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 .
The Final Rejection mailed 5/14/25 has been vacated in view of this Office Action.
Response to Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 8/12/15, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New Grounds of Rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Response to Appellant Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal Brief filed 8/12/25, with respect to the previous prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered and comprise persuasive remarks. Specifically, at least the argument that the addition of holes to the prior art article cited in the previous office action(s) would be nonobvious is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection are made in the instant office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/4/22.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: the recitation “the cellulose-based acetate film” should be changed to “the cellulose-based acetate film liner”, for the sake of claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (U.S. 2016/0236822) in view of Bao (Congyu Bao. Cellulose acetate / plasticizer systems: structure, morphology and dynamics. Polymers. Université Claude Bernard- Lyon I, 2015), and further in view of Nakamura (JP2001355199A; see attached machine translation from the EPO), hereinafter referred to as Chou, Bao, and Nakamura, respectively.
As to claim 1, Chou discloses a lined molded fiber article (molded, film coated, multi-surface pulp container 70, paragraph 20 and Figure 4B), comprising a contoured body, wherein the body includes one or more surfaces, and wherein the body includes perforations (holes 31, Figure 4B); and a film liner (one or more of inner film liner 20 and outer film liner 50, paragraph 24) bonded (film liners are bonded to surfaces of the body, paragraphs 20 and 22) to at least one of the one or more surfaces of the body.
Chou discloses their fiber article can be a food tray, bowl, packaging box, or lunch box (paragraph 24). Chou discloses the film liner(s) can be made from Polyethylene (PE), Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol (PETG), or Polylactic Acid (PLA), including other applicable materials as well (paragraph 24), and therefore does not explicitly disclose a cellulose-based acetate film liner.
However, Bao discloses that cellulose-based acetate film liners are known to be suitable for contact with food (page 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a cellulose-based acetate film liner for the film liner(s) of Chou since cellulose based acetate film liners are environmentally friendly with good strength properties, as disclosed in Bao (page 19). Furthermore, such a substitution would have involved substituting one suitable film liner for another to obtain predictable results.
Chou discloses their article is pulp molded, but does not specify the type of molding or disclose their article is thermoformed from an aqueous slurry comprising virgin bagasse fiber pulp.
Examiner notes that these limits are product-by-process limitations.
Nevertheless, Nakamura discloses a pulp molded container which is thermoformed from an aqueous slurry comprising virgin bagasse fiber pulp (thermoforming a pulp molded food packaging container from a bagasse pulp slurry, paragraphs 2, 17, and 21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to look to the prior art and utilize the thermoforming of bagasse fiber pulp for the non-specified pulp molding of Chou since such a substitution is known to provide a container with improved strength and heat resistance, as disclosed in Nakamura (abstract). Furthermore, such a substitution would have involved substituting one molding process for another to obtain predictable results.
As to claim 2, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses the cellulose-based acetate film liner is impervious to at least one of oil and water (Chou, film is waterproof, paragraphs 5 and 23).
As to claim 3, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses the cellulose-based acetate film liner is a permeation barrier to at least one of water and oxygen (Chou, film is waterproof, paragraphs 5 and 23).
As to claim 4, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses the cellulose-based acetate film liner is solvent cast (Bao, page 39).
As to claim 5, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses the fiber pulp comprises 100% virgin bagasse fiber (Nakamura, raw bagasse obtained from natural or high-fiber plants, paragraph 17).
As to claim 6, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses the virgin bagasse fiber pulp is depithed (Nakamura, pulp liquid is first poured onto a wire netting, paragraph 24).
As to claim 8, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses the cellulose-based acetate film liner is cellulose di-acetate (Bao, cellulose diacetate, page 19).
As to claim 9, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses the cellulose-based acetate film liner is cellulose tri-acetate (Bao, cellulose triacetate, page 19).
As to claim 11, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses the cellulose-based acetate film liner comprises a food-contact surface (Chou, fiber article can be a food tray, bowl, packaging box, or lunch box, paragraph 24; Bao, cellulose based acetate film liners are known to be suitable for contact with food, page 19).
As to claim 12, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses a layer of amorphous polyester is disposed between the cellulose-based acetate film liner and the one or more surfaces of the body to which it is bonded (Nakamura, container surface is coated with polyester resin or the like, paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate an amorphous polyester barrier layer directly in contact with the surface of the body and between the surface and film liner order to fill the mesh-like shape of the wire netting generated during thermoforming of the article, thereby forming smooth surface, as disclosed in Nakamura (paragraph 33) Such a modification would provide a smoother surface upon which the cellulose-based acetate film liner could adhere.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP2001355199A; see attached machine translation from the EPO) in view of Bao (Congyu Bao. Cellulose acetate / plasticizer systems: structure, morphology and dynamics. Polymers. Université Claude Bernard- Lyon I, 2015), and further in view of Jean-Mary et al. (U.S. 10,549,888), hereinafter referred to as Nakamura, Bao, and Jean-Mary, respectively.
As to claims 13-14, Nakamura discloses a lined molded fiber article comprising: a contoured body (contoured container 1, Figure 1) including one or more surfaces, thermoformed from an aqueous slurry comprising virgin bagasse fiber pulp (thermoforming contoured container from a bagasse pulp slurry, paragraphs 2, 17, and 21; raw bagasse is obtained from natural or high-fiber plants, paragraph 17), and a film liner (bonding a plastic film liner to the inner surface(s) of the container, paragraph 32) bonded to at least one of the one or more surfaces of the body.
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a film liner is a cellulose-based acetate film liner.
However, Bao discloses that cellulose-based acetate film liners are known to be suitable for contact with food (page 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a cellulose-based acetate film liner for the film liner(s) of Nakamura since cellulose based acetate film liners are environmentally friendly with good strength properties, as disclosed in Bao (page 19). Furthermore, such a substitution would have involved substituting one suitable film liner for another to obtain predictable results.
Nakamura in view of Bao does not explicitly disclose a barrier layer.
However, Jean Mary disclose the use of a barrier layer (odor control barrier layer 206, column 14, lines 39-60 and Figure 2B) between a film and another surface. The barrier layer is used for odor control related to food odors (column 10, lines 51-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the barrier layer from Jean Mary in between the body of the fiber article and film liner of Nakamura in view of Bao in order to reduce orders from food stored in the container. Nakamura in view of Bao discloses their fiber article is used for long-term storage of food (Nakamura, packaging of food, paragraph 2).
As to claim 15, Nakamura in view of Bao and Jean Mary discloses the barrier layer comprises polyethylenimine (PEI) (Jean Mary, column 11, lines 59-60).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (U.S. 2016/0236822) in view of Bao (Congyu Bao. Cellulose acetate / plasticizer systems: structure, morphology and dynamics. Polymers. Université Claude Bernard- Lyon I, 2015), and Nakamura (JP2001355199A; see attached machine translation from the EPO), and further in view of Jean-Mary et al. (U.S. 10,549,888) hereinafter referred to as Chou, Bao, Nakamura, and Jean-Mary, respectively.
As to claim 10, Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura disclose the article but is silent as to the film thickness and thus does not explicitly teach that the cellulose-based acetate film has a thickness within a range of about 1-5 mil.
However, Jean Mary discloses the use of films having a thickness of 0.1 to 10 mils (column 12, lines 32-37), which encompasses the claimed range. Such films are used in conduct with foodstuff (column 10, line 56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the film thickness of Jean Mary for the film of Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura since such a film thickness, in combination with a barrier layer (Jean Mary, odor control barrier layer 206, column 14, lines 39-60 and Figure 2B), is effective at control of food odors (Jean Mary, column 10, lines 51-57). Chou in view of Bao and Nakamura discloses that their fiber article is used for storage of food (Chou, paragraph 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abbas Rashid whose telephone number is (571)270-7457. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights