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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8-9, 11, 13, and 15 recite the term “about.” This term is relative and the specification is silent regarding a definition for the term, see MPEP 2173.05(b). For examination purposes the term “about” is interpreted as meaning within reasonable measurement error that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 18 recites the phrase “high crystallinity.” This is a relative phrase. However, paragraph 0062 of Applicant’s specification defines “high crystallinity copolymer” as a copolymer in which “the content of the crystalline phase exceeds 51% (as tested using differential scanning calorimetry) at 10° C./min cooling rate.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDaniel (US RE28658 E) (previously cited) in view of Li et al. (US 20160082621 A1) (previously cited), Baker et al. (US 5204179 A) (previously cited), and Euler et al. (US 20160083569 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, MacDaniel teaches an insulative container comprising a body and a floor coupled to the body to define an interior region bounded by the body and the floor (MacDaniel, Abstract, Col. 2 Lines 23-35, Col. 3 Lines 54-59, and Figs. 1-2). MacDaniel teaches the body comprises a sheet of cellular (foamed) polymeric material wherein the sheet comprises a compressed overlapping portion with a thickness less than twice the thickness of the sheet (MacDaniel, Abstract, Col. 2 Lines 36-44 and Fig. 9). Therefore, MacDaniel teaches the sheet has localized plastic deformation in at least one selected region of the body to provide a plastically deformed first material segment (overlapping portion) having a first density (see compressed) located in a first portion of the selected region of the body and a second material segment (portion adjacent the overlapping portion) having a second density lower than the first density located in an adjacent second portion of the selected region of the body.
MacDaniel is silent regarding the sheet of polymeric material being a multilayer sheet comprising the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, an ink layer and a polymeric-lamination layer, wherein the polymeric-lamination layer is free of an adhesive, and wherein the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material and the polymeric lamination layer each include polypropylene. MacDaniel is silent regarding the polymeric lamination layer being extruded.
Li teaches an insulative container comprising a multilayer sheet including an insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material that is polypropylene (first/core layer), and a polymeric-lamination layer (Second/skin layer) formed of polypropylene (Li, Abstract, Par. 0003, 0022, 0046, and Fig. 9A). Li does not state that an adhesive is used in the polymeric-lamination layer and thus teaches the polymeric-lamination layer is free of an adhesive. Li teaches the polymeric-lamination layer may be laminated or extruded onto the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material (Li, Par. 0046-0047). Li teaches the outside of the multilayer sheet may be printed on with a layer of ink (Li, Par. 0044 and 0045).
MacDaniel and Li are analogous art as they both teach insulative containers comprising a cellular polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the multilayer sheet of Li as the sheet of MacDaniel. This would allow for an insulative container that is recyclable and can be printed on (Li, Par. 0002-0003, 0044, and 0081).
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding the multilayer sheet comprising a film layer that is a biaxially oriented polypropylene film, is silent regarding the ink layer being printed on an outer surface of the film layer and is silent regarding the polymeric-lamination layer extending between and interconnecting the film layer to the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, wherein the polymeric-lamination layer is extruded between the film layer and the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material.
Baker teaches a thermoformed cup formed from a multilayer sheet, which comprises a layer of polypropylene and a film layer of a biaxially oriented polypropylene disposed on the layer of polypropylene (Baker, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 33-59, Col. 2 Lines 1-68). Baker teaches that the film layer may have a layer of ink disposed thereon (Baker, Col. 2 Lines 45-68).
Modified MacDaniel and Baker are analogous art as they both teach thermoformed cups made of a multilayer sheet comprising a layer of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the film layer of Baker in the multilayer sheet of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for a reduced tendency to sag, an attractive gloss, and a barrier that keeps undesirable processing additives or inks away from contents of the container (Baker, Col. 2 Lines 45-68). This further results in a multilayer sheet comprising an insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, a film layer with a layer of ink on an outer surface thereof, and a polymeric lamination layer that is extruded between and interconnects the film layer and the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, wherein the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, the film layer, and the polymeric lamination layer each comprise polypropylene.
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding at least the second portion of the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material having a cell density within a range of about 1X105 to about 2.5X106 cells/in3.
Euler teaches an insulative container comprising a cellular polypropylene material, wherein the polypropylene foam has a cell density of 300,000 to 900,000 cells/in3 (3X105 to 9X105 cells/in3) (Euler, Abstract, Par. 0003-0007 and 0225), which lies within the claimed range of about 1X105 to about 2.5X106 cells/in3, and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified MacDaniel and Euler are analogous art as they both teach insulative containers comprising a cellular polypropylene material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used cellular polypropylene with a cell density within the claimed range as the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for a material that does not wrinkle when formed into an article (Euler, Par. 0006-0007 and 0225).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 11-12, modified MacDaniel teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 2. Modified MacDaniel further teaches the container is rigid (MacDaniel, Claim 1). Modified MacDaniel teaches the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material has a thickness of 53-67 mils (Li, Par. 0076), which overlaps the range of the instant invention of 60-80 mils (See the instant specification Par. 00112). Regarding the claimed rigidity of the unfilled container (claim 8), top load (claim 9) puncture resistance (claim 11) and Elmendorf tear strength (claim 12), where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01. Since modified MacDaniel teaches a container having structural and compositional characteristics that correspond to the claimed structural and compositional limitations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the container taught by modified MacDaniel as proposed above to have a rigidity when unfilled that is at least as high as the claimed minimum value, and a top load that is at least as high as the claimed minimum. Note that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention, see MPEP 2145, II.
Regarding claim 10, modified MacDaniel teaches the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material and the polymeric lamination layer comprise polypropylene (Li, Abstract and Par. 0046).
Claims 3 and 5-6, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDaniel in view of Li et al., Baker et al., and Euler et al. as applied to claims 2 and 8-10 above, further in view of Sun et al. (US 20160257799 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, modified MacDaniel teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 2. Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding that the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material comprises regrind.
Sun teaches a container (cup) comprising an insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material which comprises regrind (Sun, Abstract, Par. 0003-0006, 0017, 0034-0035, 0057).
Modified MacDaniel and Sun are analogous art as they both teach containers comprising insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Sun and incorporated regrind into all of the layers of the multilayer sheet of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for recycling of the materials while maintaining similar characteristics (Sun, Par. 0268-0271).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified MacDaniel does not teach that the container or the regrind comprise epoxy, urethanes, acrylate, and maleimides, and therefore, modified MacDaniel teaches the regrind is substantially free of epoxy, urethanes, acrylate, and maleimides with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (Li, all; Baker, all; Sun, all; see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, modified MacDaniel teaches the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material and the polymeric-lamination layer comprises regrind as stated above for claim 3. Regarding the limitation of the content of the regrind, Applicant claims a very broad range of about 0.05% to about 99.5% by weight. This range includes almost the entire range of from no regrind (0%) to all regrind (100%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of regrind in the polymeric lamination layer would be in an amount that renders obvious the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 14, modified MacDaniel teaches the regrind is made of the container (Sun, Par. 0268-0271) and the container comprises ink (Li, Par. 0044-0045). Therefore, modified MacDaniel teaches the regrind of the container can comprise ink with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15, modified MacDaniel teaches the container of claims 2-3 above. Modified MacDaniel teaches the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material comprises from 10%-90% of a base resin blend and 10%-90% of regrind, including an embodiment which comprises 50 wt.% of a base resin blend and 50 wt.% of regrind (Sun, Par. 0034-0035), which falls within the claimed ranges of about 40% to about 99.5% by weight base resin and up to about 50% by weight regrind, and therefore, satisfies the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 16-18, modified MacDaniel teaches the base resin comprises a blend of a first polypropylene homopolymer, a second polypropylene homopolymer different than the first polypropylene, and a high crystallinity copolymer (Li, Abstract, Par. 0048-0053 – see “blend of two or more polypropylene-based resins”).
Regarding claim 19, modified MacDaniel teaches the regrind is made of the container (Sun, Par. 0268-0271). Modified MacDaniel does not teach adhesive as being part of the regrind or the container (Li, all; Baker, all; Sun, all). Therefore, modified MacDaniel teaches the regrind is free of an adhesive.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDaniel in view of Li et al., Baker et al., Euler et al. and Sun et al.
Regarding claim 4, MacDaniel teaches an insulative container comprising a body and a floor coupled to the body to define an interior region bounded by the body and the floor (MacDaniel, Abstract, Col. 2 Lines 23-35, Col. 3 Lines 54-59, and Figs. 1-2). MacDaniel teaches the body comprises a sheet of cellular (foamed) polymeric material wherein the sheet comprises a compressed overlapping portion with a thickness less than twice the thickness of the sheet (MacDaniel, Abstract, Col. 2 Lines 36-44 and Fig. 9). Therefore, MacDaniel teaches the sheet has localized plastic deformation in at least one selected region of the body to provide a plastically deformed first material segment (overlapping portion) having a first density (see compressed) located in a first portion of the selected region of the body and a second material segment (portion adjacent the overlapping portion) having a second density lower than the first density located in an adjacent second portion of the selected region of the body.
MacDaniel is silent regarding the sheet of polymeric material being a multilayer sheet comprising the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, an ink layer and a polymeric-lamination layer, wherein the polymeric-lamination layer is free of an adhesive, and wherein the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material and the polymeric lamination layer each include polypropylene. MacDaniel is silent regarding the polymeric lamination layer being extruded.
Li teaches an insulative container comprising a multilayer sheet including an insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material that is polypropylene (first/core layer), and a polymeric-lamination layer (Second/skin layer) formed of polypropylene (Li, Abstract, Par. 0003, 0022, 0046, and Fig. 9A). Li does not state that an adhesive is used in the polymeric-lamination layer and thus teaches the polymeric-lamination layer is free of an adhesive. Li teaches the polymeric-lamination layer may be laminated or extruded onto the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material (Li, Par. 0046-0047). Li teaches the outside of the multilayer sheet may be printed on with a layer of ink (Li, Par. 0044 and 0045).
MacDaniel and Li are analogous art as they both teach insulative containers comprising a cellular polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the multilayer sheet of Li as the sheet of MacDaniel. This would allow for an insulative container that is recyclable and can be printed on (Li, Par. 0002-0003, 0044, and 0081).
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding the multilayer sheet comprising a film layer that is a biaxially oriented polypropylene film, is silent regarding the ink layer being printed on an outer surface of the film layer and is silent regarding the polymeric-lamination layer extending between and interconnecting the film layer to the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, wherein the polymeric-lamination layer is extruded between the film layer and the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material.
Baker teaches a thermoformed cup formed from a multilayer sheet, which comprises a layer of polypropylene and a film layer of a biaxially oriented polypropylene disposed on the layer of polypropylene (Baker, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 33-59, Col. 2 Lines 1-68). Baker teaches that the film layer may have a layer of ink disposed thereon (Baker, Col. 2 Lines 45-68).
Modified MacDaniel and Baker are analogous art as they both teach thermoformed cups made of a multilayer sheet comprising a layer of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the film layer of Baker in the multilayer sheet of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for a reduced tendency to sag, an attractive gloss, and a barrier that keeps undesirable processing additives or inks away from contents of the container (Baker, Col. 2 Lines 45-68). This further results in a multilayer sheet comprising an insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, a film layer with a layer of ink on an outer surface thereof, and a polymeric lamination layer that is extruded between and interconnects the film layer and the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, wherein the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, the film layer, and the polymeric lamination layer each comprise polypropylene.
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding at least the second portion of the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material having a cell density within a range of about 1X105 to about 2.5X106 cells/in3.
Euler teaches an insulative container comprising a cellular polypropylene material, wherein the polypropylene foam has a cell density of 300,000 to 900,000 cells/in3 (3X105 to 9X105 cells/in3) (Euler, Abstract, Par. 0003-0007 and 0225), which lies within the claimed range of about 1X105 to about 2.5X106 cells/in3, and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified MacDaniel and Euler are analogous art as they both teach insulative containers comprising a cellular polypropylene material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used cellular polypropylene with a cell density within the claimed range as the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for a material that does not wrinkle when formed into an article (Euler, Par. 0006-0007 and 0225).
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding that the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material comprises regrind of the multi-layer sheet and the regrind is free of an adhesive.
Sun teaches a container (cup) comprising an insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material which comprises regrind (Sun, Abstract, Par. 0003-0006, 0017, 0034-0035, 0057).
Modified MacDaniel and Sun are analogous art as they both teach containers comprising insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Sun and incorporated regrind into all of the layers of the multilayer sheet of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for recycling of the materials while maintaining similar characteristics (Sun, Par. 0268-0271).
Regarding the limitation of the regrind being free of an adhesive, modified MacDaniel teaches the regrind is made of the multi-layer sheet (Sun, Par. 0268-0271). Modified MacDaniel does not teach adhesive as being part of the regrind or the container (Li, all; Baker, all; Sun, all). Therefore, modified MacDaniel teaches the regrind is free of an adhesive.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDaniel in view of Li et al., Baker et al., and Euler et al. and Leser et al. (US 20120318805 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, MacDaniel teaches an insulative container comprising a body and a floor coupled to the body to define an interior region bounded by the body and the floor (MacDaniel, Abstract, Col. 2 Lines 23-35, Col. 3 Lines 54-59, and Figs. 1-2). MacDaniel teaches the body comprises a sheet of cellular (foamed) polymeric material wherein the sheet comprises a compressed overlapping portion with a thickness less than twice the thickness of the sheet (MacDaniel, Abstract, Col. 2 Lines 36-44 and Fig. 9). Therefore, MacDaniel teaches the sheet has localized plastic deformation in at least one selected region of the body to provide a plastically deformed first material segment (overlapping portion) having a first density (see compressed) located in a first portion of the selected region of the body and a second material segment (portion adjacent the overlapping portion) having a second density lower than the first density located in an adjacent second portion of the selected region of the body.
MacDaniel is silent regarding the sheet of polymeric material being a multilayer sheet comprising the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, an ink layer and a polymeric-lamination layer, wherein the polymeric-lamination layer is free of an adhesive, and wherein the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material and the polymeric lamination layer each include polypropylene. MacDaniel is silent regarding the polymeric lamination layer being extruded.
Li teaches an insulative container comprising a multilayer sheet including an insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material that is polypropylene (first/core layer), and a polymeric-lamination layer (Second/skin layer) formed of polypropylene (Li, Abstract, Par. 0003, 0022, 0046, and Fig. 9A). Li does not state that an adhesive is used in the polymeric-lamination layer and thus teaches the polymeric-lamination layer is free of an adhesive. Li teaches the polymeric-lamination layer may be laminated or extruded onto the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material (Li, Par. 0046-0047). Li teaches the outside of the multilayer sheet may be printed on with a layer of ink (Li, Par. 0044 and 0045).
MacDaniel and Li are analogous art as they both teach insulative containers comprising a cellular polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the multilayer sheet of Li as the sheet of MacDaniel. This would allow for an insulative container that is recyclable and can be printed on (Li, Par. 0002-0003, 0044, and 0081).
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding the multilayer sheet comprising a film layer that is a biaxially oriented polypropylene film, is silent regarding the ink layer being printed on the film layer and is silent regarding the polymeric-lamination layer extending between and interconnecting the film layer to the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material.
Baker teaches a thermoformed cup formed from a multilayer sheet, which comprises a layer of polypropylene and a film layer of a biaxially oriented polypropylene disposed on the layer of polypropylene (Baker, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 33-59, Col. 2 Lines 1-68). Baker teaches that the film layer may have a layer of ink disposed thereon (Baker, Col. 2 Lines 45-68).
Modified MacDaniel and Baker are analogous art as they both teach thermoformed cups made of a multilayer sheet comprising a layer of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the film layer of Baker in the multilayer sheet of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for a reduced tendency to sag, an attractive gloss, and a barrier that keeps undesirable processing additives or inks away from contents of the container (Baker, Col. 2 Lines 45-68). This further results in a multilayer sheet comprising an insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, a film layer with a layer of ink on an outer surface thereof, and a polymeric lamination layer that interconnects the film layer and the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, wherein the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, the film layer, and the polymeric lamination layer each comprise polypropylene.
Regarding the limitation of the multi-layer sheet consisting of the film layer, the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material, the polymeric-lamination layer, and the ink layer, modified MacDaniel does not state that any other layers are required and therefore satisfies the limitation of consisting of the above layers.
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding at least the second portion of the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material having a cell density within a range of about 1X105 to about 2.5X106 cells/in3.
Euler teaches an insulative container comprising a cellular polypropylene material, wherein the polypropylene foam has a cell density of 300,000 to 900,000 cells/in3 (3X105 to 9X105 cells/in3) (Euler, Abstract, Par. 0003-0007 and 0225), which lies within the claimed range of about 1X105 to about 2.5X106 cells/in3, and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified MacDaniel and Euler are analogous art as they both teach insulative containers comprising a cellular polypropylene material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used cellular polypropylene with a cell density within the claimed range as the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for a material that does not wrinkle when formed into an article (Euler, Par. 0006-0007 and 0225).
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding a floor mount coupled to a lower end of the sleeve-shaped side wall, and the at least one selected region of the body in which localized plastic deformation is enabled by the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material is in the floor mount, the floor mount including a web—support ring coupled to a lower end of the sleeve-shaped sidewall, a floor-retaining flange spaced radially from the web-support ring and coupled to the floor, and a connecting web extending between the web-support ring and the floor-retaining flange. Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding the ink layer being printed on a first surface of the film layer facing away from a central axis of the container in the sleeve-shaped sidewall, and the ink layer being printed on a second surface of the film layer facing toward the central axis of the container in the floor-retaining flange.
Leser teaches an insulative container formed of polypropylene, the container comprising a floor and a body including a sleeve-shaped side wall and a floor mount, the floor mount coupled to a lower end of the sleeve-shaped side wall (Leser, Abstract, Par. 0003-0007, 0071, Figs. 3-3D and 7-7A). Leser teaches a region of the body in which localized plastic deformation is enabled in the floor mount, the floor mount including a web-support ring coupled to a lower end of the sleeve-shaped sidewall, a floor-retaining flange spaced radially from the web-support ring and coupled to the floor, and a connecting web extending between the web-support ring and the floor-retaining flange (Leser, Par. 0006, 0071, 0077-0079, Figs 3-3D, and 7-7A).
Modified MacDaniel and Leser are analogous art as they both teach insulative containers formed from polypropylene having a region of localized plastic deformation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the floor mount structure of Leser in the container of modified MacDaniel. This would allow for additional support for the container, including the floor of the container in a stationary position (Leser, Par. 0071, 0077-0079, and 0117). Furthermore, as the ink layer is printed on an outer surface of the film layer as stated above, this would result in the ink layer being printed on a first surface of the film layer facing away from a central axis of the container in the sleeve-shaped sidewall and on a second surface of the film layer facing towards a central axis of the container in the floor-retaining flange (Leser, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 22, modified MacDaniel teaches the multilayer sheet comprises three layers of polypropylene as stated above (Li, Abstract and Par. 0046; Baker, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 33-59, Col. 2 Lines 1-68), and thus the innermost layer relative to a central axis of the container is interpreted as the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material. This also results in the insulative cellular non-aromatic polymeric material being the radially outermost layer of the floor-retaining flange relative to the central axis of the container (Leser, Fig. 7).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacDaniel in view of Li et al., Baker et al., Euler et al. and Sun et al. as applied to claims 2-3 above, further in view of Temple Jr. (US 20120242012 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 21, modified MacDaniel teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 2-3. Modified MacDaniel teaches the polymeric lamination layer comprises polypropylene (Li, Abstract and Par. 0046). Modified MacDaniel teaches the polymeric lamination layer comprises regrind as stated above for claim 3.
Modified MacDaniel is silent regarding the polymeric lamination layer comprising polyethylene.
Temple teaches an insulative (see withstand the hot temperature) thermoformable container (cup) comprising a layer of polypropylene, wherein the layer of polypropylene further comprises regrind and polyethylene (Temple, Par. 0009, 0039, 0042-0043, and 0046-0047).
Modified MacDaniel and Temple are analogous art as they both teach insulative thermoformable containers comprising a layer comprising polypropylene and regrind. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Temple and included polyethylene in the layers of polypropylene and regrind of modified MacDaniel, such as the polymeric lamination layer. This would allow for the use of renewable and recyclable material and facilitate more economically viable containers (Temple, Par. 0046-0047).
Regarding the limitation of consisting essentially of, while it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising” (See MPEP 2111.03).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered.
On pages 2-3 of the remarks, Applicant first argues that Li teaches away from including the film layer of Baker. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Li teaches that the multilayer sheet can be directly printed on without the use of additional films or laminates (Li, Par. 0131). However, this does not state that the multilayer sheet cannot include additional films or laminates, just that the film can be printed out without the need for additional films or laminates, and thus does not teach away from including an additional exterior film, such as that taught by Baker.
Li further teaches that avoiding the use of adhesives or tie layers can reduce the risk of contamination during recycling (Li, Par. 0131). However, the rejection as stated above does not utilize Baker to modify the film of Li to include tie layers or adhesives. Instead, the combination as stated above adds the film layer of Baker to the exterior surface of the multilayer sheet. Therefore, this teaching of Li does not teach away from the combination as stated above.
For the reasons stated above, Li does not teach away from including the film layer of Baker and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on pages 3-4, Applicant argues that Li already teaches reducing the tendency to sag, an attractive gloss, and a barrier and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Baker to improve those aspects. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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, Baker provides motivation such as allowing for a reduced tendency to sag, an attractive gloss, and a barrier that keeps undesirable processing additives or inks away from contents of the container (Baker, Col. 2 Lines 45-68).
Applicant states that Li already teaches a reduced tendency to sag, citing Par. 0080 and 0131 of Li. However, Li does not appear to already teach a reduced tendency to sag and Par. 0080 and 0131 do not mention preventing sagging of the multilayer sheet. Furthermore, Applicant states that Li has barrier properties, citing Par. 0080 and 0131. However, Li only states that not including adhesive or tie layers reduces the risk of contamination during recycling, and does not teach a barrier that keeps undesirable processing additives or inks away from contents of the container as taught by Baker (Baker, Col. 2 Lines 45-68).
Furthermore, regarding the features Li does teach, i.e. an attractive gloss, Li teaches the multilayer sheet preferably has a smooth surface with a specific gloss range. However, this would only further motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to look towards further improvements in finding an attractive gloss as it is specifically taught as a desired feature of Li.
In view of the above, MacDaniel in view of Li and Baker render obvious the claimed film layer and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 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 THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782