DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed on 05/16/2025 has been entered. In it, claims 7 and 25 are canceled. Claim 1 is amended to incorporate the elements of cancelled claims 2 and 8. Claim 1, 7and 11-13 are amended. New claims 19-25 are added. Claims 1, 8-9, and 11-24 are now pending in this application. Applicant's amendments fail to overcome the rejection under U.S.C. 103 of all claims previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 12/18/2024 as described hereinafter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 8-9, and 11, 13-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephen A. Santos (US 20130323368 A1) in view of evidentiary NPL by P. Manimaran et al. entitled “Influence of Foliar Application of Seaweed Extract and Plant Growth Regulators on Growth and Physiological Attributes of Jasminum sambac”.
Regarding claim 1, Santos discloses: A greaseproof and waterproof packaging item (Throughout the disclosure such as para [0007-0008].) comprising a composite material (Throughout the disclosure such as para [0004-0008], [0020], [0037-0038], [0044-0047], and claims 11-17.), the composite material comprising a fiber substrate and a coating (Throughout the disclosure such abstract, para [0005-0007], [0044], and claims 1 and 11.), wherein the coating comprises a cross-linked naturally derived polysaccharide (Throughout the disclosure such abstract, para [0011-0012], [0014], [0018-0019], and in particular para [0018-0019] discloses “Starch is one of the most abundant natural polysaccharides…crosslinked starch” and claim 6.) wherein the cross-linked naturally derived polysaccharide is an alginate, wherein the cross-linked naturally derived polysaccharide comprises calcium ions, (Throughout the disclosure such abstract, para [0010-0011], [0014-0015], [0044], and claims 2 and 12. Para [0011] in tandem with the fact that alginates are refined from brown seaweeds and many of the Phaeophyceae class brown seaweeds are harvested to be processed and converted into sodium alginate. Moreover, Santos even though does not expressly teach calcium ions, but it is obvious to one skilled in art that naturally derived polysaccharide inherently contains calcium as shown in table 1 as an evidentiary document. For example, by pulverizing or grounding up wood, there is some calcium naturally therein as a component unless under some chemical treatment the calcium is removed.) wherein the composite material further comprises a bio-based plasticizer (However, Santos indeed teaches on para [0003-0004], [0040], [0052-0054], [0057] that the composite material are biodegradable and compostable and para [0020] discloses “The film composition, in particular the contents of amylase, amylopectine, water and other plasticizers…”and the same on para [0042] and so on.).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The only difference between the claimed invention and Santos is lack of express teaching of “bio-based” as recited in the claimed invention. However, Santos indeed teaches on para [0003-0004], [0040], [0052-0054], [0057] that the composite material are biodegradable and compostable. The bio-based material generally indicates that it is derived from biological sources like corn or sugarcane in which para [0018] discloses corn starch. With that in mind, Santos discloses the claimed invention except for the bio-based material. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to use bio-based material since it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding claim 8, Santos discloses: wherein the cross linked naturally derived polysaccharide forms a coating or barrier to at least a surface of the fiber substrate (Throughout the disclosure such abstract, para [0018], [0039], [0052], and claims 2 and 12. Para [0011] in tandem with the fact that alginates are refined from brown seaweeds and many of the Phaeophyceae class brown seaweeds are harvested to be processed and converted into sodium alginate.).
Regarding claim 9, Santos discloses: wherein the fiber substrate is selected from paper, paperboard, cardboard, vegetable fibers, food waste fibers, and plant-based fibers, such as fibers of seaweed origin (Throughout the disclosure such abstract, para [0005-0007] and in particular para [0044].).
Regarding claim 11, Santos discloses: wherein the bio-based plasticizer is selected from the group consisting of konjac glucomannan, Iota-carrageenan, Kappa-carrageenan, low methoxyl pectin, and glycerol (Para [0010-0013], [0038-0039] and [0042].).
Regarding claims 13-14, Santos discloses: wherein the composition further comprises one or more plant-derived saccharide components or wherein the saccharide component is derived from algae (Abstract, para [0005-0007], para [0010-0014] and [0044]. Algae a simple, nonflowering, and typically aquatic plant of a large group that includes the seaweeds.).
Regarding claim 15, Santos discloses: wherein the saccharide component is selected from agar, carrageenan and pectin (Throughout the disclosure such as para [0010-0013].).
Regarding claim 21, Santos discloses: further comprising sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, or propylene glycol (Para [0038] discloses “…propylene glycol…”.).
6. Claims 16-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephen A. Santos (US 20130323368 A1) in view of evidentiary NPL by P. Manimaran et al. entitled “Influence of Foliar Application of Seaweed Extract and Plant Growth Regulators on Growth and Physiological Attributes of Jasminum sambac” and further in view of Shuichi Komatsu et al. (JP 2015086334 A).
Regarding claim 16, Santos in view of Komatsu discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. Although Santos on para [0007] discloses “…this invention further provides a packaged food product comprising a package and a food item inside the package, wherein the package is formed from a packaging material comprising a paper, paperboard or cardboard substrate…” nonetheless, it does not expressly disclose: wherein the item is selected from a cup, box, tray, clamshell, plate, bag, wrap, bottle, brick and cup holder.
In the same filed of art, Komatsu is directed to a coating material for food packaging technology, and in particular, in the field of manufacturing and providing packaging products and packaged foods effective for packaging and storage of fruits, vegetables, and transportation. That being said, Komatsu discloses: wherein the item is selected from a cup, box, tray, clamshell, plate, bag, wrap, bottle, brick and cup holder (Para [0035] such as a cup or box…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the packaging material defined by a paper, paperboard or cardboard substrate of the Santos to make packaging products such as cups or boxes as taught by Komatsu so as to produce a recyclable, biodegradable and compostable food package. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Komatsu disclosure, would also have been motivated to apply its teaching of utilizing food packaging material having a barrier coating comprises the combination of starch, seaweed extract and paper fibers so as to improve freshness of the edible material for a longer period of time for the benefit of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Santos in view of Komatsu discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. Komatsu further discloses: wherein the coating is applied to an inner surface of the packaging item (Throughout the disclosure such as para [0017], [0026], [0044-0045], [0049], [0058-0059], and [0061].).
Regarding claim 18, Santos in view of Komatsu discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. Komatsu further discloses: wherein the coating is also heat resistant (Throughout the disclosure such as para [0002-0003] discloses “…At least one material selected from the group consisting of a gas adsorbent, an ultraviolet absorber, a humidity control agent, and a heat insulator should be adhered to the front and / or back of the bag, or the composition should be a bag There is a fruit bag which can be mixed with a substance and can prevent deterioration due to ultraviolet rays, heat, cold and the like, improve sugar content by far infrared rays, and suppress ethylene formation to prevent oxidation injury.” The examiner views heat insulator similar to heat resistant of the coating since it is adhered to the front and / or back of the bag.).
Regarding claim 22, Santos in view of Komatsu discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. Komatsu further discloses: wherein the coating further comprises a polyphenol (Throughout the disclosure, Komatsu discloses a polyphenol part of the coating (Various parts of the disclosure such as para [0007-0008], [0010-0011], [0018], [0020], [0027-0028], [0041-0041], and so on.).
Regarding claim 23, Santos in view of Komatsu discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. Komatsu further discloses: wherein the polyphenol is a tannin (Para [0028] discloses Polyphenols have the function…tannins such as red wine, salmon, banana and etc.).
Regarding claim 24, Santos in view of Komatsu discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. Komatsu does not expressly disclose tannic acid: wherein the tannin is tannic acid (However, it is generally known that tannins (commonly referred to as tannic acid) are water-soluble polyphenols that are present in many plant foods. Moreover, Komatsu on para [0028] indeed teaches tannins such as red wine which contains tannic acid. ).
7. Claims 12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephen A. Santos (US 20130323368 A1) in view of evidentiary NPL by P. Manimaran et al. entitled “Influence of Foliar Application of Seaweed Extract and Plant Growth Regulators on Growth and Physiological Attributes of Jasminum sambac” and further in view of Raymond Dwayne Hotaling et al. (USP 5820998 A).
Regarding claim 12, Santos discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. However, Santos does not expressly disclose: wherein the fiber substrate comprises polyvalent ions, preferably metal cations and most preferably Calcium ions.
In the same field of art, Hotaling is directed to a process of making a coated paper. The process includes the following steps: 1) providing a paper layer composed of a blend of pulp fibers and particulate material containing polyvalent metal cations, 2) applying a solution of a material selected from salts and/or derivatives of alginic acid to cover at least a portion of the paper, 3) reacting the salts and/or derivatives of alginic acid with polyvalent metal cations in the paper to form a polymer coating, and 4) drying the paper and polymer coating. That being said, Hotaling discloses: wherein the fiber substrate comprises polyvalent ions, preferably metal cations and most preferably Calcium ions (Throughout the disclosure such as abstract, summary of invention, and claim 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate of the Santos by adding polyvalent metal cations and Calcium as taught by Hotaling so as to form a polymer coating and in which the application of coating onto the substrate reduces its permeability. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Hotaling disclosure, would also have been motivated to apply its teaching of making a coated paper that is operationally and economically desirable to have a process of coating papers which uses relatively low levels of water-soluble, film-forming materials, especially when the process is intended for the high-speed manufacturing of coated papers.
Regarding claim 19, Santos in view of Hotaling discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. Hotaling further discloses: wherein the polyvalent ions are metal cations (Abstract, summary of invention, and claim 1 teach polyvalent metal cations.).
Regarding claim 20, Santos in view of Komatsu discloses all of the limitations of its base claim. Komatsu further discloses: wherein the polyvalent ions are Calcium ions (Throughout the disclosure such as col. 3, lines 5-8, and claims 1 and 11. ).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed on 09/06/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, 6th paragraphs, Applicant contends:
“Applicant maintains their previous position that Santos does not, in fact, teach cross-linked alginates for use in a substrate coating. However, in order to expedite prosecution, the claims have now been further distanced from Santos in that the amended claims require that a specific type of cross-linked alginate, i.e. cross-linked calcium alginate, is used in the coating.
There is no teaching or motivation in Santos to specifically use a calcium cross-linked alginate in the coating.).” (Emphasis added).
Applicant’s argument is now moot in light of in view of evidentiary NPL by P. Manimaran et al. entitled “Influence of Foliar Application of Seaweed Extract and Plant Growth Regulators on Growth and Physiological Attributes of Jasminum sambac”. As shown in table 1 it is obvious to one skilled in art that naturally derived polysaccharide inherently contains calcium. For example, by pulverizing or grounding up wood, there is some calcium naturally therein as a component unless under some chemical treatment the calcium is removed.
Therefore, the rejections of the claims are maintained.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW M ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8710. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 to 5:30. 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on (571)270-7457. 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.
/MATTHEW M ESLAMI/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748