DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 4, 8, and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-6 and 8-26 are pending and under examination. Applicant's amendment fails to overcome 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/06/2024 as described hereinafter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Titles 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter Öhman, et al. US 20180304607 A1 in view of Grey Moore et al. (US 20090289073 A1) and further in view of Edward L. Powell (USP 2932600 A).
Regarding claim 1, briefly, Öhman discloses a contoured body (layer A, paragraph 28) and a cellulose based acetate film liner (liner B, paragraph 28). That being said, Öhman discloses: A lined molded fiber article (Para [0158] discloses “FIGS. 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d show typical examples of packaging containers produced from the laminated packaging material according to the invention.”, abstract, and throughout the disclosure.) comprising: a contoured body, thermoformed from an aqueous slurry, wherein the body includes one or more surfaces; and a cellulose-based acetate film liner bonded to at least one of the one or more surfaces of the body. (Para [0028] discloses “there is provided a method for manufacturing of a laminated packaging material for liquid food carton packaging, comprising the steps of providing a first web comprising a layer A of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, providing a second web comprising a film or sheet B, applying an aqueous composition comprising an adhesive, at an amount from 1 to 4 g/m.sup.2, dry content, onto the surface of one of the first and second webs, forwarding the first and second webs, one of which having the aqueous adhesive composition applied to its surface, towards a pressure roller nip, to be joined and laminated together by the interjacent aqueous adhesive composition while passing the nip, and while the adhesive composition is partly absorbed into at least one of the first and second web surfaces of A and B.” (Emphasis added). The layer A in Öhman is the contoured body of the claimed invention, the layer B is the cellulose-based acetate film liner in the claimed invention since Para [0038] discloses “The web of layer B may also be a paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based layer, whereby the adhesive binder polymer is selected from PVOH, polyvinyl acetate, starch or starch derivatives and cellulose and cellulose derivatives.” and the barrier layer disposed between the film liner and the contour body in claimed invention is the same as the aqueous adhesive composition as expressly taught in para [0028] “to be joined and laminated together by the interjacent aqueous adhesive composition”. Para [0031-0032] expressly characterizes the adhesive composition (i.e., barrier layer in instant claims 13 & 14) selected from “…cellulose and their derivatives, polyvinyl acetate… for adhering to cellulose-based layers and other layers… since they are water soluble/dispersible and either obtainable from renewable sources or biodegradable, and safe for use in connection with packaging of food grade products.”.).
Although Öhman implicitly teaches pre-cut hole on para [0061-0062], nonetheless, Öhman does not expressly disclose: wherein the body includes perforations.
In the same field of art, Moore reference (the same assignee of the claimed invention) is directed to a molded plastic container having a side wall encircling an axis. The side wall having an outer surface and an inner surface and having a valve seat feature molded into the side wall. The valve seat feature includes a central recess in the outer surface of the side wall and an annular valve seat surrounding the central recess. With that in mind, Moore discloses: wherein the body includes perforations (Fig. 6 and para [0006] discloses “The container has one or more holes extending through a portion of the side wall bounded by the annular valve seat into the interior of the container for venting gas from the container.” Or para [0016] discloses “In one embodiment, the step of forming the one or more holes in the side wall comprises laser-perforating the side wall.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cellulose-based food packaging material for making containers of Öhman by a molded plastic container has one or more holes extending through a portion of the side wall bounded by the annular valve seat into the interior of the container as taught by Moore for venting gas from the container. Since the packaging container in Öhman is manufactured to preserve the qualities of the packed food product for long time such as 12 months, or more as noted in para [0020], it stands to reason that one skilled in art would certainly be motivated to use the perforations in Moore for gas venting for the benefit of the claimed invention.
Even though the virgin bagasse fiber is a natural, renewable, and biodegradable material that comes from the dry, fibrous remains of sugarcane after being chopped and ground during the extraction and since Öhman in para [0032] teaches renewable sources or biodegradable for use in connection with packaging of food grade products, nevertheless, the combination Öhman and Moore does not expressly disclose: wherein the fiber pulp comprises “virgin bagasse fiber”.
In the same field of art, Powell is directed to produce a commercial pulp from bagasse and a purified cellulose from bagasse without employing inorganic or organic acids (Col. 1, 62-68). With that in mind, Powell discloses: wherein the fiber pulp comprises virgin bagasse fiber (The entire patent, particularly, Col. 2, lines 18-28 and claims 1 and 2.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a fully biodegradable container of the combination Öhman and Moore by a commercial pulp from bagasse and a purified cellulose from bagasse without employing inorganic or organic acids as taught by Powell so as to produce a pulp that can be at a very low cost, making the pulp commercially desirable. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Powell disclosure, would also have been motivated to apply its teaching of production of pulp from bagasse for use as chemical pulp, paper pulp and the like for the benefit of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim 1. Öhman further discloses: wherein the cellulose-based acetate film liner is impervious to at least one of oil and water (Para [0045] discloses “In another embodiment of the method, the film or sheet B is laminated to the inside of layer A, i.e. to be on the inside of a packaging container made from the packaging material, and comprises at least one barrier layer or barrier coating, or a pre-laminated structure comprising a barrier layer or barrier coating and an innermost heat sealable, liquid tight thermoplastic polymer.” Therefore, it stands to reason that the film liner must be impervious.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim 1. Öhman further discloses: wherein the cellulose-based acetate film liner is a permeation barrier to at least one of water and oxygen (Para [0045] discloses “In another embodiment of the method, the film or sheet B is laminated to the inside of layer A, i.e. to be on the inside of a packaging container made from the packaging material, and comprises at least one barrier layer or barrier coating, or a pre-laminated structure comprising a barrier layer or barrier coating and an innermost heat sealable, liquid tight thermoplastic polymer.” Therefore, it stands to reason that the film liner must be impervious.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim. Powell further discloses: wherein the fiber pulp comprises 100% virgin bagasse fiber (The entire patent, particularly, Col. 2, lines 18-28 and claims 1 and 2.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim. Powell further discloses: wherein the virgin bagasse fiber pulp is depithed (Col. 2, lines 18-32 and claims 1-2. It is worth mentioning that depithing or process of removal of pith from bagasse is an important and necessary step to upgrade quality of bagasse for the production of high-grade cellulose pulps).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim 1. Although Öhman does not expressly disclose di-acetate or tri-acetate as recited: wherein the cellulose-based acetate film is cellulose di-acetate or tri-acetate (However, claim 8 and para [0038] discloses “… the web of layer B is a paper or paperboard or cellulose-based layer, and the adhesive binder polymer is polyvinyl acetate…”. With that in mind, even though Öhman does not explicitly disclose the type of acetate in their cellulose-based acetate film, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select di-acetate or tri-acetate as the material for the cellulose-based acetate film, since such a modification would have involved merely substituting prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Particularly, one skilled in the art knows that selecting di-acetate or tri-acetate would involve merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable types of polyvinyl acetates, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim 1. Öhman further discloses the thickness for various layers on para [0011], [0025-0026], [0047], [0060], [0064], [0066] and so on without expressly teaches a thickness within a range of about 1-5 mil. Even though, Öhman does not explicitly disclose: wherein the cellulose-based acetate film has a thickness within a range of about 1-5 mil , nevertheless, one skilled in the art could simply determine the thickness of the film within a range of about 1-5 mil via trial and error or measuring it via routine optimization. The thickness of the film is purely dependent on type of drinkable liquid such as milk and/or various citrus juices stored therein and thus, absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include specific thickness of the film within a range of about 1-5 mil or any other number thereof with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a food packaging container.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim 1. Öhman further discloses: wherein the cellulose-based acetate film liner comprises a food-contact surface (Para [0045] discloses “…the film or sheet B is laminated to the inside of layer A, i.e., to be on the inside of a packaging container made from the packaging material, and comprises at least one barrier layer or barrier coating, or a pre-laminated structure comprising a barrier layer...” The film liner must have food-contact surface as disclosed throughout the cited reference.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Peter Öhman, et al. US 20180304607 A1 in view of Grey Moore et al. (US 20090289073 A1), in view of Edward L. Powell (USP 2932600 A) and further in view of Kevin Parker et al. (US 20150079381 A1).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim 1. However, the combination of Öhman and Moore in view of Powell does not expressly disclose: wherein the cellulose-based acetate film is solvent cast.
In the same field of art, Parker is directed to a film having opposing major planar surfaces and a central coplanar region disposed between said opposing major planar surfaces. The film includes an anti-fog composition that comprises cellulose acetate, plasticizer, and an anti-blocking agent. With that said, Parker discloses: wherein the cellulose-based acetate film is solvent cast (Para [0180] discloses “Dope Solutions 1-8 were solvent cast to form the respective precursor films.” The same on para [0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film composition of the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell by using a multi-layer anti-fog composition being solvent cast to form respective precursor film as taught by Parker so that the film composition has a highly desirable combination of performance characteristics noted hereinbefore. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Parker disclosure, would also have been motivated to apply its teaching of utilizing the caustic treatment of a film precursor formed using a specific anti-blocking agent having a particularly small average particle size that results in the preparation of a fog resistant (anti-fog) composition having a superior combination of properties for the benefit of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Peter Öhman, et al. US 20180304607 A1 in view of Grey Moore et al. (US 20090289073 A1) and further in view of Edward L. Powell (USP 2932600 A) and further in view of Bernd Reinhardt et al. (USP 5,102,502 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell disclose all of the limitations of its base claim 1. The combination of Öhman and Moore in view of Powell does not expressly disclose: wherein 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.
In the same field of art, Reinhardt is directed to a process for the production of highly compressed paper sheets comprising celluloses with the addition of thermoplastic synthetic fibers with a volume weight greater or equal to 0.9 kg/dm.sup.3, as well as the use of the same. With that in mind, Reinhardt discloses: wherein 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 (Referring to Col. 1, lines 32-45 that discloses “It is known from the manufacture of non-woven fabrics, for example, that this laminar structure results from loose fiber through thermal hardening treatment or precise thermo diffusion by means of so-called binding fibers. The fiber which forms the nonwoven fabric is thereby designated as the support fiber, and the melting component is designated as the binding fiber. These binding fibers are divided into the 3 primary groups: (6) Adhesion fibers; (7) Bicomponent fibers; and (8) Thermoplastic adhesive fibers. (9) Adhesion fibers, for example, are non-stretched, amorphous polyester fibers, which soften on the surface at barely 100.degree. C., and thereby become sticky and capable of bonding.” Clearly, Reinhardt teaches those amorphous polyester fibers are quite good as an adhesive fiber and they can be added to conventional cellulose fiber as a great binder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a fully biodegradable container for storing drinkable fluids of the combination Öhman and Moore in view of Powell by using a layer of amorphous polyester as an adhesive fiber and binder as taught by Reinhardt so as to make multiple layer laminar paper sheets from polyethylene and cellulose as an alternative to paper sheets with good barrier characteristics which are laminated with polyethylene foil or extruded polyethylene. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Reinhardt disclosure, would also have been motivated to apply its teaching of amorphous polyester fibers as an adhesive fiber that can be added to conventional cellulose fiber as a great binder for the benefit of the claimed invention.).
Claims 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Peter Öhman, et al. US 20180304607 A1 in view of Edward L. Powell (USP 2932600 A).
Regarding claims 13-14, Öhman discloses a contoured body (layer A, paragraph 28) and a cellulose based acetate film liner (liner B, paragraph 28). That being said, Öhman discloses: A lined molded fiber article (Para [0158] discloses “FIGS. 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d show typical examples of packaging containers produced from the laminated packaging material according to the invention.”, abstract, and throughout the disclosure.) comprising: a contoured body, thermoformed from an aqueous slurry comprising pulp, wherein the body includes one or more surfaces; a cellulose-based acetate film liner bonded to at least one of the one or more surfaces of the body; and a barrier layer or wherein the barrier layer is disposed between the cellulose-based acetate film liner and the one or more surfaces of the body to which it is bonded (Para [0028] discloses “there is provided a method for manufacturing of a laminated packaging material for liquid food carton packaging, comprising the steps of providing a first web comprising a layer A of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, providing a second web comprising a film or sheet B, applying an aqueous composition comprising an adhesive, at an amount from 1 to 4 g/m.sup.2, dry content, onto the surface of one of the first and second webs, forwarding the first and second webs, one of which having the aqueous adhesive composition applied to its surface, towards a pressure roller nip, to be joined and laminated together by the interjacent aqueous adhesive composition while passing the nip, and while the adhesive composition is partly absorbed into at least one of the first and second web surfaces of A and B.” (Emphasis added). The layer A in Öhman is the contoured body of the claimed invention, the layer B is the cellulose-based acetate film liner in the claimed invention since Para [0038] discloses “The web of layer B may also be a paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based layer, whereby the adhesive binder polymer is selected from PVOH, polyvinyl acetate, starch or starch derivatives and cellulose and cellulose derivatives.” and the barrier layer disposed between the film liner and the contour body in claimed invention is the same as the aqueous adhesive composition as expressly taught in para [0028] “to be joined and laminated together by the interjacent aqueous adhesive composition”. Para [0031-0032] expressly characterizes the adhesive composition (i.e., barrier layer in instant claims 13 & 14) selected from “…cellulose and their derivatives, polyvinyl acetate… for adhering to cellulose-based layers and other layers… since they are water soluble/dispersible and either obtainable from renewable sources or biodegradable, and safe for use in connection with packaging of food grade products.”).
Öhman discloses all of the limitations of its base claim 13. However, Öhman does not expressly disclose: wherein the fiber pulp comprises “virgin bagasse fiber”.
In the same field of art, Powell is directed to produce a commercial pulp from bagasse and a purified cellulose from bagasse without employing inorganic or organic acids (Col. 1, 62-68). With that in mind, Powell discloses: wherein the fiber pulp comprises virgin bagasse fiber (The entire patent, particularly, Col. 2, lines 18-28 and claims 1 and 2.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a fully biodegradable container of Öhman by a commercial pulp from bagasse and a purified cellulose from bagasse without employing inorganic or organic acids as taught by Powell so as to produce a pulp that can be at a very low cost, making the pulp commercially desirable. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Powell disclosure, would also have been motivated to apply its teaching of production of pulp from bagasse for use as chemical pulp, paper pulp and the like for the benefit of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter Öhman, et al. US 20180304607 A1 in view of Edward L. Powell (USP 2932600 A) and further in view of MENG CHAM PAK; et al. (WO 2014071377 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Öhman and Powell discloses all of the limitation of its base claim 13. Although as noted, the aqueous adhesive composition is water soluble/dispersible and obtainable from renewable sources or biodegradable and Polyethylenimine (PEI) solution is a water-soluble, positively charged polymer and is well known to be commonly used in packaging containers intended for liquid and solid food packaging, nevertheless, the combination of Öhman and Powell does not expressly disclose: wherein the barrier layer comprises polyethylenimine (PEI).
In the same field of art, PAK is directed towards a paper-based composite packaging structure and method for making a paper-based composite packaging structure comprising a paper layer and a filler layer which may be laminated or otherwise adhered to the paper layer. In certain embodiments, the filler layer comprises a polymer or bio-based polymer. An optional barrier layer may be deposited on to one side of the paper layer or filler layer as desired to provide functional barrier characteristics. In other contemplated embodiments, the composite paper-based film structure(s) may comprise additional layers such as one or more optional primer layers, adhesive layers, ink layers, and/or sealant layers that may be incorporated into the composite film structure as desired to enable the required functional characteristics of the composite film structure described herein. With that in mind, PAK discloses: wherein the barrier layer comprises polyethylenimine (PEI) (Figs. 1-3 and throughout the disclosure such as para [0003-0007], [0010], [0020-0026], and para [0042] and claim 4 and 38 specifically discloses polyethylenimine (PEI).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a laminated cellulose-based liquid- or semi-liquid food packaging container of the combination of Öhman and Powell by a degradable and/or recyclable, flexible packaging made from a renewable resource, which retains desirable barrier properties. as taught by PAK so as to produce multi-layered film structures having a paper-based composite film. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading PAK disclosure, would also have been motivated to apply its teaching of a paper-based flexible packaging material having acceptable barrier properties for packaging food products for the benefit of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to MPEP 2144.05 II-A:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Even though the Applicant’s arguments are repeated from previous responses and were addressed by the Examiner accordingly, nevertheless, the Examiner’s position remains the same.
On pages 6 and 7, Applicant contends: “It is unclear what the Examiner means in this sentence. It is unclear what part of Ohman is proposed to be modified by Moore. Are the molded plastic perforated walls of Moore proposed to be substituted entirely into Ohman (i.e. it is no longer cellulose-based)? Are just the holes extending through a portion of the Moore sidewall proposed to be substituted into Ohman's existing sidewall?
Further, it is unclear what the Examiner cites as the motivation to combine. Ohman's invention does not require off-gassing. Ohman's packaging material is designed for liquid food carton packaging, specifically for products like milk, soy, rice, grains and seed drinks, juice, nectar, still drinks, energy drinks, sport drinks, coffee or tea drinks, coconut water, tea drinks, wine, soups, jalapenos, tomatoes, sauce (such as pasta sauce), beans and olive oil. None of these liquid products generate gases that would require venting or off-gassing. There would be no motivation to provide an off-gassing feature in Ohman and, thus, no reason to include perforated walls in Ohman for off-gassing purposes.
This sentence does not even make sense: "Since the packaging container in Ohman is manufactured to preserve the qualities of the packed food product for long time such as 12 months . . . it stands to reason that one skilled in art would certainly be motivated to use the perforations in Moore for gas venting for the benefit of the claimed invention." If anything, perforations would cause the preservation features of Ohman to be degraded. Perforations would not allow Ohman to maintain the quality of the packed food product for a long time such as 12 months. Thus, the cited motivation does not exist in reality. Adding perforations to Ohman would compromise the liquid-tight functionality and barrier requirements of Ohman.
There must be some basis, apart from hindsight rationale, to combine and modify references. An obviousness determination requires finding both "that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art ... and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added); MPEP § 2143.02(1). (Emphasis added)
The applicant’s arguments are simply diversion from the crux of the rejection. As noted previously, the base claim is directed to: a product (i.e., A lined molded fiber article) having specific structures such as a contoured body having one or more surfaces that includes perforations; and a film liner bonded to at least one of the one or more surfaces of the body. The entire structure of the base claim is patently disclosed by the cited references as discussed in detail hereinbefore. The primary reference Öhman does not expressly disclose body perforations in which Moore reference (Applicant’s prior patent) teaches just that. Irrespective of intended use of the respective reference, one skilled in the art certainly would look into Moore for application of perforations on the side wall of the Öhman container. Again, the claimed invention is a product having specific structure and all of the elements of structure taught by both references irrespective of their intended use. It is completely irrelevant how the perforations in Moore are formed on the side wall of the Öhman container since that is specifically dependent on the intended use. The crux of the rejection is perforations itself since the product of claimed invention is defined its structure and NOT its intended use. For example, one skilled in the art would certainly be motivated to apply the teachings in Moore to Öhman container that forming the one or more holes in the side wall and learning that would not cause structural failure of the whole container of Öhman Irrespective of its intended use. Moreover, Applicant’s interpretation of the Öhman reference is incorrect that “Ohman's packaging material is designed for liquid food carton packaging…” since abstract, para [0013], and [0022] indicate the cellulose-based liquid- or semi-liquid food packaging materials. Furthermore, Applicant’s assertion that “None of these liquid products generate gases” is scientifically incorrect and the Öhman reference does not teach that whatsoever.
With respect to citation that has arbitrary being applied : Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added); MPEP § 2143.02(1): it is worth mentioning that a fertile source of error in patent law is the misapplication of a sound legal principle established in one case to another case in which the facts are essentially different and the principle has no application whatsoever. For example, the technology at issue was a method of labelling nucleic acid molecules for use in, among other things, sequencing by synthesis ("SBS"). The inventors of Illumina's patent at issue found that a protecting group with an azido group (in their case, azidomethyl) could meet this exacting standard. The only independent claim at issue in the '537 patent was:
A method of labeling a nucleic acid molecule, the method comprising incorporating into the nucleic acid molecule a nucleotide or nucleoside molecule, wherein the nucleotide or nucleoside molecule has a base that is linked to a detectable label via a cleavable linker and the nucleotide or nucleoside molecule has a ribose or deoxyribose sugar moiety, wherein the ribose or deoxyribose sugar moiety comprises a protecting group attached via the 2' or 3' oxygen atom, and said protecting group can be modified or removed to expose a 3' OH group and the protecting group comprises an azido group.
The Federal Circuit emphasized the claim language underlined above. Therefore, the set of facts in this case are completely different than the facts in the claimed invention and its rejection of the claimed invention that directed to a product. It is entirely irrelevant and therefore, the rejections of the claims are maintained.
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 MATTHEW M ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8710. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 to 5:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on (571)270-7457. 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.
/MATTHEW M ESLAMI/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748