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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 15-17, 19-28, 30-35, and 37 are pending in the current application.
Claim 15, 21, and 30 are amended in the current application.
Claim 37 is newly added in the current application.
Claim 37 is withdrawn from consideration in the current application.
Claims 1-14, 18, 29, and 36 are canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on August 30, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Young and Isohata, taken alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the new amendments to the present claims.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. The grounds of rejection have been updated to reflect the present amendments. Young in view of Isohata is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed invention as set forth in the grounds of rejection below.
Applicant argues that Young does not teach the claimed barrier layer.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Young teaches a protective coating layer 40 (i.e., a first barrier layer) that is a single layer defining an outermost free surface of the multi-layer lamination structure and has a plurality of perforations 60 characterized by boundaries of the protective coating layer 40 (Young, [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], Fig 4B). There are no claimed characteristics that sufficiently distinguish Young’s protective coating layer 40 from the claimed first barrier layer to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness established in the grounds of rejection below.
Applicant argues that Isohata fails to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Young, and argues that Isohata teaches away from the claimed construction, because its antimicrobial pads are infused with chemicals and superabsorbent polymers.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the claimed invention, Young, and Isohata all pertain to laminated structures for food products designed to allow food-related fluids to be drained away through a perforated layer to an absorbing layer. Therefore, one skilled in the art would consider the teachings of Isohata to be pertinent and relevant when reviewing the teachings of Young.
Note that while Isohata does not disclose all the features of the presently claimed invention, Isohata is used as a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the other applied prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the presently claimed invention. Isohata is not relied upon for the entirety of its disclosure, but instead is combined with Young. Young already teaches that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to have layers with perforations, where perforations are configured to be large enough to permit desired wicking or draining of excess moisture, grease, or oil; can be made in various designs, shapes (such as circles), and sizes as desired; and can have a quantity that can be adjusted based on the particular food load and expected volume of fluid to be drained away (Young, [0075]). Isohata is utilized as a secondary reference to provide further guidance for selecting a quantitative cross-sectional area suitable for effectively absorbing drips oozing from food to prevent deterioration of quality over a prolonged period of time, while not wholly absorbing desired moisture out of food (Isohata, Abstract, Col 3).
Applicant argues the specific claimed perforation features are absent.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Young in view of Isohata teaches the pores each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, and the film having the perforations has an overall porosity of 0.01-0.4% (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Assuming that Young in view of Isohata’s perforations are circle-shaped yields (the smallest possible cross-sectional area with the recited diameter determined by π(r)2 = π(d/2)2 of π*[(0.05 mm)/2]2 = 0.00196 mm2 = 1960 μm2 to π*[(0.5 mm)/2]2 = 0.196 mm2 = 196,000 μm2. The circle-shape cross-sectional area range falls within the claimed range of 1 μm2 to 500,000 μm2, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). Assuming that Young in view of Isohata’s perforations are square-shaped yields the largest cross-sectional area with the recited diameter determined by (d)2 of (0.05 mm)2 = 0.0025 mm2 = 2500 μm2 to (0.5 mm)2 = 0.25 mm2 = 250,000 μm2. Young in view of Isohata’s square-shape cross-sectional area range falls within the claimed range of 1 μm2 to 500,000 μm2, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). In view of the foregoing, Young in view of Isohata is considered to at least render obvious the claimed perforation features.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Young and Isohata.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed Young’s perforations according to the guidance of Isohata to yield a laminate that effectively absorbs drips oozing from food to prevent deterioration of quality over a prolonged period of time, while not wholly absorbing desired moisture out of food (Isohata, Abstract, Col 3).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6 and 15-20, drawn to a structure/a manufacture) in the reply filed on March 8, 2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-14 of Group II (drawn to a method of manufacturing) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Newly added claim 37 pertains to a method of using that is drawn to a different statutory category than the elected Group I statutory category of a structure/a manufacture. Newly submitted claim 37 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The product as claimed can be used in a materially different process, such as being used as a storage and/or packaging material for shelf-stable cleaning products, housewares and/or other non-edible consumer goods.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 37 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
[0028] of the specification as originally filed recites reference sign 220, however, this is not depicted in any of the Figures 1, 2, or 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0020] of the specification as originally filed recites “(e.g. dimeter).” This appears to contain a typographical error, and should instead likely recite “(e.g. diameter).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 25 recites the term “about.” In determining the range encompassed by the term "about," one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III A. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “about.” For the purpose of examination, limitations preceded by the term “about” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 recites “between the second barrier layer and second first major side of the cellulosic substrate.” This recitation incorrectly recites “second first,” and based off the context of the claim and specification, should be amended to delete “
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-17, 19-28, and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 2004/0023000 A1) in view of Isohata (US 5804241).
Regarding Claims 15 and 30, Young teaches a multi-layer lamination that can be configured as a liner (Young, [0012]). Young teaches the multi-layer lamination liner can have a structure with a bottom panel with a plurality of side panels connected to the bottom panel, where the side panels have an interior surface and an exterior surface (Young, [0098]-[0105], Figs 10M-10Q). Young teaches the multi-layer lamination comprises the bottom panel having an interior surface and an exterior surface; the bottom panel is formed of elements 30+20+50+20+30, where element 50 is an absorbent base layer formed of a paper-board (i.e., a cellulosic material), therefore the bottom panel of elements 30+20+50+20+30 is a cellulosic bottom panel (Young, [0051]-[0057], Fig 4B). Young teaches a protective coating layer 40 (i.e., a first barrier layer) is formed directly on the interior surface of the cellulosic bottom panel formed of elements 30+20+50+20+30, where the protective coating layer 40 is a single layer defining an outermost free surface of the multi-layer lamination liner and has a plurality of perforations 60 characterized by boundaries of the protective coating layer 40 (Young, [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], Fig 4B). Young also teaches another protective coating layer 40 (i.e., a second barrier layer) formed directly on the opposing exterior surface of the cellulosic bottom panel formed of elements 30+20+50+20+30 (Young, [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], Fig 4B). Young teaches the perforations 60 are large enough to permit desired wicking or draining of excess moisture, grease, or oil through the laminate to the absorbent base layer 50; where the perforations can be made in various designs, shapes (such as circles), and sizes as desired, and where the number of perforations can be adjusted based on the particular food load and expected volume of fluid to be drained away (Young, [0075]).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Young – Figure 10P
PNG
media_image2.png
389
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Young – Figure 4B
Young remains silent regarding an average cross-sectional area of the perforations being 1 μm2 to 500,000 μm2.
Isohata, however, teaches a liquid-absorbent sheet 1 for absorbing liquids from food, meat, and fish comprising an outer semi-permeable film 6, a liquid absorbent material layer 4, and a liquid permeable film 5, where the semi-permeable film 6 has a plurality of pores 7 (i.e., perforations) (Isohata, Abstract, Cols 2-8, Fig 1). Isohata teaches the liquid absorbent material layer 4 can be made of a cellulose material (Isohata, Col 4 Lines 43-56). Isohata teaches the pores each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, and the semi-permeable film having an overall porosity of 0.01-0.4% (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Assuming that Isohata’s pores are circle-shaped yields a cross-sectional area determined by π(r)2 = π(d/2)2 of π*[(0.05 mm)/2]2 = 0.00196 mm2 = 1960 μm2 to π*[(0.5 mm)/2]2 = 0.196 mm2 = 196,000 μm2. Isohata’s circle-shape cross-sectional area range falls within the claimed range of 1 μm2 to 500,000 μm2, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). Assuming that Isohata’s pores are square-shaped yields a cross-sectional area determined by (d)2 of (0.05 mm)2 = 0.0025 mm2 = 2500 μm2 to (0.5 mm)2 = 0.25 mm2 = 250,000 μm2. Isohata’s square-shape cross-sectional area range falls within the claimed range of 1 μm2 to 500,000 μm2, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
PNG
media_image3.png
272
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Isohata – Figure 1
Since Young and Isohata both disclose laminates for food products having permeable layers with perforations and absorbing layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Young’s perforations according to the guidance of Isohata to yield a laminate that effectively absorbs drips oozing from food to prevent deterioration of quality over a prolonged period of time, while not wholly absorbing desired moisture out of food as taught by Isohata (Isohata, Abstract, Col 3).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Young teaches the protective coating layer 40 (first barrier layer) is a coating formed directly on the interior surface of the cellulosic bottom panel formed of elements 30+20+50+20+30, and formed directly on the side panels (Young, [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], Figs 4B, 10P).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Young teaches the protective coating layer 40 (first barrier layer) is laminated on the interior surface of the cellulosic bottom panel formed of elements 30+20+50+20+30, and formed directly on the side panels (Young, [0012], [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], [0085], Figs 4B, 10P).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Young teaches the protective coating layer 40 (second barrier layer) is a coating formed directly on the exterior surface of the cellulosic bottom panel formed of elements 30+20+50+20+30, and formed directly on the side panels (Young, [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], Figs 4B, 10P).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Young teaches the protective coating layer 40 (second barrier layer) is laminated on the exterior surface of the cellulosic bottom panel formed of elements 30+20+50+20+30, and formed directly on the side panels (Young, [0012], [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], [0085], Figs 4B, 10P).
Regarding Claims 21 and 30, modified Young teaches a multi-layer lamination structure with a bottom panel with a first major side and a second major side with a plurality of side panels connected to the bottom panel, where the side panels have an interior surface and an exterior surface (Young, [0012], [0098]-[0105], Figs 10M-10Q). Young teaches the multi-layer lamination comprises the bottom panel having an interior surface (first major side) and an exterior surface (second major side); the bottom panel is formed of element 50, where element 50 is an absorbent base layer formed of a paper-board (i.e., a cellulosic substrate) (Young, [0051]-[0057], Fig 4B). Young teaches a first adhesive layer 20 is a single layer that can be formed directly on the first major surface of the cellulosic substrate 50 (Young, [0051], [0060]-[0062], Fig 4B). Young teaches a protective coating layer 40 (i.e., a first barrier layer) is formed on a susceptor metallized layer 30 and on the first adhesive layer 20, where the protective coating layer 40 is a single layer defining an outermost free surface of the multi-layer lamination structure and has a plurality of perforations 60 characterized by boundaries of the protective coating layer 40 and the first adhesive layer 20 (Young, [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], Fig 4B). Although the susceptor metallized layer 30 is depicted as intervening the first adhesive layer 20 and the protective coating layer 40, Young teaches the susceptor metallized layer 30 can be formed in a pattern, where it can be completely removed in some areas as desired (Young, [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that areas where the susceptor metallized layer 30 has been completely removed yields an interface having the protective coating layer 40 being directly disposed on the first adhesive layer 20 with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143). Young also teaches another protective coating layer 40 (i.e., a second barrier layer) formed directly on the opposing exterior surface (second major side) of the cellulosic bottom panel 50 with a second adhesive layer 20 and a susceptor metallized layer 30 disposed between (Young, [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], Fig 4B). Young teaches the perforations 60 are large enough to permit desired wicking or draining of excess moisture, grease, or oil through the laminate to the absorbent base layer 50; where the perforations can be made in various designs, shapes (such as circles), and sizes as desired, and where the number of perforations can be adjusted based on the particular food load and expected volume of fluid to be drained away (Young, [0075]).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Young – Figure 10P
PNG
media_image2.png
389
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Young – Figure 4B
Young remains silent regarding an average cross-sectional area of the perforations being 1 μm2 to 500,000 μm2.
Isohata, however, teaches a liquid-absorbent sheet 1 for absorbing liquids from food, meat, and fish comprising an outer semi-permeable film 6, a liquid absorbent material layer 4, and a liquid permeable film 5, where the semi-permeable film 6 has a plurality of pores 7 (i.e., perforations) (Isohata, Abstract, Cols 2-8, Fig 1). Isohata teaches the liquid absorbent material layer 4 can be made of a cellulose material (Isohata, Col 4 Lines 43-56). Isohata teaches the pores each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, and the semi-permeable film having an overall porosity of 0.01-0.4% (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Assuming that Isohata’s pores are circle-shaped yields a cross-sectional area determined by π(r)2 = π(d/2)2 of π*[(0.05 mm)/2]2 = 0.00196 mm2 = 1960 μm2 to π*[(0.5 mm)/2]2 = 0.196 mm2 = 196,000 μm2. Isohata’s circle-shape cross-sectional area range falls within the claimed range of 1 μm2 to 500,000 μm2, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). Assuming that Isohata’s pores are square-shaped yields a cross-sectional area determined by (d)2 of (0.05 mm)2 = 0.0025 mm2 = 2500 μm2 to (0.5 mm)2 = 0.25 mm2 = 250,000 μm2. Isohata’s square-shape cross-sectional area range falls within the claimed range of 1 μm2 to 500,000 μm2, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
PNG
media_image3.png
272
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Isohata – Figure 1
Since Young and Isohata both disclose laminates for food products having permeable layers with perforations and absorbing layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Young’s perforations according to the guidance of Isohata to yield a laminate that effectively absorbs drips oozing from food to prevent deterioration of quality over a prolonged period of time, while not wholly absorbing desired moisture out of food as taught by Isohata (Isohata, Abstract, Col 3).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Young teaches the perforations each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Assuming that modified Young’s pores are circle-shaped yields a cross-sectional area determined by π(r)2 = π(d/2)2 of π*[(0.05 mm)/2]2 = 0.00196 mm2 = 1960 μm2 to π*[(0.5 mm)/2]2 = 0.196 mm2 = 196,000 μm2. Modified Young’s circle-shape cross-sectional area range overlaps the claimed range of 200 μm2 to 50,000 μm2, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Assuming that modified Young’s pores are square-shaped yields a cross-sectional area determined by (d)2 of (0.05 mm)2 = 0.0025 mm2 = 2500 μm2 to (0.5 mm)2 = 0.25 mm2 = 250,000 μm2. Modified Young’s square-shape cross-sectional area range overlaps the claimed range of 200 μm2 to 50,000 μm2, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Young teaches the perforations each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, and the semi-permeable film having an overall porosity of 0.01-0.4% (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Modified Young’s porosity range falls within the claimed range of 0.001-5%, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Young teaches the perforations each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm (50 μm to 500 μm) (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Modified Young’s diameter range encompasses the claimed range of 50 μm to 250 μm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Young teaches the perforations each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm, and the semi-permeable film having an overall porosity of 0.01-0.4% (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Modified Young’s porosity range falls within the claimed range of 0.001-5%, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). Modified Young teaches the perforations 60 are large enough to permit desired wicking or draining of excess moisture, grease, or oil through the laminate to the absorbent base layer 50; where the perforations can be made in various designs, shapes (such as circles), and sizes as desired, and where the number of perforations can be adjusted based on the particular food load and expected volume of fluid to be drained away (Young, [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted a density of perforations in a manner that renders obvious the claimed range (about 2 perforations per 1 mm2) to yield a laminate that permits desired wicking and draining of excess moisture, grease, and oil with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Young teaches the first adhesive layer 20 is a single continuous layer that formed directly on the first major surface of the cellulosic substrate 50 (Young, [0051], [0060]-[0062], Fig 4B).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Young teaches the perforations 60 are large enough to permit desired wicking or draining of excess moisture, grease, or oil through the laminate to the absorbent base layer 50; where the perforations can be made in various designs, shapes (such as circles), and sizes as desired, and where the number of perforations can be adjusted based on the particular food load and expected volume of fluid to be drained away (Young, [0075]). Modified Young teaches the perforations each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Young teaches another protective coating layer 40 (i.e., a second barrier layer) formed directly on the opposing exterior surface (second major side) of the cellulosic bottom panel 50 with a second adhesive layer 20 and a susceptor metallized layer 30 disposed between (Young, [0049]-[0051], [0071]-[0078], Fig 4B).
Regarding Claims 31 and 32, modified Young teaches the multi-layer lamination structure comprises the cellulosic bottom panel having an interior surface and an exterior surface, and a plurality of side panels (a front, a rear, a first end side, and a second end side) connected to the bottom panel, where the side panels have an interior surface and an exterior surface (Young, [0098]-[0105], Figs 10M-10Q).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Young – Figure 10P
Regarding Claim 33, modified Young teaches a cellulosic top panel can be connected to a side panel (Young, [0095]-[0102], Figs 10H, 10M, 10N, 10P).
PNG
media_image4.png
675
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Young – Figures 10M & 10N
Regarding Claim 34, modified Young teaches the perforations each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Assuming that modified Young’s pores are circle-shaped yields a cross-sectional area determined by π(r)2 = π(d/2)2 of π*[(0.05 mm)/2]2 = 0.00196 mm2 = 1960 μm2 to π*[(0.5 mm)/2]2 = 0.196 mm2 = 196,000 μm2. Modified Young’s circle-shape cross-sectional area range overlaps the claimed range of 200 μm2 to 50,000 μm2, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Assuming that modified Young’s pores are square-shaped yields a cross-sectional area determined by (d)2 of (0.05 mm)2 = 0.0025 mm2 = 2500 μm2 to (0.5 mm)2 = 0.25 mm2 = 250,000 μm2. Modified Young’s square-shape cross-sectional area range overlaps the claimed range of 200 μm2 to 50,000 μm2, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 35, modified Young teaches the perforations each have a diameter of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm (50 μm to 500 μm) (Isohata, Col 2 Lines 25-40, Col 3 Lines 1-18). Modified Young’s diameter range encompasses the claimed range of 50 μm to 250 μm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights