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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7, 9-10, 12-15 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claims 6 and 14, it is suggested to (1) in line 1 after “The” and before “sheeting”, insert “packaging” and (2) in line 2 after “the” and before “sheeting”, insert “packaging”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claims 7, 9-10, 12 and 18-19, in line 1, after “The” and before “sheeting”, insert “packaging”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 13, it is suggested to (1) in line 1 after “The” and before “sheeting”, insert “packaging” and (2) in line 1 after “the” and before “sheeting”, insert “packaging”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 15, it is suggested to (1) in line 1 after “The” and before “sheeting”, insert “packaging” and (2) in line 2 after “recesses” and before “are”, insert “of the first formed sheet and the second formed sheet”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-7, 9-10, 12-15 an 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 5, the claim has been amended to recite “the first continuous layer, the second continuous layer, and the third continuous layer each form a barrier within the packaging sheeting preventing a fluid from passing therethrough” in lines 17-19. While the originally filed disclosure provides support for the extruded sheets of polymeric material that form each of the first formed sheet and second formed sheet are continuous sheets (i.e., do not include apertures, holes or holes) in Figs. 2 and 3b. However, there does not appear to be support for the layers forming a barrier within the packaging sheeting to prevent a fluid from passing therethrough as presently recited in the claim.
Regarding dependent claims 6-7, 9-10, 12-15 and 18-19, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 5 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7, 9-10, 12-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavannes (US 3,294,387) in view of Tauchi et al. (JP 2014-065297) (Tauchi), with claim 6 further taken in view of evidence of Calcium Silicate (Final Advanced Materials).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of JP 2014-065297 Abstract and Description. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claim 5, Chavannes teaches a laminated material useful for cushioning and shock absorbing applications as, for example, packing of products (col. 1, lines 14-18) (corresponding to a packaging sheeting). The laminate includes an embossed film, a sealing layer fused to a first surface of the embossed film and a second layer sealed to a second surface of the embossed film opposite the first surface (col. 7, lines 43-59) (corresponding to an upper outside wall, a lower outside wall). The sealing layer and second layer are plastic sheet materials (col. 2, lines 50-52; col. 3, line 17- col. 5, line 32) (corresponding to the upper outside wall and lower outside wall are formed from a sheet of extruded polymeric material).
The embossed film comprises a plurality of hexagonal sealed embossments 24 (Figs. 6 & 7) (corresponding to a first formed sheet; a first continuous layer having multiple recesses and/or channels formed in opposing sides thereof in a symmetrical repeat pattern). The embossed film is formed of an extruded plastic film that is passed about an embossing roller (col. 4, line 65- col. 5, line 16) (corresponding to the first formed sheet being formed from an extruded sheet of polymeric material).
Prior to heat sealing of the overlying embossed and sealing layers materials may be introduced into the sealed elements (col. 1, lines 39-43; col. 8, line 63-col. 9, line 3) (corresponding to at least some of the recesses and/or channels on the first formed sheet are at least partially filled with a further material). The materials maybe fire retarding agents, desiccants or moisture absorbers (col. 1, lines 39-43; col. 8, line 63-col. 9, line 3) (corresponding to a further material providing improved strength, resilience, resistance and/or thermal properties of the sheeting).
Chavannes does not explicitly teach the laminated material includes an intermediate wall and at least a second formed sheet, wherein the intermediate wall is fixed between the embossed film (i.e., first formed sheet) and the second formed sheet, as presently claimed.
Tauchi teaches a hollow structural board including a molded sheet having a plurality of hollow convex portions, a surface material formed of a thermoplastic resin sheet on the surface of the hollow convex portions and a back material made of a thermoplastic resin sheet on the surface of the hollow convex molded sheet where the surface material is not provided ([0014]). The hollow convex molded sheet includes a two hollow convex molded sheets, wherein the protrusions of the molded sheets are butted against each other and fixed with an intermediated sheet made of thermoplastic resin between them ([0072]; FIG. 15) (corresponding to a first molded sheet; a second molded sheet; an intermediate wall formed from a sheet of polymeric material). Tauchi further teaches the hollow convex molded sheet can be freely designed according to the desired strength and bending performance ([0075]).
In light of the motivation of Tauchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the presently claimed invention to have the embossed film of Chavannes include two embossed films, wherein the protrusions of the embossed films are butted against each other and fixed together with an intermediate sheet made of thermoplastic resin in between, in order to provide the laminated material with better strength, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Given that the embossed films and intermediate sheet of Chavannes in view of Tauchi provide a plurality of discrete pockets or hollow elements, wherein the gas or fluid contained in the pockets permanently sealed therein (col. 3, lines 2-5), it is clear the embossed films and intermediate sheet between the embossed films create sealed pockets (corresponding to the first continuous layer, the second continuous layer, and the third continuous layer each from a barrier with the packaging sheeting preventing a fluid from passing therethrough).
Alternatively, given that the embossed films and intermediate sheet of Chavannes in view of Tauchi are substantially identical to the presently claimed first formed sheet, second formed sheet and intermediate wall in composition and structure, the embossed films and intermediate sheet of Chavannes in view of Tauchi would intrinsically form a barrier within the laminated material preventing a fluid from passing therethrough.
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 (I).
Further, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making (i.e., extruded films; filled by cascade or waterfall filling). Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed processes and given that Chavannes in view of Tauchi meets the requirements of the claimed product, Chavannes in view of Tauchi clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
In reference to claim 6, Chavannes in view of Tauchi teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Chavannes teaches the material sealed in the sealed elements is powdered calcium silicate (col. 8, lines 71-73). As evidence by Final Advanced Materials, calcium silicate has low thermal conductivity and provides thermal insulation. Therefore, it is clear the powdered calcium silicate in the elements will reduce the thermal conductivity of the laminated material.
In reference to claim 7, Chavannes in view of Tauchi teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. While Chavannes teaches vacuum molding a film to form the embossed film (col. 4, lines 9-13, 35-38, 54-57; col. 5, lines 23-25). However, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed processes and given that Chavannes in view of Tauchi meets the requirements of the claimed product, Chavannes in view of Tauchi clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
In reference to claim 9, Chavannes in view of Tauchi teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Chavannes teaches the plastic film is a polyethylene (col. 3, lines 9-10; col. 6, lines 20-22) (corresponding to the polymeric material of the first formed sheet is polyethylene).
In reference to claim 10, Chavannes in view of Tauchi teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Chavannes in view of Tauchi further teaches the material of the hollow convex molded sheets are high-density polyethylene and can include fillers such as calcium carbonate (Tauchi, [0076]-[0077]). The fillers may be added to the thermoplastic resin forming the hollow convex molded sheet to improve rigidity of the hollow structural plate ([0077]).
Therefore, in light of the motivation of Tauchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the plastic films of the embossed films be high-density polyethylene including calcium carbonate, in order to provide the laminated structure with improved rigidity, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
392
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 12, 15 and 18-19, Chavannes in view of Tauchi teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Chavannes teaches the embossed film includes raised hexagonal embossments 24 and channels formed between the embossments (Figs. 6-7 & 10, provided below) (corresponding to an upper side of the first formed sheet and/or second formed sheet includes the channels interconnected between the recesses; the recesses are hexagon-shaped; the recess and channels are formed on the first formed sheet and/or the second formed sheet in a tessellated pattern; the tessellated pattern on the first formed sheet and/or the second formed sheet is surrounded by a flat or non-patterned portion of the first formed sheet and/or the second formed sheet).
PNG
media_image3.png
438
1082
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 13, Chavannes in view of Tauchi teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Chavannes further teaches peripheral edges of the structure are sealed in order to prevent the entrance of foreign matter (col. 7, lines 55-57; col. 8, lines 13-14) (corresponding to at least one edge of the sheeting is sealed).
In reference to claim 14, Chavannes in view of Tauchi teaches the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Although Chavannes in view of Tauchi does not explicitly teach the edges are sealed by heat crimping or heat compression as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Chavannes in view of Tauchi meets the requirements of the claimed product, Chavannes in view of Tauchi clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claims 9 and 10, the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections of record are withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 5, which now requires the first formed sheet, the second formed sheet and the intermediate wall fixed between the first formed sheet and the second formed sheet be continuous layers, it is noted that Orologio (US 2019/0134941) and Stofferis (WO 2012/046127), alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Rather, Orologio includes apertures passing through its layers. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Orologio in view of Stofferis are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections, as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection over Orologio have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights