (page 3 [0041]) With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further disclose wherein the adhesive track forms an area of adhesive which corresponds to at least 90% of an area formed by the tray edge and facing the lid part. Examiner Note: Both “areas” are broad. As indicated from Sinha, the track is intended to cover the perimeter of the container (page 3 [0041]) With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Sinha further discloses wherein the self-adhesive label is completely separated from a material from which the carrier band is made. Examiner Note: See claim 1 rejection above. There is no presence of a carrier band in the complete product. With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Sinha further discloses wherein the self-adhesive label comprises at least one tear tab (40) and/or at least one tear perforation (46). With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Sinha further discloses wherein the self-adhesive label comprises a tear perforation (46) which extends at least in sections along an inner boundary of the adhesive. With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Sinha further discloses wherein the self-adhesive label is made of a plastic or of a paper fibre-based material. (page 2 [0035]) With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Sinha further discloses wherein the self-adhesive label is formed with a plurality of holes. (44) Claim(s) 1 , 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Exner reference 1 (US 20150129594 A1) [referred to as “Exner”] in view of Exner reference 2 (US 20060257599 A1) [referred to as “Exner reference 2”]. With respect to claim 1, Exner discloses a packaging comprising a lower packaging part, which is in a form of a packaging tray (11) with a tray edge (38) projecting all around, and a lid part (12), which is adhesively bonded (15 and page 4 [00149]) to the tray edge, wherein the lid part comprises a self-adhesive label which is removed from a carrier band and to its underside adhesive is applied circumferentially exclusively in a region of a label edge to be adhered to the tray edge . Exner reference 1 failed to directly disclose and wherein the adhesive is present in a form of an adhesive track composed of adhesive segments, in a form of a striped adhesive track and/or in a form of a dotted adhesive track. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely food containers, Exner reference 2 taught of a food container that uses dot or stripe patterned adhesive to reduce the amount of sealant required (page 4 [0035]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive of Exner reference 1 to be in the form of dots or stripes as taught by Exner reference 2 in order to allow for less sealant to be used. Examiner Note: The limitation “which is removed from a carrier band and to its underside adhesive is applied circumferentially exclusively in a region of a label edge to be adhered to the tray edge” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).) The carrier band is not part of the finished product and is only directed towards its method of production. It is also well known in the art to have a carrier band in combination with an adhesive label. Most adhesive stickers include a carrier band to remove the sticker from. PNG media_image2.png 670 434 media_image2.png Greyscale With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Exner further discloses wherein the self-adhesive label is made of a plastic-reinforced, paper fibre-based material. (page 10 [0217] of reference 1) With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Exner further discloses wherein an upper side of the self- adhesive label is free of silicone. (page 10 [217] of reference 1) Examiner Note: Both Exner references teaches of a plurality of materials used to create the label. There is no teaching of the addition of silicone to Exner. For example, the materials of paper or metalized foil are listed as a possible material for the label. Standard paper (like Kraft paper) does not contain silicone, nor does metalized foil. With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Exner further discloses wherein the lower packaging part is a cardboard tray or a plastic tray. (page 10 [217] of reference 1) Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exner reference 1 (US 20150129594 A1) [referred to as “Exner”] in view of Exner reference 2 (US 20060257599 A1) [referred to as “Exner reference 2”] and Milliorn (US 20060207144 A1) . With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the self-adhesive label is made of polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate. Exner does list plastic as a material option on page 10 [0217]), however, Exner did not elaborate on the plastic material. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely labels, Milliorn taught of a polypropylene label as a common option for a face material, especially for wet environments (page 4 [0036]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the label of Exner to be made of polypropylene as taught by Milliorn in order to allow for use in a wet environment. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-10589917-B1 OR US-10994891-B2 OR US-4416375-A OR US-3715856-A OR US-20240321145-A1 OR US-20190023471-A1 OR US-20150367990-A1 OR US-20170132954-A1 OR US-20150129594-A1 OR US-20060207144-A1 OR US-20170253406-A1 OR US-20230399161-A1 OR US-20210161327-A1 OR US-20200410904-A1 OR US-20210292071-A1 OR US-20190248534-A1 OR US-2138241-A OR US-1836019-A Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Exner reference 2 has been incorporated to read on the amended material. Under remarks filed 8/24/2026 it is believed that applicant takes a narrowed view of the art. Further, although not used, it is still believed that Birks teachings for the rejection of previously canceled clam 2 would apply. Birk teaches of adhesive dots between two mating surfaces in order to enable ventilation (page 2 [0011]). This idea is considered broad and applicable to other art (such as Sinha and Exner), which already requires the presence of glue dots. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 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 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. /SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735