DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-21, 25-26, 28 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-17, 19-21, 25-26, 28 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 15, 18, 22-24, 27 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8, 10, 12) in the reply filed on 07/21/2023 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-17, 19-21, 25-26, 28 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “the biodegradable aliphatic polyester comprises an amount of one or more of... (PHBH)” applies to the biodegradable aliphatic polyester of the “inner cover layer”, the biodegradable aliphatic polyester of the “outer cover layer”, or both.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “the biodegradable aliphatic polyester comprises an amount of one or more of... (PHBH)” requires the biodegradable aliphatic polyester of the “inner cover layer” to be the same as the biodegradable aliphatic polyester of the “outer cover layer”, or whether they are independently selected.
Claim 8 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “the biodegradable aliphatic polyester further comprises an amount of... (PHBV)” applies to the biodegradable aliphatic polyester of the “inner cover layer”, the biodegradable aliphatic polyester of the “outer cover layer”, or both.
Claims 2-7, 10, 12 are dependent on one or more of the above claims and therefore incorporate the above-described indefinite subject matter.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/14/2023 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent issued from U.S. Application No. 17/792,939 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
The provisional rejections based on copending Application No. 17/792,939 (US 2023/0166895) (KUIPER) on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting in the previous Office Action mailed 09/14/2023 have been withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 12/14/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
CLEVELAND ET AL (US 2007/018422),
in view of INAGAKI ET AL (US 2020/0384750),
and in view of HODSON (US 2004/0248486),
and in view of WATKINS ET AL (US 4,735,513),
and in view of CN 110331622 (LI-CN ‘622),
and in view of CHEEMA ET AL (US 2013/0224346),
and in view of WO 2013-074436 (SANDERS-WO ‘436),
and in view of SUBSTRATE - THE FREE DICTIONARY.
CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 discloses a biodegradable laminate for packaging, in which each layer is biodegradable and/or compostable, wherein the laminates can comprise, but are not limited to:
• a biodegradable polyester layer (Layer E) (e.g., polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA); other biodegradable polyesters such as ECOFLEX brand, EASTAR BIO brand, BIOMAX brand, etc.);
• a substrate or board layer (e.g., paperboard, kraft sheet, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “paper layer”);
• a multilayer polymeric element (corresponding to the recited “packaging element”) comprising:
• a first biodegradable polyester layer (Layer F) (corresponding to the recited “inner cover layer”) which is moisture resistant to protect the oxygen barrier layer (e.g., PHA; polylactic acid (PLA); other biodegradable polyesters such as the previously mentioned ECOFLEX brand, EASTAR BIO brand, BIOMAX brand, etc.) with a general layer weight of 5-20 lbs/3000 ft2; about 8-32 g/m2, or approximately 8-32 microns, assuming a density of approximately 1 g/cm3);
• a first biodegradable tie layer (Layer G or dTie) (corresponding to the recited “first intermediate material”) with a general layer weight of 2-5 lbs/3000 ft2; about 3.2-8 g/m2, or approximately 3.2-8 microns, assuming a density of approximately 1 g/cm3);
• an oxygen barrier layer (Layer H) (corresponding to the recited “functional layer”) (e.g., (bio)degradable polymer such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), etc.) with a general layer weight of 2-15 lbs/3000 ft2; about 3.2-24 g/m2, or approximately 3.2-24 microns, assuming a density of approximately 1 g/cm3)
• a second biodegradable tie layer (Layer I or dTie) (corresponding to the recited “second intermediate material”) with a general layer weight of 2-5 lbs/3000 ft2; about 3.2-8 g/m2, or approximately 3.2-8 microns, assuming a density of approximately 1 g/cm3);
• a second biodegradable polyester layer (Layer J) (corresponding to the recited “outer cover layer”) which is moisture resistant to protect the oxygen barrier layer (e.g., PHA; polylactic acid (PLA); other biodegradable polyesters such as the previously mentioned ECOFLEX brand, EASTAR BIO brand, BIOMAX brand, etc.) with a general layer weight of 5-20 lbs/3000 ft2; about 8-32 g/m2, or approximately 8-32 microns, assuming a density of approximately 1 g/cm3);
PNG
media_image1.png
423
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The biodegradable laminate can comprise additional layers, wherein the PVOH oxygen barrier layer can be positioned asymmetrically in the multilayer polymeric element and the resulting biodegradable laminate.
PNG
media_image2.png
320
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The biodegradable laminate and multilayer polymeric element can contain a single PVOH oxygen barrier layer, wherein the presence of PVOH is not required in other layers of the laminate and multiple PVOH-containing layers are not required. The multilayer polymeric element can be formed by coextrusion. The biodegradable laminates are useful in various known paper-based packaging applications (e.g., cartons, corrugated boxes, paper pouches, sandwich wraps, ream wrap, etc.). The reference further discloses that biodegradable or compostable polymers can be produced from renewable biological resources. (entire document, e.g., Figure 2, 4C, etc.; paragraph 0008-0011, 0014-0016, 0019, 0034, 0036-0044, 0047, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss the use of specific types of vinyl alcohol polymers.
INAGAKI ET AL ‘750 discloses that it is well known in the art to use biodegradable bonding layers comprising a biodegradable adhesive to bond a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)-based resin to an aliphatic polyester-based resin layer in biodegradable laminates useful for packaging applications in order to prevent delamination. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize 1,2-diol-modified vinyl alcohol resins (e.g., polyvinyl alcohol / 1,2-butanediol copolymers, etc. such as G-POLYMER from Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry, etc.) as an internal gas barrier layer for biodegradable laminates, wherein the laminates can have 3-15 layers and a structure which is not particularly limited -- e.g., but are not limited to:
a / b /c / b / c
a = biodegradable aliphatic polyester (e.g., 4-1400 microns);
b = biodegradable bond layer (e.g., 0.5-50 microns);
c = PVA barrier layer (e.g., 1-100 microns);
wherein the aliphatic polyester-based layers prevent reduction of the gas barrier properties of the PVA-based barrier layer caused by moisture absorption. The reference further discloses that 1,2-diol-modified vinyl alcohols have improved stretching properties. (paragraph 0018-0020, 0131-0135, 0155, 0163, 0176-0178, 0188-0192, 0197-0205, 0214, 0222, 0274, etc.)
HODSON ‘486 discloses that it is well known in the art that ECOFLEX resins (manufactured by BASF) and EASTAR BIO (manufactured by Eastman Chemical Company) are copolyesters derived from 1,4-butanediol, adipic acid, and dimethyl terephthalate (corresponding to the recited “polybutyleneadipate-terephthalate (PBAT”). (paragraph 0087, 0089, etc.)
WATKINS ET AL ‘513 discloses that it is well known in the art that laminates containing kraft paper sheets can be sufficiently flexible to function as a flexible wrap material (e.g., for food products, etc.). (line 11-15, col. 1; line 22-29, 58-60, col. 5; line 1-10, col. 6; etc.)
LI-CN ‘622 discloses that it is well known in the art that kraft paper has flexibility and strength and are useful as high-strength wrapping paper and/or food packaging paper. (paragraph 0004, etc.)
CHEEMA ET AL ‘346 discloses that it is well known in the art that paperboard and cardboard can be considered as flexible materials (i.e., a “flexible laminated board”) which can be used to encase (corresponding to the recited “wrap”) products (e.g., food, etc.). (paragraph 0001, 0115, etc.)
SANDERS-WO ‘436 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize paperboard as a flexible and/or bendable component in flexible wrap materials (e.g., for food items). (Figure 2, 4, etc.; line 22-24, page 2; line 12-13, page 6; line 29, page 6 to line 2, page 7; line 1-5, page 17; line 20-23, page 20; etc.)
SUBSTRATE - THE FREE DICTIONARY provides evidence that the term “substrate” is generally defined as a “substratum” or “an underlying layer” but does not contain any inherent requirements of rigidity or inflexibility.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known, commercially available amorphous butanediol-modified PVOH copolymers as suggested in INAGAKI ET AL ‘750 as the PVOH oxygen barrier layer (corresponding to the recited “functional layer”) in the multilayer polymeric element (corresponding to the recited “packaging element”) of the biodegradable laminates of CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 to form biodegradable packaging materials with excellent gas barrier and moisture barrier properties, combined with melt-processibility and improved elasticity compared to un-modified PVOH resins.
Further regarding claim 1, in the absence of any explicit definition of the word “flexible” in the disclosure as originally filed, for the purposes of the present application, the term “flexible” is interpreted as generally referring to the ability to be bent, flexed, or folded without breaking, and therefore, any material which is capable of being bent, flexed, or folded to at least some measurable degree without breaking is deemed to meet the limitation of being “flexible”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known paper-based materials (e.g., “substrate” or “board” materials such as paperboard, kraft paper sheets, etc. as disclosed in CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422) which are capable of being bent, flexed, and/or folded without breaking (corresponding to the recited “flexible”) (as evidenced in WATKINS ET AL ‘513 and LI-CN ‘622 and CHEEMA ET AL ‘346 and SANDERS-WO ‘436) to form known “flexible” paper-based packaging articles (e.g., but not limited to, paper pouches, sandwich wraps, ream wrap, etc. as disclosed in CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422).
Regarding claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized effective amounts of known biodegradable pigments, dyes, and/or other colorants at least one layer of the multilayer polymeric element of the biodegradable laminates of CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 in order to provide attractive decorative effects inside packaging.
Regarding claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized biodegradable polyesters at least partially made from renewable, bio-based components in the multilayer polymeric element of the biodegradable laminates of CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 to increase environmental friendliness and reduce usage of petroleum-based or non-renewable raw materials.
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
CLEVELAND ET AL (US 2007/018422), in view of INAGAKI ET AL (US 2020/0384750), and in view of HODSON (US 2004/0248486), and in view of WATKINS ET AL (US 4,735,513), and in view of CN 110331622 (LI-CN ‘622), and in view of CHEEMA ET AL (US 2013/0224346), and in view of WO 2013-074436 (SANDERS-WO ‘436), and in view of SUBSTRATE - THE FREE DICTIONARY,
as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of JOHNSON (US 2004/0076347).
JOHNSON ‘347 discloses that it is well known in the art to form packaging articles by laminating a polymer layer to at least one paper layer, wherein the paper layer(s) contain an opening that forms a window which allows viewing of the package contents (e.g., for a food product, etc.). (Figure 1-2, 5, etc.; paragraph 0002, 0005-0006, 0014-0017, etc.)
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate additional or multiple paper-based substrate layers as suggested in JOHNSON ‘347 in the biodegradable laminates of CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 in order to provide the desired performance properties (e.g., stiffness, weight, folding characteristics, decorative features, etc.) required for specific packaging applications.
Regarding claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated known packaging features such as openings in the paper-based substrate layer in the biodegradable laminates of CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 in order to provide windows for viewing package contents, as suggested in JOHNSON ‘347.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
CLEVELAND ET AL (US 2007/018422), in view of INAGAKI ET AL (US 2020/0384750), and in view of HODSON (US 2004/0248486), and in view of WATKINS ET AL (US 4,735,513), and in view of CN 110331622 (LI-CN ‘622), and in view of CHEEMA ET AL (US 2013/0224346), and in view of WO 2013-074436 (SANDERS-WO ‘436), and in view of SUBSTRATE - THE FREE DICTIONARY,
as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of YOSHIHARA (US 6,437,022).
YOSHIHARA ‘022 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate biodegradable pigments into biodegradable films. (line 17-35, col. 1; line 15-17, col. 2; etc.)
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize effective amounts of known biodegradable pigments (as suggested in YOSHIHARA ‘022), dyes, and/or other colorants at least one layer in the multilayer polymeric element (corresponding to the recited “packaging element”) of the laminates of CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 in order to provide attractive visual effects and/or to provide aesthetic and/or protective light filtering (e.g., in the case of a transparent viewing window provided by an opening in the paper-based substrate layer.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
CLEVELAND ET AL (US 2007/018422), in view of INAGAKI ET AL (US 2020/0384750), and in view of HODSON (US 2004/0248486), and in view of WATKINS ET AL (US 4,735,513), and in view of CN 110331622 (LI-CN ‘622), and in view of CHEEMA ET AL (US 2013/0224346), and in view of WO 2013-074436 (SANDERS-WO ‘436), and in view of SUBSTRATE - THE FREE DICTIONARY,
as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of UTSUNOMIYA ET AL (US 2015/0087034).
UTSUNOMIYA ‘034 discloses that it is well known in the art to form polybutylene terephthalate-based (co)polyesters (e.g., polybutylene-adipate-terephthalate (PBAT)) using monomers derived from renewable biomass sources in order to reduce usage of materials derived from fossil fuels. (paragraph 0002-0004, 0026-0032, 0036-0041, etc.)
Regarding claims 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known and/or commercially available bio-based polylactic acid resins in the multilayer polymeric element (corresponding to the recited “packaging element”) of the biodegradable laminates of CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 to increase environmental friendliness and reduce usage of petroleum-based materials as suggested in KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘929.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that “the use of PBST, PBAT and PHBH provides a biodegradable aliphatic polyester which shows unexpected results” (with respect to: "...an improved temperature behaviour improving manufacturing possibilities”; “an improved biodegradability of the biodegradable multi-layer packaging element”; the “so-called "cool-to-touch" characteristic of the packaging unit”; and/or “good high temperature resistance”; etc.) However, aside from general statements in the specification (Published Application US 2023/0040636, paragraph 0041), Applicant has not provided objective evidence (e.g., the actual experimental data, etc.) supporting Applicant’s assertions of unexpected results and/or criticality. Furthermore, the lack of details with respect to experimental conditions (e.g., the compositions of specific layers; the type of layer structures; etc.). Therefore, Applicant has not provided a showing of unexpected results and/or criticality which is commensurate in scope with the present claims from the use of use of PBST, PBAT and PHBH.
(B) Applicant argues that ‘Cleveland discloses in paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2 that the laminate comprises a substrate that “may be bleached or unbleached (natural) kraft sheet or bleached or unbleached (natural) paperboard.” ’ and therefore “the material disclosed in Cleveland cannot be considered a flexible packaging element like a wrap or foil as claimed in amended claim 1.”
As evidenced by SUBSTRATE - THE FREE DICTIONARY, the term “substrate” is broadly defined as a “substratum” or “an underlying layer”. However, this broad definition does not contain any inherent requirements of rigidity or inflexibility. Therefore, in the absence of any explicit definitions or requirements in CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 with respect to rigidity or a complete lack of flexibility, the term “substrate” as used in CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 does inherently require complete rigidity (i.e., a complete lack of flexibility), and furthermore does not preclude the laminates (corresponding to the recited “packaging element”) of CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 from being “flexible” (i.e., capable of being bent, flexed, or folded to at least some measurable degree without breaking).
It must be further noted that even if a material may be generally characterized as “rigid” or “semi-rigid” (e.g., steel, wood, etc.), this does not preclude said material from exhibiting some degree of flexibility (i.e., the ability to bend, flex, and/or fold to at least some degree without breakage) and therefore a “rigid” or “semi-rigid” material may be reasonably considered to have at least some degree of flexibility.
Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the mere usage of the term “board” or “substrate” by itself does not mean that the laminates disclosed in CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 are wholly incapable of being bent, flexed, and/or folded without breaking (i.e., entirely not “flexible”), especially when CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 discloses -- or at least reasonably implies or suggests (by indicating that known paper-based products would benefit by utilizing an environmentally friendly biodegradable material, such as the biodegradable paper-based laminate disclosed in CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422) -- the use of the disclosed biodegradable “board”-containing laminates or “substrate”-containing laminates in known paper-based packaging applications in packaging materials, including those which require at least some degree of bending, flexing, and/or folding without breakage (thus corresponding to the recited “flexible”) (e.g., gable-top cartons, folding cartons, paper pouches, sandwich wraps, ream wraps, etc.).
Additionally, as evidenced by WATKINS ET AL ‘513 and LI-CN ‘622 and CHEEMA ET AL ‘346 and SANDERS-WO ‘436, it is well known in the art that both kraft sheets (i.e., kraft paper) and paperboard can exhibit sufficient flexibility which makes them suitable for use in flexible wrapping materials (e.g., for food products, etc.).
(C) Applicant argues that “Inagaki likewise fails to teach or describe a flexible laminate sufficient for use as a foil or wrap.” In response to applicant's arguments against the reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(D) Applicant argues that “Watkins and Cheema in turn each fail to teach or suggest use of biodegradable materials, thereby making their inclusion into a foil or wrap that does comprise biodegradable aliphatic polyester as currently claimed as unobvious.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). WATKINS ET AL ‘513 and CHEEMA ET AL ‘346 are relied upon to provide evidence that it is well known in the art that it is well known in the art that at least some kraft sheet and paperboard materials are sufficiently flexible so as to enable their use in flexible sheets or wraps for items (e.g., food products). Despite Applicant’s assertions to the contrary, CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 does not contain any explicit or implicit requirements that the disclosed biodegradable “board”-containing laminates or “substrate”-containing laminates are wholly incapable of being bent, flexed, and/or folded without breaking (i.e., entirely not “flexible”), and therefore CLEVELAND ET AL ‘422 does not teach away from the production of flexible biodegradable laminates which would be both useful and suitable for known paper-based packaging applications which require at least some degree of bending, flexing, and/or folding without breakage (thus corresponding to the recited “flexible”) (e.g., gable-top cartons, folding cartons, paper pouches, sandwich wraps, ream wraps, etc.).
MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose [R-01.2024]
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Applicant has not provided any persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, in the absence of an explicit definition of the term “wrap” in the disclosure as originally filed, the term “wrap” is interpreted as generally referring to the ability to be cover or encase another material in any manner, and therefore the term “wrap” by itself does not contain an inherent requirement of a specific degree of flexibility. Therefore, as long as a material can be bent, flexed, or folded in a manner without breaking so as to cover or encase another material to any degree, it can be reasonably considered to be capable of functioning as a “wrap”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FABER (US 4,400,468) and COTTI COMETTINI ET AL (US 20200377437) disclose bio-based monomers from renewable sources for producing polyesters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
September 30, 2025
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787