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
In claim 1, the phrase “for use in a retail market” is interpreted as intending the sachet of claim 1 to be used in small packages in which “fruits, vegetables, flowers, culinary herbs, etc., are placed.” See at least Pg. 1, lines 26-34 in the instant specification.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least Pg. 8, lines 7-18 of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7-10 the sachet of Wang comprises a first pocket formed by two gas-permeable plastic sheets that are welded together and contains the granulated material which is then between two gas-permeable resistant sheets, effectively creating two pockets. Accordingly, Applicant argues the granulated material of Wang would never be in contact with any of the gas-permeable resistant welded sheets. Applicant argues structural rearrangement of the sachet of Wang such that it meets the claim limitations would directly conflict with the purpose of Wang and conflict with the very problem Wang was designed to overcome.
However, the relevant claim amendment filed 09/24/2025 states “wherein the granules (5) are contained directly between said bottom sheet (2) made from porous, water-repellent, breathable material and said top sheet (3) made from waterproof material, such that at least some of said granulate (5) is in direct contact with said bottom sheet (2) and at least some of said granulate (5) is in direct contact with said top sheet (3).” In this regard, Wang clearly depicts a sachet with a single pocket within which the granules (2) are confined. Fig. 1 from
PNG
media_image1.png
484
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang et al. WO2015110682A1 is reproduced below for convenience.
Wang teaching that the granules (2) are inside the pocket formed by the water-impregnable and gas-permeable plastic sheet (3), which is welded to sheet (4) which lies on the top of sheet (3), meets the limitation required by the amendment because sheet (3) being a water-impregnable and gas permeable sheet is consistent with being both a bottom sheet made from porous water-repellent material, while also being a top sheet made from waterproof material. A skilled artisan would readily surmise a material that is water-repellent would also be waterproof.
Applicant arguments regarding the hazards of Wang are not convincing because, as outlined above, Wang meets the limitations required by the claim. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues on Pg. 11-12 that while Spyridis numerically overlaps the range required by the claim, the range does not “entirely correspond to the inventions impregnation concentration.” Applicant argues the granules of the instant invention are impregnated with potassium permanganate at a concentration between 0.25% and 2%. Comparatively, Applicant argues Spyridis teaches using a final product comprising 1.0 and 35 weight % of potassium permanganate. Applicant argues the percentages in Spyridis refer to the entire final product, including the baked porous material, while the impregnation of the instant invention is onto a substrate.
However, the percentage of Spyridis is disclosed as a weight percentage relative to the “baked material” which includes mineral zeolite, plastic clay, gypsum, and oxidizing agents and the ethylene adsorber potassium permanganate in an amount between 1.0 and 35 weight % (Claim 8; Pg. 3). The claims require “a clayey base impregnated with potassium permanganate or sodium permanganate at a concentration of between 0.25% and 2%.” Spyridis assembling a zeolite with between 1.0 and 35 weight% potassium permanganate is equivalent to a clayey base impregnated with potassium permanganate or sodium permanganate at a concentration of between 0.25% and 2% because a clayey base includes a zeolite and “impregnation” is not given a special definition such that the normal definition understood in the art would not apply.
Applicant argues on Pg. 13 Spyridis is in a different field of endeavor in that the uses of Spyridis include use in air refining laboratories, surgery rooms, and adsorption of highly toxic gases, as well as fresh fruits and vegetables. Applicant argues in contrast the claimed invention is a sachet specifically for containers of fresh produce intended exclusively for the retail market for use in small packages.
However, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As Applicant acknowledges, Spyridis teaches the sachet can be used for ethylene adsorption. The fact the adsorbent of Spyridis is disclosed as having myriad uses does exclude the fact it discloses an adsorbent comprising a zeolite and between 1.0 and 35 weight% potassium permanganate, as required by the claim. Additionally, Spyridis specifically states “the invention concerns a special porous material, which is being produced from a mixture of minerals and chemicals through a specific elaboration, so that it finally disposes the following properties… Oxidation of the insatiate organic gases (ethylene, propylene, acetylene etc..), in order to be applied for the retardation of the maturation and further the decomposition of foods' stuff, in houses' refrigerators and in storage and preservation rooms of fresh fruits and vegetables.” See Pg. 2, Description. Such a disclosure clearly overlaps the field of endeavor the instant invention pertaining to ethylene adsorption for use in foodstuff packaging.
Applicant argues on Pg. 14-16 the problems solved by Spyridis and the instant invention are different. Applicant argues in order to achieve the sterilization of air, Spyridis uses a complex mixture of not only zeolite but also two oxidants including potassium permanganate and potassium dichromate. Applicant argues such a complex mixture is fundamentally different from the compositional limitations required by the claim.
However, claim 1 uses the language “comprising” where other materials than the substrate and potassium permanganate are not excluded from being present, so long as the range required by the claim is met. Spyridis discloses an adsorbent comprising a zeolite and between 1.0 and 35 weight% potassium permanganate and accordingly meets the limitations required by the claim.
Applicant argues on Pg. 16-17 Spyridis does not address the relationship between consumer safety and permanganate concentration. Accordingly, no motivation would be provided to purposely limit the chemical concentration of the oxidizing agent (i.e. potassium permanganate) to achieve the non-hazardous characteristics critical for the retail market.
However, given that Spyridis teaches an adsorbent comprising a zeolite and between 1.0 and 35 weight% potassium permanganate, as required by the claims, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues on Pg. 17 that because Spyridis is not food-grade and is taught to be kept away from foodstuff, Spyridis is structurally and functionally non-analogous.
However, as Applicant has acknowledged, Spyridis teaches a use of the air filtration material for ethylene. Spyridis specifically states “the invention concerns a special porous material, which is being produced from a mixture of minerals and chemicals through a specific elaboration, so that it finally disposes the following properties… Oxidation of the insatiate organic gases (ethylene, propylene, acetylene etc..), in order to be applied for the retardation of the maturation and further the decomposition of foods' stuff, in houses' refrigerators and in storage and preservation rooms of fresh fruits and vegetables.” See Pg. 2, Description. In light of the teachings of Spyridis, it is unclear how such a teaching would dissuade a skilled artisan from applying the air filtration material to foodstuff and it is further unclear how Spyridis teaching an adsorbent comprising a zeolite and between 1.0 and 35 weight% potassium permanganate is structurally non-analogous the instant claims.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO2015110682A1 English Translation) in view of Spyridis (EP0888802A2 English Translation) and Molecular Products Limited, (Sofnofil Safety Data Sheet, 2009 and Sofnofil Product Sheet, 2009). As stated below, Wang et al. WO2015110682A1 is used to provide Fig. 1, which is not included in the English translation.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a gas absorption pocket for the elimination of ethylene and other harmful gases in boxes containing perishable products (Abstract; Title). Wang teaches the gas absorption pocket comprises a supporting means (1) that forms a receptable where a granulated material (2) is housed, where the supporting means is formed by a water-impregnable and gas-permeable plastic sheet (3) and a gas-permeable resistant sheet (4), which are arranged one on top of the other (Abstract). Wang teaches the supporting means is composed of a plastic sheet with high gas permeability, to which a resistant sheet is attached that provides solidity while also preventing water from passing through the sheet (Pg. 2, par. 9-10). Wang teaches the granules act as a filter material and are selected from materials including granulated clays (zeolite, sepiolite, alumina, diatom stones, etc.) impregnated with permanganates, including potassium and sodium (Pg. 2, par. 2). Wang (non-English version) discloses the gas absorption pocket in Figure 1, which includes two sheets joined together at the sides to form the pocket within which the granule particles (2) are contained (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 from Wang et al. WO2015110682A1 is reproduced below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang teaching that the granules (2) are inside the pocket formed by the water-impregnable and gas-permeable plastic sheet (3), which is welded to sheet (4), meets the limitation of “wherein the granules (5) are contained directly between said bottom sheet (2) made from porous, water-repellent, breathable material and said top sheet (3) made from waterproof material, such that at least some of said granulate (5) is in direct contact with said bottom sheet (2) and at least some of said granulate (5) is in direct contact with said top sheet (3)” because sheet (3) being a water-impregnable and gas permeable sheet is consistent with being both a bottom sheet made from porous water-repellent material, while also being a top sheet made from waterproof material.
Wang teaches the gas absorption pocket is for containers for eliminating ethylene and other harmful gases in boxes or bags in perishable products (Abstract). Wang teaches the absorption pocket is related to the packaging of plant products, such as fruits, vegetables or flowers, and other perishable products (Pg. 1; Abstract). The term “for use in a retail market” is interpreted as intended for use in small packages in which “fruits, vegetables, flowers, culinary herbs, etc., are placed,” which is supported in the instant specification in at least Pg. 1, lines 26-34. While the term “for use in a retail market” does not provide further structure to the claimed product, as stated below, Wang devising a gas adsorbing pocket for use as packaging of plant products, such as fruits, vegetables or flowers meets the limitation “for use in a retail market,” as defined by Applicant.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Wang et al. (WO2015110682A1 English Translation) in view of Molecular Products Limited, (Sofnofil Safety Data Sheet, 2009 and Sofnofil Product Sheet, 2009) and Spyridis (EP0888802A2 English Translation) teach the structural features of the product of claim 1 and the intention “for use in the retail market” does not distinguish the instant invention from the prior art.
The claim further requires “that said granules (5) comprise of a substrate impregnated with permanganate at a concentration of between 0.25% and 2%,” “wherein the granules (5) contained therein are made up of a clayey base impregnated with potassium permanganate or sodium permanganate at said concentration of between 0.25% and 2%,” and the granules “have an approximate grain size distribution of between 2 and 0.125 mm,” to which Wang is silent.
Spyridis teaches a porous air filtering material based on a mixture of mineral zeolite, plastic clay, gypsum, and oxidizing agents where the granule size of the adsorption material is 0.1 to 1 mm (Claim 2; Pg. 2, lines 45-55). Spyridis teaches the filtration material comprises 1.0 and 35 weight % of potassium permanganate (Claim 8; Pg. 3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the value taught by Spyridis (0.1 to 1 mm; 1.0 to 35 weight %) overlaps with the claimed range (between 2 and 0.125 mm; 0.25% to 2% permanganate). Therefore, the value in Spyridis renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing the absorption material in the quantities and with the grain sizes taught by Spyridis affords adsorbents with sufficient mechanical strength as well as ideal porosity for oxidation of insatiate organic gases, such as ethylene (Pg. 3, lines 25-30; Abstract; Pg. 2, Description).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce absorption materials with granule sizes ranging between 0.1 to 1 mm and with 1.0 to 35 weight % KMnO4 in the granules of Wang in order to afford an adsorbent with sufficient mechanical strength as well as ideal porosity for oxidation of organic gases including ethylene, as taught by Spyridis.
The claim further requires the granules have “an approximate density of between 1.1 and 0.8 g/ml,” to which Wang and Spyridis are silent.
Molecular Products Limited teaches an adsorbent, Sofnofil, that comprises high activity alumina impregnated with potassium permanganate, where the permanganate is present at less than 6 wt.% (Sofnofil, Safety Data Sheet, Pg. 2, Section 3, Composition/Information on Ingredients) and the bulk density of the material is 800 kg/m3 (i.e. 0.8 g/mL) (Sofnofil, Technical Data Sheet, Specifications). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the value and range taught by Molecular Products Limited (800 kg/m3 (i.e. 0.8 g/mL) overlaps with the claimed range (1.1 to 0.8 g/mL). Therefore, the value and range in Molecular Products Limited renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, adsorbents comprising the permanganate loading and bulk density of Sofnofil™ display high mechanical strength, low dust formation, low air flow resistance, and high contaminant capacity (Sofnofil, Technical Data Sheet, Specifications).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide less than 6 wt.% potassium permanganate impregnated particles with a density of 800 kg/m3 in the granules of Wang in order provide granules with high mechanical strength, low dust formation, low air flow resistance, and high contaminant capacity as taught by Molecular Products Limited.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Wang teaches the sachet of claim 1 and Wang further teaches the granules act as a filter material and is selected from materials including granulated clays (zeolite, sepiolite, alumina, diatom stones, etc.) impregnated with permanganates, including potassium and sodium (Pg. 2, par. 2).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Wang teaches the sachet according to claim 1 and the claims further require “wherein the concentration range for the impregnation of the granules (5) with potassium permanganate or sodium permanganate is between 0.25 and 1%,” and “wherein the concentration for the impregnation of the granules (5) with potassium permanganate or sodium permanganate is 0.5%,” to which Wang is silent.
Spyridis teaches a porous air filtering material based on a mixture of mineral zeolite, plastic clay, gypsum, and oxidizing agents where the granule size of the adsorption material is 0.1 to 1 mm (Claim 2; Pg. 2, lines 45-55). Spyridis teaches the filtration material comprises 1.0 and 35 weight % of potassium permanganate (Claim 8; Pg. 3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the value taught by Spyridis (0.1 to 1 mm; 1.0 to 35 weight %) overlaps with the claimed range (between 2 and 0.125 mm; 0.25% to 2% permanganate). Therefore, the value in Spyridis renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing the absorption material in the quantities and with the grain sizes taught by Spyridis affords adsorbents with sufficient mechanical strength as well as ideal porosity for oxidation of insatiate organic gases, such as ethylene (Pg. 3, lines 25-30; Abstract; Pg. 2, Description).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce absorption materials with granule sizes ranging between 0.1 to 1 mm and with 1.0 to 35 weight % KMnO4 in the granules of Wang in order to afford an adsorbent with sufficient mechanical strength as well as ideal porosity for oxidation of organic gases including ethylene, as taught by Spyridis.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO2015110682A1 English Translation) in view of Spyridis (EP0888802A2 English Translation) and Molecular Products Limited, (Sofnofil Safety Data Sheet, 2009 and Sofnofil Product Sheet, 2009) and further in view of Aguilar-Armenta et al. (Adsorption Science & Technology 2009, 27, 5).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang teaches the sachet according to claim 1 and the claims further requires “wherein the clayey base is a clinoptilolite- or heulandite-type natural zeolite clay,” to which Wang, Spyridis, and Molecular Products Limited are silent.
Aguilar-Armenta teaches the application of natural clinoptilolite/heulandite as an adsorbent for ethylene (Abstract). Advantageously, clinoptilolite samples displayed irreversible adsorption of ethylene at increased temperatures compared to other hydrocarbons and are recommended as promising adsorbents for separations of this kind (i.e. ethylene removal) (Pg. 535, 4. Summary).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize clinoptilolite- or heulandite-type natural zeolites in the granules of Wang in order to provide increased adsorption of ethylene compared to other hydrocarbons as taught by Aguilar-Armenta.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO2015110682A1 English Translation) in view of Spyridis (EP0888802A2 English Translation) and Molecular Products Limited, (Sofnofil Safety Data Sheet, 2009 and Sofnofil Product Sheet, 2009) and further in view of Tang et al. (CN106720268A English Translation).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Wang teaches the sachet according to claim 1 and the claims further require “wherein the granules (5) are mixed with an amount of granular activated carbon ranging from 1 to 45% of the total weight of the granules in the sachet,” and “wherein the granules (5) are mixed with an amount of granular activated carbon being 30% of the total weight of the granules in the sachet,” to which Wang, Spyridis, and Molecular Products Limited are silent.
Tang teaches an ethylene absorbent for keeping banana’s fresh in storage where the adsorbent includes raw materials in the weight ratios of zeolite 6-8 parts, activated carbon 6-8 parts, vermiculite 4-6 parts, molecular sieve 3-5 Part, attapulgite 1-3 parts, diatomite 1-3 parts, attapulgite 0.5-1 parts, and expanded perlite 0.5-1 parts (Claim 10). Converting the ranges of activated carbon at the low and high end of the ranges taught by Tang gives an activated carbon range of 23-33%. Calculations are provided below. Advantageously, the adsorbent of Tang with activated carbon present in 23-33 wt.% provides a convenient ethylene adsorbent that is low cost with wide application across markets (Pg. 2, Content of the Invention).
Calculations:
Parts left to right: zeolite, activated carbon, vermiculite, molecular sieve, attapulgite, diatomite, attapulgite, and expanded perlite
Eight parts activated carbon, high-end of parts: 8 + 8 + 6 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 35
(8 parts activated carbon / 35 parts total) * 100 = 33%
Eight parts activated carbon, low-end of parts: 6 + 8 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 1 +0.5+0.5 =24
(8 parts activated carbon / 24 parts total) * 100 = 23%
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide activated carbon in the ethylene adsorbent between 23 and 33 wt.% of the granules, in the granules of Wang, in order to provide a convenient ethylene adsorbent that is low cost with wide application across markets as taught by Tang.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Tang (23-33 wt.% activated carbon) overlaps with the claimed ranges (Claim 7, activated carbon ranging from 1 to 45% of the total weight of the granules in the sachet; Claim 8, activated carbon being 30% of the total weight of the granules). Therefore, the range in Tang renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO2015110682A1 English Translation) in view of Spyridis (EP0888802A2 English Translation) and Molecular Products Limited, (Sofnofil Safety Data Sheet, 2009 and Sofnofil Product Sheet, 2009) and further in view of Komatsu et al. (US4487791).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang teaches the sachet according to claim 1 and Wang further teaches the adsorbent is placed in a support means comprising plastic sheets and resistant sheets, where the plastic sheet is water impermeable (Pg. 3). The claim further requires the size of the sachet, i.e. “wherein the size of the sachet (1) is comprised between 40x46 mm and 50x46 mm,” to which Wang, Spyridis, and Molecular Products Limited are silent.
Komatsu teaches an oxygen adsorbing packet for preserving food stuffs that comprises plastic films or nonwoven fabric sheets and a laminated sheet comprising a plastic film which form layers (Abstract). Komatsu teaches the packages after sealing are 50 mm x 50 mm (col. 4, Example 1 and Example 2). Advantageously, packets of this size can be prepared at high speed by using ordinary heat sealing machines (col. 4, lines 6-9). It is noted the second dimension of the packet of Komatsu lies outside the range required by the claim (50 mm in Komatsu vs. 46 mm in the instant application). However, a skilled artisan would readily be able to adjust the dimensions of the packet to the desired size for use in a heat sealing machine. Furthermore, the instant specification states “the size is preferably 40x46mm and 50x46 mm, without ruling out other sizes that are already known on the market” (Pg. 8, line 35-Pg.9, line 1).
Thus, absent showings of criticality, the dimensions of the sachet are not considered critical as long as the gas adsorbing material can fit within the packet and the packet can be sealed by a machining process to save time, both of which are made obvious by the teachings of Komatsu. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO2015110682A1 English Translation) in view of Spyridis (EP0888802A2 English Translation) and Molecular Products Limited, (Sofnofil Safety Data Sheet, 2009 and Sofnofil Product Sheet, 2009) and further in view of Prepared Foods (Multisorb No Additives Needed 2015-04-16).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wang teaches the sachet according to claim 1 and Wang further teaches the adsorbent is placed in a support means comprising plastic sheets and resistant sheets, where the plastic sheet is water impermeable (Pg. 3). The claim further requires the size of the sachet, i.e. “wherein an outer face of one of the two sheets (2, 3) has an adhesive for adhering said sachet (1) to said package (6),” to which Wang, Spyridis, and Molecular Products Limited are silent.
Prepared Foods teaches the Multisorb FreshMax Oxygen Adsorbers which functions to preserve food which includes a solid-filled sorbent contained within sheets that have an adhesive backing that allows it to be adhered to food packaging (Pg. 1, Packaging Figure; Pg. 2, par. 1-3). Advantageously, the adhesive backed sachet allows for a flat, flexible format with an ultra-thin, low profile design which allows for the sachet to be “seemingly invisible” when included with packaged foods.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an adhesive backing in the packets of Wang, in order to achieve a flat, flexible format with an ultra-thin, low profile design that allows for the sachet to be “seemingly invisible” when included with packaged foods, as taught by Prepared Foods.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang teaches the sachet according to claim 1 and the claim further requires “wherein said sachet (1) is adhered to said package (6) by a machine or by hand,” to which Wang, Spyridis, and Molecular Products Limited are silent.
Prepared Foods teaches the Multisorb FreshMax Oxygen Adsorbers which function to preserve food which includes a solid-filled sorbent contained within sheets which contain an adhesive backing (Pg. 1, Packaging Figure; Pg. 2, par. 1-3). It would be obvious to a skilled artisan that the adhesive backed adsorber of Prepared Foods could be applied by hand or a machine process, as adhesive-backed products are universally used and implemented. Advantageously, the adhesive backed sachet allows for a flat, flexible format with an ultra-thin, low profile design which allows for the sachet to be “seemingly invisible” when included with packaged foods.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an adhesive backing in the packets of Wang, in order to achieve a flat, flexible format with an ultra-thin, low profile design that allows for the sachet to be “seemingly invisible” when included with packaged foods, as taught by Prepared Foods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mckedy (WO2014144481A1); Mckedy teaches an ethylene adsorber that includes a sachet with at least one wall that is permeable to gases and impermeable to liquids with at least one other label or patch that has at least one side permeable to gases and impermeable to liquids (Abstract; Claims 1, 14, 20-21).
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738