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 .
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
All previous rejections have been withdrawn
REJECTIONS REPEATED
There are no rejections repeated.
NEW REJECTIONS
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 27-31, 33-38, 60-61, 65-66, 77-79 and 85-86 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.
Independent claims 27, 28, 30, 60, and 61 each recite “the food product will remain fresh at least one additional day when compared with the case that the film replaced by a plastic that is not compostable”. However, neither the claim nor Applicant’s specification indicate how the “freshness” of the food product is to be determined. Additionally, there does not appear to be an art recognized consistent meaning for the term “fresh”. Furthermore, there does not appear to be an art recognized method of analytically determining the freshness of a given food product. The Examiner contends that whether a food product is fresh or not is entirely subjective and that what may be considered fresh by one person may not be considered fresh by another person. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of whether a given package comprising a food product and an apertured film meets the limitations of the claims. For this reason the claim is indefinite.
The rest of the claims are dependent on one of independent claims 27-28, 30, 60 and 61 and inherit the same deficiencies.
In addition to the above point, it is noted that neither the claim nor Applicant's specification recite or describe the storage conditions under which the food product is stored prior to making a determination of it is “fresh” or not. Given that different foods may become less fresh at different rates depending on the storage conditions (i.e. temperature and moisture levels) without a specific recitation of the storage conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of whether a given package comprising a food product and an apertured film meets the limitations of the claims.
Claims 27-31, 33-36, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47-48, 50, 60-62, 65-66, 70-72, 75-79, 81-82 and 84-86 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 “fresh” recited throughout claims 27-31, 33-36, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47-48, 50, 60-62, 65-66, 70-72, 75-79, 81-82 and 84-86 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fresh” 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. The metes and bounds of the term “fresh” are not clearly defined because it is not clear what “fresh” means. Does it mean just picked, or one day old, or two days old etc.
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.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettridge et al. (US2010/0003457) in view of Sankey et al. (US 2006/0165958) and Singh, Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh produce: Current status and future needs, LWT - Food Science and Technology, 43(3):381- 392, 2010.
Ettridge discloses a modified atmosphere package formed from a film comprising a biodegradable, compostable co-polyester layer and a biodegradable, compostable cellulose layer [abstract, 0008-0011] which reads on the claimed compostable film. As a package, Ettridge teaches a pillow bag [0015] which intrinsically comprise a space which is defined by the film. The package may contain fruit, salad, or vegetables [0002] which reads on the claimed food product. The package may be utilized as a modified atmosphere packaging by incorporating micro- perforations [0029, 0030, 0036] which reads on the claimed at least one aperture. The film of the disclosed modified atmosphere packaging reads on the claimed film which controls oxygen permeability and water vapor permeability.
Ettridge discloses a modified atmosphere package formed from a film comprising a biodegradable, compostable co-polyester layer and a biodegradable, compostable cellulose layer wherein the co-polyester layer and the cellulose layer are bonded together by a solvent or water based coating of co- polyester [abstract, 0008-0011, 0027, claims 1-3] which reads on the claimed compostable film and adhesive. Ettridge teaches that cellulose films inherently have gas barrier properties [0031] and thus the cellulose layer reads on the claimed first film. The co-polyester layer provides water vapor barrier properties to the package [0009] and thus reads on the claimed second film. The solvent or water based coating of co-polyester reads on the claimed adhesive.
As a package, Ettridge teaches a pillow bag [0015] which intrinsically comprises a space which is defined by the film. The package may contain fruit, salad, or vegetables [0002] which reads on the claimed food product. The package may be utilized as a modified atmosphere packaging by incorporating micro-perforations [0029, 0030, 0036] which reads on the claimed at least one aperture. The film of the disclosed modified atmosphere packaging read on the claimed film which controls oxygen permeability and water vapor permeability.
Ettridge does not specifically disclose wherein the film is transparent or that the first and second film are transparent and wherein the adhesive allows for the film to be transparent.
Sankey discloses a breathable film (paragraph [0006]) for packaging fruits and vegetables (paragraph [0076]) comprising a cellulose layer (paragraphs [0019], [0046]) and a polyester layer (paragraph [0025]) and an adhesive (paragraphs [0053], [0058-0060]), wherein the film has micro-perforations (paragraph [0040]) and the whole film is transparent (paragraphs [0006], [0075]), which reads on wherein the adhesive allows for the film to be transparent since the whole film is transparent, in order to view the contents of the package.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided wherein the film is transparent or that the first and second film are transparent and wherein the adhesive allows for the film to be transparent in Ettridge in order to view the contents of the package as taught or suggested by Sankey.
Ettridge is silent regarding the concentration of N2 inside the space of the package.
Singh discloses a number of different gas mixtures which are used in packaging for various types of foods in modified atmosphere packaging (abstract, pages 381-383). Singh teaches that for the storage of produce items such as pineapples, onion, and lettuce in a modified atmosphere package the recommended gas mixture comprises 96% or more of N2 (page 383 - Table 1).
Ettridge and Singh are both directed towards the storage of produce in modified atmosphere packaging. In light of the disclosure of Singh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed to have set the N2 concentration of the atmosphere inside the package disclosed by Ettridge to be at least 96% with the expectation of providing a recommended atmosphere for storing pineapples, onion, and lettuce. The amount of N2 gas in the inside the resulting package would have read on the claimed amount.
Claim(s) 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettridge et al. (US2010/0003457) in view of Della Porta (US 2023/0109321) and Sankey et al. (US 2006/0165958).
Regarding claims 47 and 48, Ettridge discloses a modified atmosphere package formed from a film comprising a biodegradable, compostable co-polyester layer and a biodegradable, compostable cellulose layer wherein the co-polyester layer and the cellulose layer are bonded together by a solvent or water based coating of co- polyester [abstract, 0008-0011, 0027, claims 1-3] which reads on the claimed compostable film.
Ettridge teaches that cellulose films inherently have gas barrier properties [0031] and thus the cellulose layer reads on the claimed first film. The co-polyester layer provides water vapor barrier properties to the package [0009] and thus reads on the claimed second film. The solvent or water based coating of co-polyester reads on the claimed adhesive. As a package, Ettridge teaches a pillow bag [0015] which intrinsically comprise a space which is defined by the film.
Ettridge is silent regarding the package comprising a tray.
Della Porta discloses a modified atmosphere food package comprising a compostable tray disposed within a packaging element formed from a polymer film [abstract, 0010-0016, 0021, 0030, 0034, 0043, Fig. 4b]. The tray serves to support the weight of the food product so that a buyer can lift the food package without collapsing the package under the weight of the food [0030].
Ettridge and Della Porta are both directed towards modified atmosphere food packaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed to have utilized the compostable tray taught by Della Porta in the package of Ettridge in order to provide a means to support the weight of the food product so that a buyer can lift the food package without collapsing the package under the weight of the food. The compostable tray in the resulting package would have read on the tray recited in claims 47 and 48.
Ettridge does not specifically disclose wherein the film is transparent or that the first and second film are transparent and wherein the adhesive allows for the film to be transparent.
Sankey discloses a breathable film (paragraph [0006]) for packaging fruits and vegetables (paragraph [0076]) comprising a cellulose layer (paragraphs [0019], [0046]) and a polyester layer (paragraph [0025]) and an adhesive (paragraphs [0053], [0058-0060]), wherein the film has micro-perforations (paragraph [0040]) and the whole film is transparent (paragraphs [0006], [0075]), which reads on wherein the adhesive allows for the film to be transparent since the whole film is transparent, in order to view the contents of the package.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided wherein the film is transparent or that the first and second film are transparent and wherein the adhesive allows for the film to be transparent in Ettridge in order to view the contents of the package as taught or suggested by Sankey.
Claim(s) 69-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettridge et al. (US2010/0003457) in view of Sankey et al. (US 2006/0165958) and Singh, Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh produce: Current status and future needs, LWT - Food Science and Technology, 43(3):381- 392, 2010, as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of JP10100353 (English machine translation provided herein).
Sankey discloses a breathable film (paragraph [0006]) for packaging fruits and vegetables (paragraph [0076]) comprising a cellulose layer (paragraphs [0019], [0046]) and a polyester layer (paragraph [0025]) and an adhesive (paragraphs [0053], [0058-0060]), wherein the film has micro-perforations (paragraph [0040]) and the whole film is transparent (paragraphs [0006], [0075]), which reads on wherein the adhesive allows for the film to be transparent since the whole film is transparent which reads on claim 70.
Sankey discloses wherein the first film comprises a biofoil (since cellulose is disclosed, paragraph [0019]), an adhesive (paragraphs [0053], [0058-0059]), and the second film comprises cellulose (paragraph [0046]) in a transparent, breathable packaging for food (paragraphs [0002] and [0006]) in order to view the contents of the package and/or to provide improved shelf life.
Modified Ettridge does not disclose wherein the adhesive comprises a complex starch.
JP10100353 discloses wherein the adhesive comprises a complex starch (since starch, amylose and amylopectin are disclosed, paragraph [0033] in a biodegradable film for a package (paragraph [0002]) in order to provide improved transparency and biodegradability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided wherein the adhesive comprises a complex starch in Ettridge in order to provide improved transparency and biodegradability as taught or suggested by JP10100353.
Claim(s) 75-76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettridge et al. (US2010/0003457) in view of Della Porta (US 2023/0109321) and Sankey et al. (US 2006/0165958), as applied to claims 47-48 above, and further in view of JP10100353 (English machine translation provided herein).
Sankey discloses a breathable film (paragraph [0006]) for packaging fruits and vegetables (paragraph [0076]) comprising a cellulose layer (paragraphs [0019], [0046]) and a polyester layer (paragraph [0025]) and an adhesive (paragraphs [0053], [0058-0060]), wherein the film has micro-perforations (paragraph [0040]) and the whole film is transparent (paragraphs [0006], [0075]), which reads on wherein the adhesive allows for the film to be transparent since the whole film is transparent which reads on claim 74.
Sankey discloses wherein the first film comprises a biofoil (since cellulose is disclosed, paragraph [0019]), an adhesive (paragraphs [0053], [0058-0059]), and the second film comprises cellulose (paragraph [0046]) in a transparent, breathable packaging for food (paragraphs [0002] and [0006]) in order to view the contents of the package and/or to provide improved shelf life.
Modified Ettridge does not disclose wherein the adhesive comprises a complex starch.
JP10100353 discloses wherein the adhesive comprises a complex starch (since starch, amylose and amylopectin are disclosed, paragraph [0033] in a biodegradable film for a package (paragraph [0002]) in order to provide improved transparency and biodegradability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided wherein the adhesive comprises a complex starch in Ettridge in order to provide improved transparency and biodegradability as taught or suggested by JP10100353.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42, 67-68, 80 and 46, 73-74 and 83 are allowed.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments of 11/10/25 and 12/12/25 have been carefully considered and some arguments are persuasive while others are not.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 112 1st paragraph rejections are persuasive (see supplemental and affidavit of 12/12/25) and the 112 1st paragraph rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to Ettridge and the inherency of the limitations “the food product will remain fresh within the package for at least one additional (or two) day(s) as measured from the instance of time when compared with
the case that the film of the package is replaced by a plastic that is not compostable and
the food is part of the package with the plastic at the instance of time” and “wherein the transparent film controls the amount of CO2 flow from a space, defined by the transparent film and containing the food product, and through the at least one aperture in a first direction to be approximately equal to the amount of O₂ flowing through the at least one aperture in a second direction opposite to the first direction and into the space” and the prior art rejection of claims reciting either limitation have been withdrawn.
The 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the term “fresh” for spinach, lettuce and cabbage are persuasive for only spinach, lettuce and cabbage. The 112 2nd paragraph rejections for claims reciting the term “fresh” with regards to spinach, lettuce and cabbage have been withdrawn since applicant has provided methods to determine freshness for spinach, lettuce and cabbage (see supplemental of 12/12/25 and affidavit of 1/15/25).
The following arguments are not persuasive:
Finality
Applicant argued in the response of 1/15/25, “Pursuant to MPEP § 706.07(a), a claim can be finally rejected if the reasons for the rejection are necessitated by amendments made to the claim by the Applicant. In the present case, Applicant's inclusion of the phrase "initially fresh" in the May 14th Amendment is not a sufficient reason to present final rejection.”
The examiner disagrees. In the amendment of 5/14/24, applicant amended each independent claim, and by extension each dependent claim, to include the new limitation “initially fresh” which changed the scope of each, and every, pending claim. Because applicant changed the scope of each, and every, pending claim, a sufficient reason exists to present a final rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, applicant’s request for withdrawal of finality is denied. However, since said argument of 1/15/25 was not addressed in the previous office action, the current office action is made non-final.
Regarding applicant’s arguments of 11/10/25, to the examiner’s knowledge, there is no such thing as a conditional RCE based on the propriety of finality.
Biofilm/Biofoil
Applicant's specification (paragraph [0036] and [0038]) discloses that the biofoil is made from cellulose. Therefore, it is the opinion of the examiner that a biofilm/biofoil comprises cellulose base on applicant’s own specification. For purposes of examination, biofoil is interpreted to mean a cellulose layer.
112 2nd Paragraph
Applicant argues, “The term “fresh” is to be the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective date of the patent application. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For patent applications, the person of ordinary skill in the art is to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Exxon Res. & Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001).”
However, applicant’s claims are not restricted to anyone, or group of, food products. The claims are so broad as to recite any and all food products. The term “fresh” is not the same for vegetables as it is for meat so the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “fresh” is not clear. Furthermore, what is “fresh” to one person of ordinary skill in the art would not be “fresh” to another person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, salmon often has a fishy smell to it which some consider normal but others consider not “fresh”.
Applicant argues, “A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective date of the present patent application would have had several skills based on the pending claims and the Specification. For example, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be well versed on the process for transporting foods to customers so that the foods have a long shelf life and are safe for consumption. (Paragraphs 0002-0007 of Applicant's Specification). The person of ordinary skill in the art would be well versed on transporting a variety of foods, such as fruits and vegetables, to customers for safe consumption. Examples of foods discussed in the Specification and/or the claims are: 1) lettuce (Paragraphs 0050; 0056; 0059; 0063; and 0065 of Applicant's Specification); 2) salad (Paragraph 0056 of Applicant's Specification); 3) brassicas (Paragraph 0057 of Applicant's Specification); 4) spinach (Paragraphs 0057; 0063; and 0067 of Applicant's Specification); 5) kale (Paragraph 0057 of Applicant's Specification); 6) tubers (Paragraph 0057 of Applicant's Specification); 7) lettuce with vegetables (Paragraphs 0063 and 0065 of Applicant's 25 Specification); 8) meat (Paragraph 0068 of Applicant's Specification); and 9) seafood (Paragraph 0068 of Applicant's Specification). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been skilled in the formation of multi-layer film structures for film that is used in the packaging of foods. (Paragraphs 0036-0046; 0055; and 0057 Applicant's Specification). Such person would have been skilled in the formation of perforations in films and with how to measure the flow of various gases through such perforations (Paragraphs 0002; 0004; 0005; 0051; 0054; 0059-0061; and 0063 of Applicant's Specification). The above-mentioned person of ordinary skill in the art would have the equivalent of bachelor's degree in chemistry and would have at least one year of hands-on experience with various foods, such as fruits and vegetables, so as to determine whether foods being shipped to consumers or received by consumers are fresh for consumption by the general public. At page 46 of the Office Action, the Examiner does not dispute that the above attributes are associated with a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner does state that none of the above attributes "define the term 'fresh' or how one determines that a food product is 'fresh.' The Examiner misses the point. The above attributes regard the person of ordinary skill that would determine what the meaning of "fresh" is. For determining the person of ordinary skill, it is irrelevant as to defining what "fresh" is and how a food product is determined to be "fresh.”
However, none of the paragraphs cited by applicant define the term “fresh” or how one determines that a food product is “fresh”. The fact that “fresh” is not defined, that “fresh” differs from one person of ordinary skill in the art to another and that the method of determining “fresh” differs from one food to another is the point.
Applicant argues, “One of ordinary skill in the art as defined in Section C.2.a.ii., would readily understand the meaning of "fresh" in the claims based upon a reading of the claims and Applicant's Specification. In particular, paragraphs 0002 of Applicant's Specification discusses the packaging of fresh foods, such as fruits and vegetables, and providing an adequate shelf life for such fresh foods. Per Merriam Webster's online dictionary, shelf life is defined as: the period of time during which a material may be stored and remain suitable for use. Shelf life Definition & Meaning Merriam-Webster Based on a review of Applicant's Specification, shelf life "is measured from the time a fresh food product is initially placed in a container to the time the food product (Paragraph 0064 of Applicant's Specification). becomes stale while in the container " It is apparent from the above passage that food product is fresh when it is not stale. The above passages were discussed at page 47 of the Office Action, wherein the Examiner observed that the above definition and paragraph 0064 do not directly define the word "fresh" by itself. What the above passages do describe is that from the time fresh food is initially placed on a shelf to the time just prior to the fresh food not qualifying as fresh food is known as shelf-life. Furthermore, the point of time when the shelf-life ends is when the fresh food turns stale. Thus, the above passages show that food is fresh when it is not stale. Applicant's Specification provides several examples of when a food product becomes stale. For example, the Specification refers to the following as signs a food product is stale: 1) discoloration of food product, such as undesirable pink color for lettuce (Paragraphs 0002; 0004; 0054; 0059 2) product dries out (Paragraphs 0002; 0004; 0057; and 0007); 3) undesired smell (Paragraph 0004; 0059); and 4) undesired taste (Paragraph 0005; 0059). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the determination of "fresh" regarding food as recited in the claims can be determined by using sensory standards, such as sight (color), touch (dried out state), smell, and taste, based on an understanding of those standards for fresh and stale forms of the food involved. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine whether food was fresh or stale based on the sensory standards mentioned in Applicant's Specification, the claims are clear in meaning and so the rejection should be withdrawn. At page 47 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that the above passages are not applicable since "senses are different for everyone." Again, the Examiner misses the point. Under 35 U.S. C. § 112(b), the test is what would the single person of ordinary skill in the art understand what is fresh for food and not what would it mean for everyone. If the person of ordinary skill would use his or her senses to determine what is fresh food, then that is acceptable under the law. Note that the Declaration of Micah Fuson filed on January 15, 2025 ("the Fuson Declaration") demonstrated that the senses would be used 28 by one of ordinary skill to determine whether food is fresh. See Paragraph 7 of the Fuson Declaration in particular2.”
However, these standards are all subjective and there are no objective standards provided in the specification or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art can use his or senses but senses are different for everyone. What is the objective standard for sight, smell, touch, sound and taste? Because there is no objective standard for the term “fresh” the metes and bounds of the term “fresh” are not clearly defined. The fact that “fresh” is not defined, that “fresh” differs from one person of ordinary skill in the art to another and that the method of determining “fresh” differs from one food to another is the point. For example, salmon often has a fishy smell to it which some consider normal but others consider not “fresh”.
Applicant turns to Merriam-Webster’s definition of shelf-life but shelf-life does not define the term “fresh” or how one determines that a food product is “fresh”.
Applicant argues, “The rejection of the claims appears to based on the premise that no claim can include a subjective term. Such a premise is incorrect as demonstrated by the case law presented in Applicant's Amendment filed on January 15, 2025, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference. It is noted that at page 48 of the Office Action, the Examiner remarks that the case law did not discuss the term "fresh." While this is true, the fact remains the Examiner has not disputed that the case law indicates that subjective terms can be used in the claims. Furthermore, it is noted that the Examiner has not cited any case law stating that the term "fresh" cannot be recited in the claims. In summary, the meaning of "fresh" would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art and would have been based at least in part based on sensory standards as explained in Applicant's Specification and as stated at paragraph 7 of the Fuson Declaration. Accordingly, the rejection should be withdrawn.”
The examiner agrees that some subjective language can be used. The 112 2nd paragraph rejections are not based on the premise that no claim can include a subjective term. The rejection is based on the premise that the term “fresh” for all foods (which is the scope of the claims currently rejected under 112 2nd paragraph) is not defined and the metes and bounds of the claims are not clearly set forth. For example, salmon often has a fishy smell to it which some consider normal but others consider not “fresh”.
Applicant has argued in footnote 2, “the Examiner has deemed that the Fuson Declaration only overcomes the rejections of claims 37, 42, 46, and 49. It appears that the Examiner would accept the Fuson Declaration regarding the other rejected claims, if it addressed every food product that exists. Such a requirement would effectively prevent the Applicant from reciting claims that cover embodiments not specifically disclosed in the Specification. That is not proper. See, AK Steel Corp. V. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003).”
Applicant’s declaration is commensurate in scope with spinach, lettuce and cabbage but is not commensurate in scope with all foods which is the scope of the currently rejected claims under 112 2nd paragraph. The cited case law does not address the term “fresh”.
Prior Art Rejections
The following comments are with regards to the remaining prior art rejections. Many of the previous prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claim 43 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Ettridge et al. when combined with Sankey et al. and the Singh article. Applicant traverses the 44 rejection. In particular, claim 43 recites that a transparent film that is made of two separate films and an adhesive as recited in the claim. As mentioned in Section E.6.a. with respect to claim 31, the Examiner has not shown that Ettridge et al. discloses or suggests a transparent film. Since the Sankey et al. and the Singh article do not provide a clear reason to alter Ettridge et al. to have a transparent film made of two separate films and an adhesive, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.”
The examiner agrees that Ettridge does not specifically disclose a transparent film. Sankey discloses that a transparent film used in food packaging, including a transparent adhesive, (Sankey, paragraphs [0075-0076]) is known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The clear motivation in providing a transparent package is to view and/or inspect the contents of the package which is a clear reason to modify Ettridge.
Applicant argues, “Claims 47 and 48 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Ettridge et al. when combined with Della Porta and Sankey et al. Applicant traverses the rejection. In particular, claim 47 recites a transparent film that is made of two separate films and an adhesive as recited in the claim. As mentioned in Section E.6.a. with respect to claim 31, the Examiner has not shown that Ettridge et al. discloses or suggests a transparent film. Since Della Porta and Sankey et al. do not provide a clear reason to alter Ettridge et al. to have a transparent film made of two separate films and an adhesive, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn. Claim 48 depends directly on claim 47 and so its rejection is improper and should be withdrawn for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 47.”
The examiner agrees that Ettridge does not specifically disclose a transparent film. Sankey discloses that a transparent film used in food packaging, including a transparent adhesive, (Sankey, paragraphs [0075-0076]) is known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The clear motivation in providing a transparent package is to view and/or inspect the contents of the package which is a clear reason to modify Ettridge.
Applicant argues, “Claims 69 and 70 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Ettridge et al. when combined with Sankey et al., Singh article, and JP 10100353. Applicant traverses the rejection. In particular, claims 69 and 70 depend directly or indirectly on claim 43. As pointed out in Section E.8., Sankey et al. and the Singh article do not provide a clear reason to alter Ettridge et al. to have a transparent film made of two separate films and an adhesive. Since JP 10100353 does not provide a clear reason to alter Ettridge et al. to have a transparent film made of two separate films and an adhesive, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn” and “Claims 75 and 76 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Ettridge et al. when combined with Della Porta, Sankey et al., and JP 10100353. Applicant traverses the rejection. In particular, claims 75 and 76 depend directly or indirectly on claim 47. As pointed out in Section E.10., Della Porta and Sankey et al. do not provide a clear reason to alter Ettridge et al. to have a transparent film made of two separate films and an adhesive. Since JP 10100353 does not provide a clear reason to alter Ettridge et al. to have a transparent film made of two separate films and an adhesive, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.”
The examiner agrees that Ettridge does not specifically disclose a transparent film. Sankey discloses that a transparent film used in food packaging, including a transparent adhesive, (Sankey, paragraphs [0075-0076]) is known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The clear motivation in providing a transparent package is to view and/or inspect the contents of the package which is a clear reason to modify Ettridge.
JP10100353 discloses that their packaging films which includes the adhesive provide improved transparency and heat sealability (paragraph [0002]). Therefore, clear motivation exists to modify Ettride.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 pm EST.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
January 25, 2026