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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 9th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 9th, 2026 has been entered. Applicant amendments to the claims and specification have overcome the rejections of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as well as the specification objections, as set forth in the last Office Action mailed on May 12th, 2025. The rejection of claims 1, 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are maintained as set forth in the last Office Action mailed on May 12th, 2025, (see discussion below under 112 rejections). The Examiner acknowledges the attached affidavit by Michael Fizer dated January 9th, 2026. The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed January 9th, 2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 10, 14-15 based upon the prior art of record of Donnel, and Kramer applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 since Donnel and Kramer use different types of films.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 18th, 2025 and October 8th, 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the Final Office Action on May 12th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 5, lines 12-13 of the Specification, “the protein is placed in the formed pocket in step 706”, should read “the protein is placed in the formed pocket in step 704”, as described in the Drawings, page 5, Fig.7.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 1/9/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
For VH718:
wherein VH718 has an outer composition comprising a combination of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high density polyethylene (HDPE).
wherein VH718 has an inner composition of LLDPE.
wherein VH718 has a total thickness of 18 mm.
For SK250:
wherein the upper film has an outer composition comprising a combination of Enhanced Polyethylene Coextrusion (PE) and nylon.
wherein the upper film has an inner composition of polyolefin.
wherein the upper film has a total thickness of 250 microns.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
NOTE: The Examiner acknowledge the cancelation of claims 8-9 in order to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) in the last Office Action. The amended claims present claims 8-9 with the correct (Canceled) designation, however claim 9 is also presented a second time, and indicated as original with claim text included.
On page 4 of the claims, claims 8-9 are shown as “8-9. (Canceled)”, however under “8-9. (Canceled)” the claims still recites “9. (Original) The method of claim 8, wherein the upper forming insert further comprises: an anchor section for anchoring the upper forming insert to a forming box during forming of the upper film.” Claim 9 was previously canceled because all the limitations of the claim are already present in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
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 14-15 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.
NOTE: In regards to claims 14-15, which specify properties (i.e., film thickness) of the upper sealing films, the examiner recognize Applicant’s amendments to the specification to include the disclosure of the films CRYOVAC® VH718 and WINPAK® SK250, described on pages 8-9 of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/235,899 filed 8/31/21 (see Remarks dated 3/31/25, page 1, first paragraph). However, there is no explicit disclosure and/or specific description of the claimed thickness and/or compositions of the films in the instant specification.
Regarding film thickness:
Claims 14-15 recites “the upper film has a total thickness of 250 microns” (claim 14), and “the upper film has a total thickness of 18 mm” (claim 15). On page 5, lines 21-22, of the instant specification is disclosed that “Some shapes require variations such as thinner or thicker films,” and pages 8-9 of the specification in the provisional application only disclose the following film information:
VH718 used for forming design (holds the protein), and
SK250 used for forming design (holds the protein).
Neither the instant specification filed on 8/23/22, or the specification for the provisional application filed 8/23/21 disclose the specific total thickness of 250 microns or 18 mm of the upper films as claimed.
Regarding film inner/outer composition:
Claim 14 recites “the upper film has an outer composition comprising a combination of Enhanced Polyethylene Coextrusion (PE) and nylon; wherein the upper film has an inner composition of polyolefin”. On page 5, lines 19-30, of the instant specification is disclosed that “films with a tacky inner face or to be more porous” (page 5, line 22), “film combinations between the sealing requirements are also possible” (page 5, lines 23-24), and “layered combinations of films” (page 5, line 30), may be produced. However, neither the instant specification filed on 8/23/22, or the specification for the provisional application filed 8/23/21 disclose the specific claimed compositions for the inner/outer films.
Claim 15 recites “the upper film has an outer composition comprising a combination of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high density polyethylene (HDPE), wherein the upper film has an inner composition of LLDPE”. On page 5, lines 19-30, of the instant specification is disclosed that “films with a tacky inner face or to be more porous” (page 5, line 22), “film combinations between the sealing requirements are also possible” (page 5, lines 23-24), and “layered combinations of films” (page 5, line 30), may be produced. However, neither the instant specification filed on 8/23/22, or the specification for the provisional application filed 8/23/21 disclose the specific claimed compositions for the inner/outer films.
Regarding polyethylene types:
Claim 14 recites “the upper film has an outer composition comprising a combination of Enhanced Polyethylene Coextrusion (PE) and nylon; wherein the upper film has an inner composition of polyolefin”. On page 5, lines 24-30, of the instant specification various examples of materials used for the films are disclosed including “Polyethylene” (page 5, line 25) and Nylon (page 5, line 27). However, neither the instant specification filed on 8/23/22, or the specification for the provisional application filed 8/23/21 disclose the specific type of combination of Enhanced Polyethylene Coextrusion (PE) and nylon for the upper film outer composition or polyolefin composition for the upper film inner composition.
Claim 14 recites “Enhanced Polyethylene Coextrusion (PE) and nylon”. However, neither the instant specification filed on 8/23/22, or the specification for the provisional application filed 8/23/21 disclose and/or support these limitations of an enhanced coextruded type of material.
Claim 15 recites “the upper film has an outer composition comprising a combination of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high density polyethylene (HDPE), wherein the upper film has an inner composition of LLDPE”. On page 5, lines 24-30, of the instant specification various examples of materials used for the films are disclosed including “Polyethylene” (page 5, line 25). However, neither the instant specification filed on 8/23/22, or the specification for the provisional application filed 8/23/21 disclose the specific types of polyethylene (LLDPE and HDPE) being claimed.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) / 112(d)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 14-15 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.
Claims 1, 14-15 recites “joining the upper film and the lower film to form the patterned sealing film” , then “placing a protein in the patterned sealing film”. It is unclear how the protein is being placed inside the cavity created by joining the upper and lower film if these upper and lower films are joined first. The claims will be interpreted as the protein being placed between the films prior to joining them as described on page 3, lines 15-19, and page 5, lines 12-14 of the instant Specification.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 fails to further limit claim 1 since the limitations are already present in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 9, it appears that the claim is intended to be deleted, in light of the objection presented above. Nonetheless the claim 9 indicated as “original” depends from canceled claim 8 and is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Further, as explained in the above paragraph, claim 9 also fails to further limit claim 1 since all the limitations of claim 9 are already present in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14: The term “Enhanced” for the “Enhanced Polyethylene Coextrusion (PE) and nylon” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Enhanced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term enhanced renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes an “enhanced” polyethylene, (i.e., enhanced in comparison to other polyethylenes). Further, neither the instant specification filed on 8/23/22, or the specification for the provisional application filed 8/23/21 define what an enhanced polyethylene coextrusion is.
Claims 4-7, 10 are rejected by virtue of their dependance on a base rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parvin et al. [US 3527855 A], hereinafter Parvin, in view of Rich et al. [US 4287218 A], hereinafter Rich, and Raue et al. [US 20200037623 A1], hereinafter Raue.
Regarding claim 1, Parvin teach a method for forming and utilizing a patterned sealing film comprising ordered steps of: placing a forming and sealing film on an upper forming insert (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 with a mold 10 that accommodates a film forming insert block 17) [Parvin, col. 2, l.34-36], wherein the upper forming insert comprises: a central cavity [Parvin, col. 2, l.30-34] having ventilation structure (passage 21) in the central cavity for forming a vacuum in the central cavity [Parvin, col. 2, l.42-47, Fig.4] and ventilation structures (holes 40) to direct a flow of air [Parvin, col. 3, l.11-17, Fig.2]; and an anchor section for anchoring (insert block 17 anchored/secured to the bottom wall 15 by any convenient means, such as machine screws) the forming insert to a forming box during forming of the sealing film [Parvin, col. 2, l.34-38], forming an upper film from the forming and sealing film using the upper forming insert, wherein the mold shape (three-dimensional shape) is transferred to the upper film from the central cavity during forming [Parvin, col. 2, l.44-47]; forming a lower film (implicitly disclosed since two films are formed (upper and lower vacuum formed films, “at least one film (i.e., one or more films) is vacuum formed in a mold cavity”) in order to seal product between films, producing a three-dimensional package) [Parvin, col.1, l.29-31; col.2, l.47-51], placing a protein in the sealing film (product is then placed in the formed film, a cover film is fed over the formed film containing the product) [Parvin, col. 2, l.47-49; col.1, l.35-45; col.3, l.36-37]; joining the upper film and the lower film to form the sealing film [Parvin, col. 2, l.49-51; col.3, l.38-40], vacuuming and sealing the protein in the sealing film (air may be evacuated from the package before the final sealing) [Parvin, col. 2, l.49-51; col.1, l.39; col.3, l.40-42 ].
In regards to the multiple or plurality of ventilation structures and two (i.e., upper/lower) forming inserts (duplication of parts), MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. states:
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more or a plurality of ventilation structures based on the amount of suction/vacuum degree or power to be applied, the material being treated and or the design, shape and/or size of the forming insert of Parvin, and include two or more forming inserts (upper/lower) as claimed based on the amount of films to be formed in a determined period of time (i.e., more forming inserts would form more formed films in less time), and/or use the same insert to form the upper and lower films (i.e., forming first/upper film in forming insert then removing formed film, then forming a second/lower film in forming insert, then removing formed film and join upper/lower films, since Parvin already teach forming one or more films in a mold) in the method of Parvin with reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to the location of the ventilation structures being surrounding the central cavity (rearrangement of parts), MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include ventilation structures surrounding the central cavity as claimed based on the design, shape and/or size of the forming insert of Parvin with reasonable expectation of success.
Parvin does not explicitly teach forming the lower film prior to placing the protein in the sealing film (since the lower sealing film in Parvin is formed at the same time or during the vacuuming and sealing of the protein), the sealing film exerts a pressure on the protein from the vacuuming; cooking the protein in the sealing film at a cooking temperature required for the protein, wherein the three-dimensional shape is transferred from the sealing film to the protein during cooking at the cooking temperature solely by vacuum pressure applied to the protein from the vacuum between the protein and the sealing film; and removing the sealing film from the protein after the protein is cooked.
Rich teach a method for forming and utilizing a sealing film comprising the steps of placing a protein between an upper (film 16) and lower (bottom of a preformed mold 10, that is, the lower film is formed prior to placing the protein in the film) sealing film [Rich, Abstract, col.2, l.38-41], joining the upper film and the lower film to form the sealing film; vacuuming and sealing the protein in the sealing film [Rich, col.2, l.38-41], wherein the sealing film exerts a pressure on the protein from the vacuuming [Rich, col.2, l.41-47]; cooking the protein in the sealing film at a cooking temperature required for the protein [Rich, col.2, l.53-55], wherein a shape (loaf shape three-dimensional shape of the mold) is transferred from the sealing film to the protein during cooking at the cooking temperature solely by vacuum pressure applied to the protein from the vacuum between the protein and the sealing film [Rich, col.2, l.56-57]; and removing the patterned sealing film from the protein after the protein is cooked [Rich, col.2, l.58-59].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claimed forming of the lower film prior to placing the protein in the sealing film, wherein the sealing film exerts a pressure on the protein from the vacuuming; cooking the protein in the sealing film at a cooking temperature required for the protein, wherein the three-dimensional shape is transferred from the sealing film to the protein during cooking at the cooking temperature solely by vacuum pressure applied to the protein from the vacuum between the protein and the sealing film; and removing the patterned sealing film from the protein after the protein is cooked as taught by Rich, since both are directed to methods for forming and utilizing sealing films for packaging meats, since both Parvin and Rich teach joining the upper film and the lower film to form the sealing film; vacuuming and sealing the protein in the sealing film, but Parvin simply formed the lower film during the vacuuming and sealing step, however Rich teach that by forming the lower film prior to placing the protein in the film, the lower film would be in a semi-rigid form [Rich, col.2, l.28-29], which would provide for the elimination of air holes, jelly pockets and voids between the meat pieces and effects increased cohesion of the ground meat pieces together or with the larger meat pieces due to the vacuum treatment in the semi-rigid mold, this effect being sufficient to prevent crumbling of the finished meat product when sliced [Rich, col.2, l.41-47], as well as providing a meat product having a convenient loaf shape [Rich, col.2, l.56-57].
Modified Parvin in view of Rich do not teach the sealing film being a patterned sealing film having a three-dimensional embossing pattern.
Raue teaches a method for forming and utilizing a patterned sealing film, wherein the patterned sealing film have a three-dimensional embossing pattern [Raue, 0028, Fig.1], and wherein said three-dimensional embossing pattern is transferred onto the surface of the enclosed food [Raue, 0033], and wherein said enclosed food may be a protein [Raue, 0001].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claimed three-dimensional embossing pattern as taught by Raue into the upper forming insert having a central cavity of Parvin, to form an upper film from the forming and sealing film using the upper forming insert of Parvin, (particularly since Parvin teach that any shape of package (any shape of sealing film) can be formed by providing the appropriate complementary shaped mold surface within the die cavity, [Parvin, col. 3, l.44-47]), wherein the three-dimensional embossing pattern is transferred to the upper film from the central cavity during forming, and provide a patterned sealing film having a three-dimensional embossing pattern as taught by Raue into the method of modified Parvin, because Raue teach that by providing films in the form of bags (cavity) [Raue, 0035] having a three-dimensional embossing pattern, net-like patterns can be transferred onto the surface of enclosed protein food products [Raue, 0044], and further have the advantage of not requiring a net to produce the embossing pattern [Raue, 0123], therefore, the net-topology cannot shift and become irregular [Raue, 0033].
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Parvin teach the methods and concepts discussed above in claim 1 rejection but does not explicitly teach the three-dimensional embossing pattern comprises a plurality of raised areas and a plurality of depressed areas, wherein the three-dimensional embossing pattern is a net pattern, and wherein the three-dimensional embossing pattern comprises a company logo or graphic.
Raue teaches the method for forming and utilizing a patterned sealing film discussed above, wherein the three-dimensional embossing pattern comprises a plurality of raised areas (bulges 5) and a plurality of depressed areas (negative pattern squared shaped areas of grid), wherein the three-dimensional embossing pattern is a net pattern [Raue, 0170], and wherein the three-dimensional embossing pattern comprises a company logo or graphic [Raue, 0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a three-dimensional embossing pattern comprises a plurality of raised areas and a plurality of depressed areas that is a net pattern or a three-dimensional embossing pattern comprising a company logo or graphic as taught by Raue, into the method of Parvin, because Raue teach that this would provide not only a textured surface which forms a three-dimensional pattern of higher and lower retaining capacity for a functional additive, but additionally a textured surface that have a different design so that for example names, logos or designs representing a text, icon or other message which can be transferred onto the surface of the enclosed food [Raue, 0044].
Regarding claim 10, Parvin discloses no liquid cooling of the forming box (mold 10) is required (withdrawing air through suction passage 71, as described in (col. 4, lines 22-30), allows the. . . “formable film [to] come[s] into contact with the upper surface of the tray 60 [as] it cools and sets.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parvin in view of Rich and Raue, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of The Joslyn Manufacturing Co., INC. (“Best Thermoforming Tooling Choice for Your Product” 2020).
Regarding claim 7, modified Parvin teach the die cavity mold or insert for forming a film as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Raue also teaches thermoforming molds (upper/lower) and vacuum may be used [Raue, 0141-0142, 0170], but do not explicitly recite the upper forming insert or mold being made of aluminum material.
The Joslyn Manufacturing Co., INC. (“Best Thermoforming Tooling Choice for Your Product”’ 2020) teaches that the finest tooling for thermoformed products is a temperature-controlled mold machined from a block of aluminum. Products made with aluminum tooling are dimensionally more consistent and stable. Tolerances can be held to industry standards. Also, plates can be made with small vacuum holes along a detail area to evacuate air. Because porosity is minimal, products can be crafted with more detail and texture.
Simple substitution of materials used in molds, or tools in the thermoforming process, including the use of aluminum and the added hole structures would have allowed for the controlled evacuation of air or application of vacuum. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have utilized aluminum or any other desired/available metal based on the application in the Parvin film forming apparatus and Donnel clam shell to obtain the desired mold, insert or thermoforming tool as taught by The Joslyn Manufacturing Co., INC. (“Best Thermoforming Tooling Choice for Your Product”’ 2020, P. 2, Par. 2).
Parvin and The Joslyn Manufacturing Co., INC. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermoforming process using molds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parvin to incorporate the teachings of The Joslyn Manufacturing Co., INC., and provide an aluminum thermoforming mold made of aluminum with small vacuum holes for air to circulate. Doing so would provide the right tool to manufacture a quality thermoformed product that will have crisp lines, edges, texture and other detailing that stays consistent from piece to piece (The Joslyn Manufacturing Co., INC., P. 1, Par. 1).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parvin in view of Rich and Raue, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Emerson et al. [US 20140054831 A1], hereinafter Emerson, and Aikawa et al. [JP 2020033108 A], hereinafter Aikawa, evidenced by Wallce [US 20140054292 A1].
Regarding claim 14, modified Parvin teaches each and every claim limitation present in claim 1 and shared in common with claim 14 in regards to the method of forming and utilizing a patterned sealing film as discussed above. Parvin further teach that the formable film is a plastic film [Parvin, col.3, l.72] which is placed over the mold and heated, then vacuum is applied to form the film and may be sealed using heat (heat sealed around the periphery to produce a sealed package) [Parvin, col.2, l.44-51].
Parvin is silent regarding the specific material or composition of the plastic formable film being specifically (i.e., polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene and/or polyamides such as nylon), as well as the specific temperatures of 90-145°C for the step of forming the film, and the specific temperatures of 130-160°C for the step of sealing the film required in claim 14.
In regards to the upper film inner/outer composition and film forming temperatures:
Raue teach the method for forming and utilizing a patterned sealing film discussed in claim 1 rejection above, and further teach the films used for forming a thermoplastic food casing with a three-dimensional pattern may comprise a single layer (monolayer) or multiple layers of thermoplastic polymer material (coextruded multilayer casing [Raue, 0035], equivalent to films having an inner composition and outer composition from different material) such as polyolefins (polyethylene and/or polypropylene) and/or polyamides (nylon or nylon-MXD6® [0066, 0105]), as well as blend compositions of these materials [Raue, 0032, 0038-0039 and 0066]. The disclosure teaches various combinations of materials including polyolefin/polyamide (equivalent to polyethylene/nylon) [Raue, 0080], polyethylene and polyamide (polyethylene/nylon) [Raue, 0082], and many other polyolefin/polyamide combinations [Raue, 0083-0095 and 0103-0105]. Raue teaches that temperatures of 100°C or higher (equivalent to forming temperatures of 90-145°C as claimed) may be used to form the food casing when using polyolefins and polyamides [Raue, 0134]. Example 3 teach heating the casing (thermoplastic material) to a temperature of 135°C and an embossing tool capable of embossing squares or net-like grid, is also heated to a temperature of 120°C. The embossed film was preheated to a thermoforming temperature of 100°C, then, in a thermoforming station, square shaped areas were pressed by vacuum [Raue, 0170].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed film composition combinations and materials such as polyolefins (polyethylene) and nylon (polyamide), as well as the forming temperatures into the invention of Parvin, in view of Raue, since both are directed to methods of forming casings for meat products, since Parvin already teach forming by heat but simply did not specify the temperature used, and since the forming temperature depends on the melting temperature of the thermoplastic material being used to form the food casing [Raue, 0132, 0134]. Doing so would provide various methods to produce a thermoplastic food casing such as continuous and discontinuous methods where heat is used (i.e., heated embossing tools) which has the advantage that the polymer material can be displaced easily, particularly when the temperature used is adapted to the melting temperature of the material being used [Raue, 0132]. It would also provide a wide range of thermoplastic materials to be used such as polyolefins, polyamides and polymers to produce a casing with a net-topology that cannot shift and become irregular, and that does not need a net in order to transfer a netting pattern to an enclosed food product [Raue, 0032-0033]. It would further provide methods to produce food casings with different shapes and forms for a wide range of different foods [Raue, 0068]. Since the claimed forming temperature would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Parvin, in view of Raue, due to factors such as the type and ratios of the various polymer materials being used, the desired type (shape, size, form) of casing to be produce, and/or the desired type of food product to be encased.
In regards to the film sealing temperatures:
Emerson teach tooling for manufacturing a unit dose pouch [Emerson, Title], and various methods for the manufacturing of pouches. The method include drawing a film into a mold (die) cavity to create a pocket for a product and sealing the pocket [Emerson, 0024]. The mold comprise vacuum holes which allow the film to be vacuum formed [Emerson, 0029]. The mold may be made from a porous material such as porous aluminum material [Emerson, 0031], and the pouches may be vacuum formed in addition to heat to assist with the forming process [Emerson, 0043-0044]. The tooling may be designed to operate in a thermoforming machine [Emerson, 0046]. The disclosure teach that suitable heat sealing temperatures are in the range of 50°C to 300°C, however, sealing temperatures depend on the film material being used and other characteristics of the sealing process [Emerson, 0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed sealing temperatures into the invention of modified Parvin, in view of Emerson, since all are directed to methods of forming casings using molds (dies), vacuum, films and heat, since Parvin already teach the film may be sealed using heat (heat sealed around the periphery to produce a sealed package) [Parvin, col.2, lines 44-51], but simply did not specify the temperature used for the sealing step, since Emerson disclose that sealing temperatures depend on the film material being used and other characteristics of the sealing process [Emerson, 0050], and since Raue already teach that the film may be sealed using heat by a heated tool [Raue, 0147], and that the sealing energy (equivalent to sealing heat or temperature) may be different or depends on the film layer sequence, recipe of the layers and the design of the films, due to the differing wall thickness created by the embossing and thermoforming steps [Raue, 0159]. Doing so would provide a wide temperature range that is suitable for heat-sealing depending on the film material being used and sealing method being used [Emerson, 0050]. Since the claimed sealing temperature would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Parvin, in view of Emerson, due to factors such as the type of polymer materials being used for the film, as well as the thickness of the films.
In regards to the upper film total thickness:
Parvin teaches the film may have a certain thickness and strength in certain locations [Parvin, col.3, l.33-35], and Parvin in view of Raue teach the film may have an average thickness in a range of from 1 to 100 μm in some areas and an average thickness in a range of from 191 to 2000 μm in other areas [Raue, Abstract]. However, they do not teach an upper film having a total thickness of 250 microns.
Aikawa teaches method for forming and utilizing a patterned sealing film (pouch with embossed pattern) [Aikawa, Title], wherein the film may have a total thickness in the range of from 70 to 300 μm [Aikawa, 0013].
Wallce directed to methods of multilayer films in thermoforming processes for making separable food containers [Wallce, Abstract], where film materials may comprise polyethylenes (i.e., HDPE) [Wallce, 0067], disclose that the upper limit on the thickness of films in thermoforming processes depends on the materials used in the stack layers and can both be understood by a skilled artisan in this field and empirically determined through ordinary trial and error procedures [Wallce, 0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed total thickness of 250 microns into the invention of modified Parvin, in view of Aikawa, because Aikawa teach using the same claimed film materials polyethylene and nylon [Aikawa, 0011], and also teach that when using this thickness the invention provides for forming films having a cavity (pouch) and embossed patterns with no irregularities [Aikawa, 0007] , and since the total thickness of films would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of modified Parvin as evidenced by Wallce, due to various factors such as the materials used for the films and the number of film layers.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parvin in view of Rich and Raue, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Emerson et al. [US 20140054831 A1], hereinafter Emerson, and Dalgewicz [US 20050037168 A1], evidenced by Wallce [US 20140054292 A1].
Regarding claim 15, modified Parvin teaches each and every claim limitation present in claims 1 and 14 shared in common with claim 15 in regards to the method of forming and utilizing a patterned sealing film as discussed above, and Parvin in view of Raue teach using the claimed film material combinations of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) [Raue, 0104], but are silent regarding the upper film having a total thickness of 18 mm.
Dalgewicz teach a process for making thermoformed thermoplastic articles [Dalgewicz, Abstract], suitable for packaging proteins such as meats [Dalgewicz, 0096], where the method utilize suitable temperatures (heat) and vacuum to form the thermoplastic article by placing a forming and sealing film on a forming insert (mold) [Dalgewicz, Abstract, 0068-0069], wherein the film materials being used may be linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) [Dalgewicz, 0103], and the containers made using the invention may be suitable for cooking applications (cooking protein inside pocket or film casing) [Dalgewicz, 0112], wherein the method provides for forming an upper film and a lower film (clam shell type article) [Dalgewicz, 0089], and wherein compositions for particular applications may have a thickness of about 15 to 25 mm [Dalgewicz, 0051], a thickness of about 12 to 18 mm [Dalgewicz, 0098], or processed into the desired thickness [Dalgewicz, 0062].
Wallce directed to methods of multilayer films in thermoforming processes for making separable food containers [Wallce, Abstract], where film materials may comprise polyethylenes (i.e., HDPE) [Wallce, 0067], disclose that the upper limit on the thickness of films in thermoforming processes depends on the materials used in the stack layers and can both be understood by a skilled artisan in this field and empirically determined through ordinary trial and error procedures [Wallce, 0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed total thickness of 18 mm into the invention of modified Parvin, in view of Dalgewicz, because Dalgewicz teach using the same claimed film materials of low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high density polyethylene (HDPE), the same film forming methods of heating temperatures and vacuum applied to a film over a forming insert, mold or die, and the same structure of an upper and lower films to encase protein foods and are suitable for cooking applications (cooking protein inside pocket or film casing), and further because Dalgewicz teach that the thickness of the film may be selected to provide the desired level of dimensional stability and adequate barrier properties to the container [Dalgewicz, 0098], and since the total thickness of films would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of modified Parvin as evidenced by Wallce, due to various factors such as the materials used for the films and the number of film layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10, 14-15 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see Affidavit traversing rejections, filed 1/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10, 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Parvin et al. [US 3527855 A], hereinafter Parvin, in view of Donnel et al. [US 2003/0170360 A1], and Kramer et al. [US 5,597,606 A], have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Parvin, Rich et al. [US 4287218 A], and Raue et al. [US 20200037623 A1].
The rejection has been modified in accord with the amendments.
Applicant's Affidavit traversing rejections filed 1/9/26 directed to Parvin and Dalgewicz have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, Applicant urges that the referenced materials and processes described in Dalgewicz are not applicable to the prior art of Parvin, thus making the prior art of record of Dalgewicz not analogous to the instant invention and/or the reference of Parvin.
In response to applicant's argument that materials and processes described in Dalgewicz are not applicable to the prior art of Parvin, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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, one of ordinary skill in the art armed with the teachings of Dalgewicz and Parvin would recognize the selection forming inserts, molds or dies, the selection and the selection of suitable forming and sealing temperatures as well as vacuum degree, based on the type of polymer film materials being used and/or the particular application in which the forming and sealing films are being used (i.e., packaging and storing meats at ambient or above/under ambient temperatures such as freezing, or meat packaging suitable for cooking said meat inside the packaging).
In response to applicant's argument that Dalgewicz is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Dalgewicz is considered to be analogous to the instant invention because it is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor of polymeric material casings for proteinaceous foodstuffs, making use of the same film materials of low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high density polyethylene (HDPE), the same film forming methods of heating temperatures and vacuum applied to a film over a forming insert, mold or die, and the same structure of an upper and lower films to encase protein foods and are suitable for cooking applications (cooking protein inside pocket or film casing).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lippincott et al. [US 4820536 A], hereinafter Lippincott.
Lippincott teach a method for cooking meat in a bag wherein a cling film is vacuum sealed and shrunk around the meat, said cling film having a cavity for forming the meat. Next, the cling film is surrounded by an outer film which is vacuum sealed and shrunk around the cling film. The outer film has a softening point above the cooking temperature of the meat [Abstract, col.2, l.50-54], wherein said outer layer may be a single layer or multi-layer film and typically are constructed of materials such as polyethylene and have a suitable thickness [col.2, l.54-57]. The meat is then heated in the bag to the cooking temperature of the meat (“cooking the protein in the patterned sealing film at a cooking temperature required for the protein” as claimed) [Abstract, col.2, l.59-68], thus producing an attractive formed meat product [Abstract, col.3, l.9-11].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792