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 .
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes “said” in each of lines 7 and 8. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claims 1-3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, lines 33-34, the “panels” are the noun, not “each”, so “comprises” should be --comprise--. In lines 38, 41, 47 and 53, and claim 9, line 25, “is attached” should be --are attached-- to properly modify “one or more”. See also claim 2, line 2, and claim 3, line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 1, line 39 “at at least a first, second, third, and fourth corner” is indefinite whether the reference is alternative or cumulative of the corners. In line 46, “said plastic film” lacks antecedent basis or consistent terminology.
In claim 9, line 30, “said plastic film” lacks antecedent basis or consistent terminology.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Bevier (11,679,908(based on its prior publication) in view of Hafliger et al. (12,479,622)(based on its prior publication and its PCT publication date). Bevier disclose a tray formed from a blank (10) and method of forming the same, the tray comprising a bottom panel (24), two opposing longitudinal side wall panels (34a, 34b) foldably connected to a respective one of two opposing longitudinally extending sides (at 26 and 28) of the bottom panel, two opposing transversal side wall panels (36a, 36b) foldably connected to a respective one of two opposing transversely extending sides (30, 32) of the bottom panel, two opposing longitudinal rim panels (16, 18) each foldably connected to a respective one of the two opposing longitudinal side wall panels on a longitudinally extending side of the respective longitudinal side wall panels being opposite the bottom panel, two opposing transversal rim panels (20, 22) foldably connected to a respective one of the two opposing transversal side wall panels on a transversely extending side of the respective transversal side wall panel being opposite the bottom panel, wherein the two opposing longitudinal side wall panels and the two opposing transversal side wall panels are folded upwardly relative to the bottom panel to form a respective side wall of the tray (see Figure 2), wherein when the side wall panels are folded upwardly to form the respective side walls of the tray, substantially transversely extending end sides (34a, 34b), as seen in a flat-laid state of the blank, of the two opposing longitudinal rim panels each extend along a respective one of the two opposing transversal side wall panels or along a respective substantially longitudinally extending end side (36a, 36b; free edges of 3) of the two opposing transversal side wall panels, or vice versa, and thereby form corners in geometrical intersections between the adjacent side wall panels, wherein the two opposing longitudinal rim panels and the two opposing transversal rim panels are folded outwardly or inwardly relative to the respective side wall of the tray to form a circumferential rim of the tray, wherein the longitudinal rim panels and the transversal rim panels each comprise a first corner portion (60) and a second corner portion (opposite 60 of the same rim panel) arranged on opposite sides of a respective central portion (transverse bisector of 20 and 22) as seen along a respective main extension of the respective rim panel, wherein one or more plastic film pieces (see column 7, lines 14-17) are attached at least to the respective rim panel at at least a first, second, third and fourth corners of the tray, wherein the one or more plastic film pieces are attached at least to the respective first corner portion of the two opposing longitudinal rim panels and to the first corner portion and the second corner portion, respectively, of one of the two opposing transversal rim panels such that the rim panels are interconnected at the first corner and the second corner by the one or more plastic film pieces, wherein the one or more plastic film pieces are attached at least to the respective second corner portion of the two opposing longitudinal rim panels and to the first corner portion and the second corner portion, respectively, of one of the two opposing transversal rim panels such that the rim panels are interconnected at the third corner and the fourth corner by the one or more plastic film pieces, wherein the one or more plastic film pieces are only attached to the longitudinal rim panels and the transversal rim panels, and
wherein the blank is made of a paper-based material (see column 5, lines 2-10; ) having an inherent grammage (density). Bevier does not disclose the paper-based material having a grammage (density) in the range of 180-600 grams per square meter. However, Hafliger et al. disclose a range of 180-600 grams per square meter is within known parameters (see column 4, lines 31-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tray of Bevier from paper material with a grammage of 180-600 grams per square meter in the manner of Hafliger et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a tray of a conventional grammage.
As to claim 2, Bevier discloses the one or more plastic film pieces attached along the two opposing transversal rim panels (20, 22).
As to claims 4 and 5, Bevier discloses the plastic film piece extends circumferentially along the circumferential rim to close a mouth of the tray.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either one of Cravens (4,133,430) and Raisin (2,808,192). Bevier disclose the one or more plastic film pieces attached along the two opposing transversal sides but not extending to the side wall panels. However, Cravens and Raisin each disclose a plastic film piece (214; 20) extending to the side wall panels of a tray (20; 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tray of Bevier with a plastic film piece extending to the side wall panels of the tray in the manner of either one of Cravens or Raisin as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a more secure sealing of the tray.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of EP 2441697. Bevier discloses applying a plastic film piece, but not particularly by heating and pressing. However, EP 2441697 discloses a similar tray with a plastic film piece secured by heating and pressing (see the Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tray of Bevier with a plastic film piece secured by heating and pressing in the manner of EP 2441697 as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide s known manner of securing a plastic film piece to a tray.
Claims 6 and 7 would each be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Dependent claim 8 would also then be allowable.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 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, Orlando Aviles-Bosques, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG
