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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-11 and 18-24 are currently pending and under examination.
The objection of claims 11 and 20 is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (WO 2021/150622 A1, see US 2023/0050014 A1, hereinafter Sawafta) in view of Tang (CN 111518520 A, hereinafter Tang), Duong (US 2011/0126582 A1, hereinafter Duong), and Montsinger (US 8,986,823 B1, hereinafter Montsinger) is withdrawn in view of the above remarks.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1-11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maan (“The therapeutic properties and applications of Aloe vera: A review”, Maan et al., Journal of Herbal Medicine 12: 1–10, 2018, hereinafter Maan) in view of Duong (US 2011/0126582 A1, hereinafter Duong), and Robertson (“Chapter 20. Packaging materials for biscuits and their influence on shelf life”, G. L. Robertson, “Manley’s Technology of Biscuits, Crackers and Cookies (Fourth edition)”, Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 2011, Pages 247-267, hereinafter “Robertson”), as evidenced by “Glucomannan Information” (“Glucomannan (konjac mannan) Information from NutraLab Supplement Manufacturer”, 2018, hereinafter “Glucomannan Information”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 11, the limitations “readily biodegradable refrigerant” and “cold pack” are an intended use/result and do not add structural difference, thus the intended use/result is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Maan teaches that Aloe vera gel comprises a water content of 99-99.5%, and other ingredients of 0.5-1% (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera), which falls within the claimed range of “at least 98.5 % water by weight”.
Maan teaches that the Aloe vera gel comprises potassium sorbate, and citric acid (p. 3, Table 1), which reads on the claimed preservative, and reads on the claimed pH reducer.
Maan also teaches that the Aloe vera gel comprises glucomannans (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera).
“Glucomannan Information” as an evidentiary reference shows that glucomannan is called konjac mannan, and is a thickening agent (p. 1, 2nd para).
Thus, the glucomannan in Maan reads on the claimed thickener.
Maan does not teach a high barrier container.
However, Duong teaches (Fig. 1A, para [0018]-[0019]) a fillable gel pack includes two plastic side panels joined to form a peripheral seal, the unsealed region of the peripheral regions is a fill port, the fill port allows liquid/material to be dispensed into the interior region of the pack, then the fill port is sealed to prevent the gel from exiting the interior region.
Duong also teaches that the plastic side panels of the fillable gel pack are made of a combination of nylon and low density polyethylene (para [0020]), which reads on the claimed low density polyethylene film laminated to polyamide film (nylon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the Aloe vera gel as taught by Maan into the fillable gel pack made of a combination of nylon and low density polyethylene, then seal the fillable gel pack as taught by Duong, in order to keep the Aloe vera gel in a sealed pack and prevent the gel from leaking with a reasonable expectation of success, because the Aloe vera gel as taught by Maan is a gel and contains a water content of 99-99.5%.
Duong does not teach that the combination of nylon and low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate of about 3.3 cc/100 in2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of about 0.4 g/100 in2/day or less.
However, Robertson teaches that the major factor influencing shelf life is the choice of packaging material (p. 256, 3rd para); packaging material includes low density polyethylene and polyamide (nylon), low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 4 g/m2/day, polyamide (nylon) has an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 18-40 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 15-110 g/m2/day (p. 257, Table 20.1.). Thus, the combination of polyamide (nylon) and low density polyethylene in Robertson can have an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 18-7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 4-110 g/m2/day, equaling to an oxygen transmission rate of 1.2-477 cc/100 in2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 0.3-7.1 g/100 in2/day, which overlap with the claimed ranges “an oxygen transmission rate of about 3.3 cc/100 in2/day” and “a moisture vapor transmission rate of about 0.4 g/100 in2/day or less”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the combination of nylon and low density polyethylene as taught by Duong would have an oxygen transmission rate of 18-7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 4-110 g/m2/day as taught by Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success, because packaging materials include low density polyethylene and polyamide (nylon), low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate of 7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 4 g/m2/day, polyamide (nylon) has an oxygen transmission rate of 18-40 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 15-110 g/m2/day as recognized by Robertson.
Furthermore, the court has held that “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. See MPEP 2112.01 II. "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. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed oxygen transmission rate and the claimed moisture vapor transmission rate would flow naturally from the teaching of Duong, because Duong’s teaching provides substantially the same material for a container that is low density polyethylene film laminated to polyamide film (nylon) as claimed.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed property of the gel being shelf-stable for at least 12 months and readily biodegradable upon disposal would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Maan, Duong, and Robertson, because the teachings of the combination of Maan, Duong, and Robertson provide substantially the same gel comprising the same amount of water (i.e. at least 98.5% by weight), the same thickener, the same pH reducer, and the same preservative, and the same gel contained within the same high barrier container which is made from the same material with the same oxygen transmission rate and the same moisture vapor transmission rate as claimed. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Maan teaches that Aloe vera gel comprises a water content of 99-99.5% (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera). Maan also teaches that the Aloe vera gel comprises potassium sorbate (p. 3, Table 1), which reads on the claimed preservative.
Thus, in the Aloe vera gel as taught by Maan, the potassium sorbate (the claimed preservative) can be in an amount of 0-1 wt.% relative to the water, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.25% by weight relative to the water”.
Regarding claims 4-6, Maan teaches Aloe vera gel comprises a water content of 99-99.5% (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera).
Maan also teaches that the Aloe vera gel comprises potassium sorbate, and acetic acid (p. 3, Table 1). The potassium sorbate in Maan reads on the claimed first preservative. The acetic acid in Maan reads on the claimed second preservative.
Thus, in the Aloe vera gel as taught by Maan, the acetic acid (the claimed second preservative) can be in an amount of 0-1 wt.% relative to the water, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.25% by weight relative to the water”.
Regarding claim 7, Maan teaches that Aloe vera gel comprises a water content of 99-99.5% (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera). Maan also teaches that the Aloe vera gel comprises citric acid (p. 3, Table 1), which reads on the claimed pH reducer.
Thus, in the Aloe vera gel as taught by Maan, the citric acid (the claimed pH reducer) can be in an amount of 0-1 wt.% relative to the water, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.05% by weight relative to the water”.
Regarding claim 9, Maan teaches that Aloe vera gel comprises a water content of 99-99.5% (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera). Maan also teaches that the Aloe vera gel comprises glucomannans (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera), which reads on the claimed thickening agent.
Thus, in the Aloe vera gel as taught by Maan, the glucomannans (the claimed thickening agent) can be in an amount of 0-1 wt.% relative to the water, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.50% to about 2.5% by weight relative to the water”.
Regarding claims 21-22, note that cutting or opening the high barrier container and exposing the gel to an aerobic environment are processes of using the high barrier container and gel therein. Thus, these claims are broadly interpreted as intended use/process limitations that the gel is capable of biodegrading within the recited time, especially upon exposure to an aerobic environment.
Maan, Duong, and Robertson do not teach that the gel fully biodegrades within 25 days of disposal by making a cut or opening in the high barrier container, and the gel is exposed to an aerobic environment.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the Aloe vera gel comprising a water content of 99-99.5%, potassium sorbate, citric acid, and glucomannans as taught by Maan, would be capable of fully biodegrading within 25 days upon exposure to an aerobic environment, because this gel as taught by Maan is substantially the same gel comprising the same amount of water (i.e. at least 98.5% by weight), the same preservative, the same pH reducer, and the same thickener as claimed. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and would flow naturally from the teachings of the references.
2. Claims 18, 20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maan (“The therapeutic properties and applications of Aloe vera: A review”, Maan et al., Journal of Herbal Medicine 12: 1–10, 2018, hereinafter Maan) in view of “The best aloe vera gel” (“The best aloe vera gel from Chicago Tribune”, published July 27, 2021, hereinafter “The best aloe vera gel”), Duong (US 2011/0126582 A1, hereinafter Duong), and Robertson (“Chapter 20. Packaging materials for biscuits and their influence on shelf life”, G. L. Robertson, “Manley’s Technology of Biscuits, Crackers and Cookies (Fourth edition)”, Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 2011, Pages 247-267, hereinafter “Robertson”).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, the limitations “readily biodegradable refrigerant” and “cold pack” are an intended use/result and do not add structural difference, thus the intended use/result is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Maan teaches Aloe vera gel comprises a water content of 99-99.5%, and other ingredients of 0.5-1% (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera), which falls within the claimed range of “at least 98.5 % water by weight”.
Maan teaches that the Aloe vera gel comprises potassium sorbate, and citric acid (p. 3, Table 1), which reads on the claimed preservative, and reads on the claimed pH reducer.
Maan does not teach that the aloe vera gel comprises guar gum.
However, “The best aloe vera gel” teaches that Aloe vera gel can comprise about 98% to 99% aloe vera, and about 0 to 2% other ingredients (p. 4, § Percentage of aloe vera), wherein the other ingredients comprise a thickener such as a guar gum, the thickener gives a better consistency to the aloe vera gel (p. 4, § Consistency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aloe vera gel comprising a water content of 99-99.5%, potassium sorbate, and citric acid as taught by Maan, further comprising guar gum as taught by “The best aloe vera gel”, in order to give a better consistency to the gel with a reasonable expectation of success.
“The best aloe vera gel” also teaches that Aloe vera gel contains a preservative such as potassium sorbate to prolong the gel’s shelf life (p. 4, § Preservatives).
Maan and “The best aloe vera gel” do not teach a high barrier container.
However, Duong teaches (Fig. 1A, para [0018]-[0019]) a fillable gel pack includes two plastic side panels joined to form a peripheral seal, the unsealed region of the peripheral regions is a fill port, the fill port allows liquid/material to be dispensed into the interior region of the pack, then the fill port is sealed to prevent the gel from exiting the interior region.
Duong also teaches that the plastic side panels of the fillable gel pack are made of a combination of nylon and low density polyethylene (para [0020]), which reads on the claimed low density polyethylene film laminated to polyamide film (nylon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the Aloe vera gel as taught by the combination of Maan and “The best aloe vera gel”, into the fillable gel pack made of a combination of nylon and low density polyethylene, then seal the fillable gel pack as taught by Duong, in order to keep the Aloe vera gel in a sealed pack and prevent the gel from leaking with a reasonable expectation of success, because the Aloe vera gel as taught by the combination of Maan and “The best aloe vera gel” is a gel and contains a water content of about 99-99.5%.
Duong does not teach that the combination of nylon and low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate of about 3.3 cc/100 in2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of about 0.4 g/100 in2/day or less.
However, Robertson teaches that the major factor influencing shelf life is the choice of packaging material (p. 256, 3rd para); packaging material includes low density polyethylene and polyamide (nylon), low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 4 g/m2/day, polyamide (nylon) has an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 18-40 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 15-110 g/m2/day (p. 257, Table 20.1.). Thus, the combination of polyamide (nylon) and low density polyethylene in Robertson can have an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 18-7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 4-110 g/m2/day, equaling to an oxygen transmission rate of 1.2-477 cc/100 in2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 0.3-7.1 g/100 in2/day, which overlap with the claimed ranges “an oxygen transmission rate of about 3.3 cc/100 in2/day” and “a moisture vapor transmission rate of about 0.4 g/100 in2/day or less”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the combination of nylon and low density polyethylene as taught by Duong would have an oxygen transmission rate of 18-7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 4-110 g/m2/day as taught by Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success, because packaging materials include low density polyethylene and polyamide (nylon), low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate of 7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 4 g/m2/day, polyamide (nylon) has an oxygen transmission rate of 18-40 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 15-110 g/m2/day as recognized by Robertson.
Furthermore, the court has held that “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. See MPEP 2112.01 II. "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. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed oxygen transmission rate and the claimed moisture vapor transmission rate would flow naturally from the teaching of Duong, because Duong’s teaching provides substantially the same material for a container that is low density polyethylene film laminated to polyamide film (nylon) as claimed.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed property of the gel being shelf-stable for at least 12 months and readily biodegradable upon disposal would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Maan, “The best aloe vera gel”, Duong, and Robertson, because the teachings of the combination of Maan, “The best aloe vera gel”, Duong, and Robertson provide substantially the same gel comprising the same amount of water (i.e. at least 98.5% by weight), the same guar gum, citric acid, and potassium sorbate, and the same gel contained within the same high barrier container which is made from the same material with the same oxygen transmission rate and the same moisture vapor transmission rate as claimed. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 23-24, note that cutting or opening the high barrier container and exposing the gel to an aerobic environment are processes of using the high barrier container and gel therein. Thus, these claims are broadly interpreted as intended use/process limitations that the gel is capable of biodegrading within the recited time, especially upon exposure to an aerobic environment.
Maan, “The best aloe vera gel”, Duong, and Robertson do not teach that the gel fully biodegrades within 25 days of disposal by making a cut or opening in the high barrier container, and the gel is exposed to an aerobic environment.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the Aloe vera gel comprising a water content of 99-99.5%, potassium sorbate, citric acid, and guar gum as taught by the combination of Maan and “The best aloe vera gel”, would be capable of fully biodegrading within 25 days upon exposure to an aerobic environment, because this gel as taught by the combination of Maan and “The best aloe vera gel” is substantially the same gel comprising the same amount of water (i.e. at least 98.5% by weight), the same potassium sorbate, the same citric acid, and the same guar gum as claimed. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and would flow naturally from the teachings of the references.
3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maan (“The therapeutic properties and applications of Aloe vera: A review”, Maan et al., Journal of Herbal Medicine 12: 1–10, 2018, hereinafter Maan) in view of “The best aloe vera gel” (“The best aloe vera gel from Chicago Tribune”, published July 27, 2021, hereinafter “The best aloe vera gel”), Duong (US 2011/0126582 A1, hereinafter Duong), and Robertson (“Chapter 20. Packaging materials for biscuits and their influence on shelf life”, G. L. Robertson, “Manley’s Technology of Biscuits, Crackers and Cookies (Fourth edition)”, Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 2011, Pages 247-267, hereinafter “Robertson”) as applied to claims 18, 20 and 23-24 above, and further in view of Javed (“Chapter 9. Aloe Vera Gel in Food, Health Products, and Cosmetics Industry”, Javed et al., “Studies in Natural Products Chemistry”, Vol. 41, 2014, hereinafter Javed).
The disclosure of Maan in view of “The best aloe vera gel”, Duong, and Robertson is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, Maan teaches that Aloe vera gel comprises a water content of 99-99.5%, potassium sorbate, and citric acid (p. 2, left column, § 1.1. Composition of Aloe vera; p. 3, Table 1).
“The best aloe vera gel” teaches that Aloe vera gel comprises a thickener such as a guar gum, and the thickener gives a better consistency to the aloe vera gel (p. 4, § Consistency).
Maan and “The best aloe vera gel” do not teach sodium benzoate.
However, Javed teaches that Aloe vera gel comprises a water content of about 99-99.5% (p. 263, § ALOE VERA GEL CHEMISTRY; p. 269, § ALOE VERA GEL APPLICATIONS). Javed also teaches that the aloe vera gel comprises preservatives such as potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate (p. 272, § PROCESSING OF ALOE VERA GEL; p. 275, § Preservation and Stabilization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aloe vera gel comprising a water content of 99-99.5%, potassium sorbate, citric acid, and guar gum as taught by the combination of Maan and “The best aloe vera gel”, further comprising sodium benzoate as taught by Javed, in order to prolong the gel’s shelf life with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
4. Claims 1-11 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (WO 2021/150622 A1, see US 2023/0050014 A1, hereinafter Sawafta) in view of Tang (CN 111518520 A, hereinafter Tang), Duong (US 2011/0126582 A1, hereinafter Duong), and Robertson (“Chapter 20. Packaging materials for biscuits and their influence on shelf life”, G. L. Robertson, “Manley’s Technology of Biscuits, Crackers and Cookies (Fourth edition)”, Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 2011, Pages 247-267, hereinafter “Robertson”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 20, the limitations “readily biodegradable refrigerant” and “cold pack” are an intended use/result and do not add structural difference, thus the intended use/result is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Sawafta teaches a thermal energy storage composition comprising 0.5-10 wt. % polysaccharide, and 88-99.5 wt. % water, based on the total weight of the composition (abstract; [0005]; [0006]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 98.5 % water by weight”.
Sawafta teaches that the polysaccharide is guar gum (para [0006]), which reads on the claimed thickener. Sawafta teaches that the composition further comprises a pH modulator (para [0007]; claim 1), which reads on the claimed pH reducer, and the pH modulator is citric acid (para [0021]).
Sawafta also teaches that the thermal energy storage composition has fluidity and is a gel (para [0015]). Sawafta further teaches that the thermal energy storage composition is used in thermal energy storage and temperature control applications for a food, a pharmaceutical, or a biological sample (para [0005], [0008]).
Sawafta does not teach a preservative.
However, Tang teaches a composition as a coolant comprising a phase change material, a thickener, and a preservative ([0008], [0009], [0011], [0012]; claims 1, 3, 4), wherein the phase change material is water (para [0009]), and the thickener is guar gum (para [0011]), and the preservative is potassium sorbate (para [0012]). Tang teaches that a preservative improves the stability of the composition (para [0012], [0018], [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermal energy storage composition/gel comprising 88-99.5 wt. % water, polysaccharide such as guar gum, and a pH modulator such as citric acid as taught by Sawafta, further comprising a preservative such as potassium sorbate as taught by Tang, in order to improve the stability of the composition/gel with a reasonable expectation of success.
Sawafta and Tang do not teach a high barrier container.
However, Duong teaches (Fig. 1A, para [0018]-[0019]) a fillable gel pack includes two plastic side panels joined to form a peripheral seal, the unsealed region of the peripheral regions is a fill port, the fill port allows liquid/material to be dispensed into the interior region of the pack, then the fill port is sealed to prevent the gel from exiting the interior region.
Duong also teaches that the plastic side panels of the fillable gel pack are made of a combination of nylon and low density polyethylene (para [0020]), which reads on the claimed low density polyethylene film laminated to polyamide film (nylon). Duong also teaches that the fillable gel pack is useful for maintaining a chilled environment during shipping for preserving perishable items (para [0003], [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the thermal energy storage gel as taught by the combination of Sawafta and Tang into the fillable gel pack made of a combination of nylon and low density polyethylene, then seal the fillable gel pack as taught by Duong. For doing so, a person of ordinary skill in the art would keep the thermal energy storage gel in a sealed container for use in coolant application with a reasonable expectation of success, because the thermal energy storage composition of Sawafta has fluidity and is a gel as recognized by Sawafta.
Duong does not teach that the combination of nylon and low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate of about 3.3 cc/100 in2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of about 0.4 g/100 in2/day or less.
However, Robertson teaches that the major factor influencing shelf life is the choice of packaging material (p. 256, 3rd para); packaging material includes low density polyethylene and polyamide (nylon), low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 4 g/m2/day, polyamide (nylon) has an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 18-40 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 15-110 g/m2/day (p. 257, Table 20.1.). Thus, the combination of polyamide (nylon) and low density polyethylene in Robertson can have an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 18-7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of 4-110 g/m2/day, equaling to an oxygen transmission rate of 1.2-477 cc/100 in2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 0.3-7.1 g/100 in2/day, which overlap with the claimed ranges “an oxygen transmission rate of about 3.3 cc/100 in2/day” and “a moisture vapor transmission rate of about 0.4 g/100 in2/day or less”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the combination of nylon and low density polyethylene as taught by Duong would have an oxygen transmission rate of 18-7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 4-110 g/m2/day as taught by Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success, because packaging materials include low density polyethylene and polyamide (nylon), low density polyethylene has an oxygen transmission rate of 7400 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 4 g/m2/day, polyamide (nylon) has an oxygen transmission rate of 18-40 ml/m2/day and a moisture vapor transmission rate of 15-110 g/m2/day as recognized by Robertson.
Furthermore, the court has held that “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. See MPEP 2112.01 II. "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. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed oxygen transmission rate and the claimed moisture vapor transmission rate would flow naturally from the teaching of Duong, because Duong’s teaching provides substantially the same material for a container that is low density polyethylene film laminated to polyamide film (nylon) as claimed.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed property of the refrigerant gel being shelf-stable for at least 12 months and readily biodegradable upon disposal would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Sawafta, Tang, Duong, and Robertson, because the teachings of the combination of Sawafta, Tang, Duong, and Robertson provide substantially the same gel comprising the same amount of water (i.e. at least 98.5% by weight), the same thickener (i.e. guar gum), the same pH reducer (i.e. citric acid), and the same preservative (i.e. potassium sorbate), and the same gel contained within the same high barrier container which is made from the same material with the same oxygen transmission rate and the same moisture vapor transmission rate as claimed. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches a composition for use as a coolant comprising a phase change material of 95 wt% to 98 wt%, and a preservative of 0.01 wt% to 0.3 wt%, wherein the phase change material is water ([0008], [0009], [0012]). Thus, the preservative as taught by Tang is in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 0.32 wt% relative to water, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.25% by weight relative to the water”.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Tang teaches that a composition for use as a coolant comprises one or more preservatives (para [0012]), and the preservative can comprise potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate (para [0012]). Tang also teaches that the addition of a preservative improves the stability of the composition (para [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermal energy storage gel comprising 88-99.5 wt. % water, polysaccharide such as guar gum, a pH modulator such as citric acid, and a preservative such as potassium sorbate as taught by Sawafta and Tang, further comprising a second preservative such as sodium benzoate as taught by Tang, in order to improve the stability of the gel with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Tang teaches a composition for use as a coolant comprising a phase change material of 95 wt% to 98 wt%, and one or more preservatives of 0.01 wt% to 0.3 wt%, wherein the phase change material is water ([0008], [0009], [0012]). Thus, the second preservative of Tang can be in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 0.32 wt% relative to water, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.25% by weight relative to the water”.
Regarding claim 7, Sawafta teaches that a thermal energy storage composition/gel comprises 88-99.5 wt. % water, polysaccharide, and one or more additives (para [0006], [0020]). Sawafta teaches that an additive comprises a pH modulator (para [0021]), and the additive is in an amount of less than about 1 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition (para [0020]). Sawafta also teaches that the composition comprises 88-99.5 wt. % water based on the total weight of the composition (para [0006]). Thus, the pH modulator as taught by Sawafta is in an amount of less than 1 wt. % relative to water, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.05% by weight relative to the water”.
Regarding claim 9, Sawafta teaches that the thermal energy storage composition comprises 0.5-10 wt. % polysaccharide, and 88-99.5 wt. % water, based on the total weight of the composition (para [0006]). Sawafta teaches that the polysaccharide is guar gum (para [0006]), which reads on the claimed thickening agent. The polysaccharide as taught by Sawafta is in an amount of 0.5-11.4 wt. % relative to water, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.50% to about 2.5% by weight relative to the water”.
Regarding claim 19, Tang teaches that a composition for use as a coolant comprises one or more preservatives, wherein the preservative can comprise potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate (para [0012]). Tang also teaches that the addition of a preservative improves the stability of the composition (para [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermal energy storage gel comprising 88-99.5 wt. % water, guar gum, citric acid, and potassium sorbate as taught by Sawafta and Tang, further comprising sodium benzoate as a second preservative as taught by Tang, in order to improve the stability of the composition with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 21-24, note that cutting or opening the high barrier container and exposing the refrigerant gel to an aerobic environment are processes of using the high barrier container and refrigerant gel therein. Thus, these claims are broadly interpreted as intended use/process limitations that the refrigerant gel is capable of biodegrading within the recited time, especially upon exposure to an aerobic environment.
Sawafta, Tang, Duong, and Robertson do not teach that the refrigerant gel fully biodegrades within 25 days of disposal by making a cut or opening in the high barrier container, and the refrigerant gel is exposed to an aerobic environment.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the thermal energy storage composition/gel comprising 88-99.5 wt. % water, a polysaccharide such as guar gum, a pH modulator such as citric acid, and a preservative such as potassium sorbate as taught by the combination of Sawafta and Tang would be capable of fully biodegrading within 25 days upon exposure to an aerobic environment, because this thermal energy storage gel as taught by the combination of Sawafta and Tang is substantially the same gel comprising the same amount of water (i.e. at least 98.5% by weight), the same guar gum, the same citric acid, and the same potassium sorbate as claimed. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and would flow naturally from the teachings of the references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection.
The current rejections utilize new references, Maan (“The therapeutic properties and applications of Aloe vera: A review”, Maan et al., Journal of Herbal Medicine 12: 1–10, 2018), “The best aloe vera gel” (“The best aloe vera gel from Chicago Tribune”, published July 27, 2021), Javed (“Chapter 9. Aloe Vera Gel in Food, Health Products, and Cosmetics Industry”, Javed et al., “Studies in Natural Products Chemistry”, Vol. 41, 2014), and Robertson (“Chapter 20. Packaging materials for biscuits and their influence on shelf life”, G. L. Robertson, “Manley’s Technology of Biscuits, Crackers and Cookies (Fourth edition)”, Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 2011, Pages 247-267).
As stated above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maan in view of Duong and Robertson, as evidenced by “Glucomannan Information”.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maan in view of “The best aloe vera gel”, Duong, and Robertson.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta in view of Tang, Duong, and Robertson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761