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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 2017/0166384 A1 to Walsh et al. (“Walsh”) in view of U.S. PGPUB 2011/0189355 A1 to Field et al. (“Field”) further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2018/0370678 A1 to Ribu et al. (“Ribu”).
As to claim 1, Walsh teaches a container for liquid containing food products, manufactured by press forming of a polymer coated fiber based substrate, said container comprising: a bottom portion (bottom 11), a sidewall portion (sidewall portion 12), and a top flange portion (flange 114), wherein said press forming forms a plurality of creases (score lines 55) extending in a direction from the bottom portion to the top flange portion and further across the top flange portion (Walsh Fig. 3 shows the score lines extending from the bottom 11 to the flange 114), and wherein the container comprises an indentation pattern (corner perforations 96) formed at a creased inner surface of said sidewall portion (Walsh, pg. 3, ¶ 0029), at a creased top surface of said top flange portion, or at both, and said indentation pattern preventing migration of liquid from a liquid containing food product in the container along said creases (Walsh, pg. 3, ¶ 0030), wherein said indentation pattern comprises one or more indentations on the creased inner surface (Walsh Fig. 3 shows the perforations 96 on the corners of the container); but does not teach wherein a distance between two adjacent indentations is in a range of 1-5 mm, and, wherein said indentations have a width in the range of 0.1-1 mm.
Field teaches wherein a distance between two adjacent indentations is in a range of 1-5 mm (Field, pg. 2-3, ¶ 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the spacing of Field with the container as taught by Walsh to provide a container with improved rigidity and resistance to deformation duet to its particular geometry (Field, pg. 1, ¶ 0002).
Ribu teaches wherein said indentations have a width in the range of 0.1-1 mm (Ribu, pg. 3, ¶ 0046; Ribu teaches the ridges 32 are spaced apart such that a median distance between adjacent ridges 32 is between 2-500 micrometers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the width of Ribu with the container as taught by Walsh to provide a surface to allow fat to settle down in the valleys (Ribu, abstract).
As to claim 4, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein said indentations have a depth in the range of 0.05-1 mm (Ribu, pg. 3, § 0046; Ribu teaches the ridges 31 have a height such that a distance between a top plane PT and a bottom plane PB is between 2-500 micrometers).
As to claim 6, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said indentations is positioned at a topmost half of the sidewall portion (Walsh Fig. 3 shows the perforations 96 on the topmost half of the sidewall portion 12).
As to claim 7, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said indentations is positioned at a top surface of the top flange portion (Walsh Fig. 3 shows the perforations 96 at a top surface of the flange 114).
As to claim 8, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein said indentation pattern comprises a pattern of discrete indentations having a length of less than 10 mm (Ribu, pg. 3, ¶ 0046).
As to claim 9, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein said indentation pattern comprises an indentation in the form of a groove traversing said creases (Walsh, pg. 3, ¶ 0029).
As to claim 10, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 9, wherein said indentation pattern comprises at least two parallel grooves (Walsh Fig. 6 shows the perforations 96 comprise at least two parallel grooves).
As to claim 11, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 9, wherein said the groove extends entirely around the sidewall portion of the container (Walsh Fig. 3 shows the perforations 96 and the perforations 35 extend entirely around the sidewall portion 12).
As to claim 12, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 9, wherein the groove extends entirely around the top flange portion (Ribu, pg. 3, ¶ 0046).
As to claim 13, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 1 wherein said indentation pattern is formed during or after press forming of the polymer coated fiber based substrate (Ribu, pg. 4, ¶ 0052).
As to claim 14, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein a polymer coating of the polymer coated fiber based substrate comprises one or more of: polyethylene (Walsh, pg. 2, ¶ 0025) (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP) and polylactic acid (PLA).
As to claim 15, Walsh modified by Field and Ribu teaches the container according to claim 1, wherein barrier and sealing properties of the polymer coating is intact after forming of the indentation pattern (Walsh, pg. 2, ¶ 0025). The barrier is intact after forming the perforations 96 but is not inside of the perforations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 19 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the sizes of the indentations in Ribu are critical to achieving its purpose and changing the sizes outside of the specified ranges would frustrate this purpose and render Ribu unsatisfactory from its intended purpose. However, in the rejection above the Examiner uses Ribu as a secondary reference and only uses the Ribu reference to teach indentations have a width in the range of 0.002-0.5 mm. The applicant argues that the Ribu reference would not teach a spacing that twice as large however the claim requires that the size be in the range of 0.1-1mm.
In response to applicant's argument that the Ribu reference would not teach the range of the width, 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 31 March 2026