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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that the election does not require an undue search burde. This is not found persuasive because The distinct groups require different limitations (a tray edge that projects circumferentially vs a tray edge that projects all around) that would result different search criteria.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2-5 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.
The term “endless adhesive track” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “endless adhesive track” is 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. In industry, .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Sinha (US 20150367990 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 .
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 6, Sinha discloses packaging according to claim 1, 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, Sinha discloses the packaging according to claim 1, 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, Sinha discloses the packaging according to claim 1, 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, Sinha discloses the packaging according to claim 1, 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, Sinha discloses the packaging according to claim 1, wherein the self-adhesive label is formed with a plurality of holes. (44)
Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Exner (US 20150129594 A1).
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 .
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, Exner discloses the packaging according to claim 1, wherein the self-adhesive label is made of a plastic-reinforced, paper fibre-based material. (page 10 [0217])
With respect to claim 12, Exner discloses the packaging according to claim 1, wherein an upper side of the self- adhesive label is free of silicone. (page 10 [217])
Examiner Note: Exner 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, Exner discloses the packaging according to claim 1, wherein the lower packaging part is a cardboard tray or a plastic tray. (page 10 [217])
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha (US 20150367990 A1) in view of Birk (US 20170132954 A1).
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the adhesive is present in a form of an endless adhesive track running along the label edge, 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 labels, Birk taught of a label with adhesive dots in order to allow for a ventilation path between mating surfaces (page 1 [0011]-[0012]). 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 track of Sinha to be made of adhesive dots as taught by Birk in order to allow for improved ventilation.
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])
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Exner (US 20150129594 A1) in view of 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
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights