DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2023/0249889, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the Final Rejection dated 22 December 2025 (hereinafter “FOA”). 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under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the FOA has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 23 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, 13, 23, and 25 have been amended. As such, claims 1-8, 10-13, 23-32, and 34-35 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
Any rejection previously set forth in the FOA and not repeated herein is overcome and thereby withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 23-32, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chase et al. (US 2017/0341847; “Chase”), in view of:
(i) Mayes et al. (WO 2019/193504; “Mayes”) and Aldén et al. (US 2020/0318292; “Aldén”),
(ii) Berger (US 5,509,430; “Berger”), and
(iii) Fredlund et al. (WO 00/76759; “Fredlund”) (all references previously cited).
Larsson et al. (US 2021/0069942; “Larsson”) (previously cited) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the grounds of rejection of claim 6. Marten et al. (US 5,051,222; “Marten”) (previously cited) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the grounds of rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 1, Chase discloses insulation material (1) for packaging, said insulation material including an air-laid fiber batt (10), and foldable paper sheet material (20) disposed on both sides of the batt [Abstract; Figs. 1-4; 0002-0003]. The insulation material is intended for use in packaging applications requiring thermal insulation to maintain the temperature of shipped/stored items, e.g. to keep perishable items cold, and exhibits the form of a foldable/bendable web intended for disposal within a container, e.g. cardboard box (30) and positioned/folded into planar contact with a plurality of walls of the box [Figs. 3-4; 0002-0003, 0011].
In order to illustrate the basis of the rejection, the insulation material (1) disposed within said box (30) as depicted in Fig. 4 of Chase is reproduced hereinbelow, captioned as Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Insulation material (1), folded and positioned in box (30)
The air-laid fiber batt (10) comprises 70-95 wt.% natural fibers, which are not limited but are preferably cotton fibers, said natural fibers exhibiting a length of about 1 to about 30 mm [0012, 0014]; and from about 5-30 wt.% thermoplastic (binder) fibers mixed therewith [0012, 0014]. The thermoplastic binder fibers (hereinafter “binder fibers”) are suitably bi-component (bi-co), core-sheath fibers where the thermoplastic core exhibits a higher melting point (Tm) than that of the thermoplastic sheath [0012] – the sheath thermoplastic tackifies/melts during heating of the batt, effecting binding of the natural and thermoplastic fibers and imparting cohesion to the batt [0014]. The species of bi-co binder fibers is not limited.
The paper sheet material (20) is applied to both sides of the heated batt (10), and the resultant material (paper/batt/paper) is subject to compression by a series of temperature-controlled rollers to reduce/achieve the desired thickness and bind the papers (20) to the batt via the binder fibers (and further increasing binding between the fibers of the batt) [0014-0017]. The resultant insulation material (1) may then be cut to desired lengths [0018-0019].
With respect to the differences relative to the invention defined by claim 1, Chase is silent regarding the air-laid batt exhibiting at least one crease constituting a fold line for forming a 3D shaped product in accordance with claimed proviso (i) or (ii); regarding at least a portion of the binder fibers being water soluble at a repulping temperature for repulping the air-laid mat; and regarding the binder fibers having a length weighted average fiber length of 100% to 600% of a length weighted average fiber length of the natural fibers, wherein the length weighted average fiber length of the thermoplastic polymer fibers is from 1 mm to 12 mm.
Mayes – whose disclosure/teachings previously set forth in the NFOA [¶27-32] are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) – teaches that the binder fibers, which are suitably PP/PE bi-co fibers, exhibit a length of 6 mm [p. 11 ln. 1-5], of which is reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as every or substantially every binder fiber exhibiting the aforesaid length. Mayes also teaches that CTMP are natural fibers suitable for the intended use, i.e. suitable for forming air-laid fibrous batts comprising a mixture of natural fibers and bi-co binder fibers for forming packaging materials (MPEP 2144.07), and that said CTMP fibers are a suitable alternative to cotton-based natural fibers (MPEP 2144.06(II), MPEP 2144.07).
Aldén is directed to cellulosic-based packaging materials inclusive of natural fibers [Abstract; 0001-0002, 0070-0071, 0073, 0080, 0096, 0129]. Aldén teaches that CTMP fibers are generally 1.3 mm to 2.6 mm in length (length weighted average fiber length) [0014]. The CTMP fibers of the aforesaid length weighted average fiber length have intact, un-collapsed fiber walls and are therefore stiffer and longer than refined fibers exhibiting lower freeness or fibers which are delignified [0014] – thereby resulting in the fibers being able to [better] withstand forces applied thereto during pressing processes [0014].
Berger teaches bi-co, core-sheath thermoplastic binder fibers, wherein the core is formed from, inter alia polypropylene (PP) (alternatives including low-density (LDPE) or high-density (HDPE) polyethylene, polyamide such as nylon 6 and nylon 66, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET)) which is of low cost and high strength, and the sheath is formed from, inter alia polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH). The bi-co binder fibers exhibit excellent bonding properties; retain (core) strength during heat processing, thereby minimizing flattening and providing high loft; and exhibit improved biodegradability as a result of the sheath being rapidly degradable in environmental conditions. The bi-co binder fibers find utility in any application where fibers requiring bondability and/or high strength are required [Abstract; col. 2 ln. 55-56; col. 2 ln. 65–col. 3 ln. 17; col. 3 ln. 35-65; col. 4 ln. 27-33, 45-55; col. 5 ln. 34-37, 50-53; col. 6 ln. 30-38; col. 7 ln. 55-60; col. 8 ln. 48-60].
Fredlund teaches forming creases, i.e. indentations in packaging laminates formed from a bulk layer of cellulosic and thermoplastic fibers, and facing layers disposed on the opposing sides of said bulk layer, in order to facilitate folding of the packaging laminate into (final) packaging or an intermediate packaging material which may be subsequently formed into final packaging, for goods/merchandise [Abstract; Figs. 3-5; p. 1 ln. 5-15, p. 4 ln. 19-30, p. 5 ln. 13-21]. The bulk layer is dry-laid, i.e. air-laid and comprises 40-95 wt.% cellulose fibers, e.g. CTMP fibers and thermoplastic fibers [p. 5 ln. 26-32, p. 6 ln. 18-21, p. 6 ln. 31–p. 7 ln. 6]; the facing layers are suitably formed from cellulosic fiber-based materials, or polymeric materials [p. 7 ln. 16-23].
Additionally, Fredlund teaches that the formation of the indentation allows the packaging laminate to be folded in either direction at the indentation, i.e. towards or away from the line of indentation, thereby reducing aesthetic and physical/mechanical damage to the surfaces of the packaging laminate typically caused by folding [p. 7 ln. 29–p. 8 ln. 6, p. 9 ln. 1-17], e.g. no bulging, no delamination, no formation of cracks. Fredlund teaches that the creasing method is not limited to packaging laminates comprising the bulk layer set forth/cited above, but may be readily applied to other packaging laminates [p. 9 ln. 23-30]. The crease extends through only a portion of, and thus not all of, the thickness of the air-laid bulk layer [Figs. 3-4].
Chase, Mayes, Aldén, Berger, and Fredlund each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air-laid fiber batt (10) of the insulation material (1) of Chase by (I) having utilized CTMP fibers of 1.3 mm to 2.6 mm (length weighted) average fiber length as the natural fibers, (II) having utilized bi-co, core-sheath, PP-PVOH (or LDPE-PVOH, HDPE-PVOH, PA-PVOH, or PET-PVOH) binder fibers having a length of 6 mm as the bi-co binder fibers, and (III) having formed one or more (a plurality of) creases, i.e. indentations in the insulation material (1) (in accordance with the teachings of Fredlund [see Figs. 3-5]) which extend through only a portion of the thickness of the air-laid fiber batt (10).
Regarding (I), the CTMP fibers would have been readily recognized as suitable for the intended use as the natural fiber component of the air-laid batt (10), as well as functionally equivalent to cotton-based natural fibers for said use (MPEP 2144.06(II), MPEP 2144.07); the length weighted average CTMP fiber length of 1.3 mm to 2.6 mm would have been reasonably expected to impart stiffness to-, and/or resistance to pressing processes to-, the batt (10)/insulation material (1), as well as being within the range of 1 mm to 30 mm disclosed by Chase.
Regarding (II), the bi-co, core-sheath, PP-PVOH (or alternatives identified above) binder fibers would have been recognized as binder fibers suitable for the intended use, i.e. in any application requiring binding fibers of high bondability and/or high strength (MPEP 2144.07), and/or recognized/desired for exhibiting – or in order to impart to the air-laid batt (10) –excellent bondability and high strength, minimal flattening or provision of loft after heat processing, and improved biodegradability. The fiber length of 6 mm would have been recognized as within the requisite range of 1 mm to 30 mm disclosed by Chase, as well as a suitable/exemplary fiber length for bi-co binder fibers of air-laid batts intended for use as 3D shaped packaging articles.
Regarding (III), the one or more creases, i.e. indentations would have been formed in order to facilitate folding of the insulation material (1) for disposal in the box, and/or to prevent defects such as bulging, delamination, and cracking caused by, and typically occurring at, the folding lines of the insulation material (1).
The resultant insulation material (1) comprising the air-laid batt (10) of Chase, in accordance with the modifications (I)-(III) above (hereinafter interchangeably “modified Chase”), reads on the air-laid blank defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
The bi-co PP-PVOH (core-sheath) binder fibers, which define 5-30 wt.% of the batt, read on “wherein at least a portion of the thermoplastic polymer binder is water soluble at a repulping temperature selected for repulping the air-laid blank”, in accordance with Applicant’s spec [0070-0073]. The binder fibers (each) exhibit a fiber length of 6 mm, thereby corresponding to and reading on (i.e. within) the length weighted average fiber length range of 1 mm to 12 mm and in accordance with Applicant’s spec [0054]. The CTMP fibers exhibit a length weighted average fiber length of 1.3 mm to 2.6 mm. As such, the binder fibers exhibit a length weighted average fiber length which is from about 230% to about 462% of the length weighted average fiber length of the CTMP fibers, of which is within the claimed range of 100% up to 600% and in accordance with Applicant’s spec [0055-0056].
In view of the foregoing, it is noted that the limitations in the claim directed to the at least one crease which constitutes a folding line being: for (i) folding of a 3D shaped product into a folded 3D shaped packaging product wherein the 3D shaped product is formed by hot-pressing of the air-laid blank comprising said crease, or for (ii) hot pressing and folding the blank comprising said crease to form a 3D shaped packaging product, constitute functional claim language (MPEP 2173.05(g)) and/or claim language directed to the intended use of the invention (MPEP 2111.02(II)) commonly found in the preamble of the claim. Given that the claim is directed to the air-laid blank itself, and thus not the packaging product(s) formed therefrom via subsequent forming processes, the aforesaid limitation(s) denoted by (i) and (ii) in claim 1 are not limitations/features which are required to be exhibited by the air-laid blank and are thereby read on by the indentations of the insulation material (1) of modified Chase.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the blank defined by claim 2 – the insulation material (1) of modified Chase may include a plurality of indentations. As noted above, the claimed invention is directed to the air-laid blank itself and not the 3D shaped packaging product formed therefrom. As such, the plurality of indentations of modified Chase are reasonably interpreted as being capable of formation of the sections/sidewalls and corresponding angles as defined in claim 2.
Regarding claims 3-4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on each blank defined by claims 3-4 – the CTMP natural fibers are wood fibers, i.e. chemo-thermomechanically pulped softwood or hardwood [Mayes, p. 6 ln. 20-29; Fredlund, p. 6 ln 18–p. 7 ln. 6].
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the blank defined by claim 5 – the binder fibers define from 5-30 wt.% of the air-laid batt (10), of which encompasses the lower bound of, and is identical to the upper bound of the claimed range of 15 up to 30 wt.%, thereby rendering the claimed range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the blank defined by claim 6 – the bi-co core-sheath PP-PVOH (or alternative, e.g. PET-PVOH) binder fibers exhibit softening points or melting points which are below the degradation temperature of the natural fibers, i.e. about 300° C as evidenced by Larsson [0055]. That is, the softening temperature (or melt starting point) of PVOH which forms the sheath of the binder fibers is generally recognized as about 70° C to about 85° C, and the Tm generally recognized as about 170-200° C, both of which are below about 300° C.
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Chase discloses that the sheath of the binder fibers is tackified during the heated compression of the batt (10) conducted at about 170° C to 190° C [0017]. The core of the binder fibers may be formed from PP, which may exhibit a Tm as high as 171° C, of which is above “about 170° C” (lower end of range) disclosed by Chase; alternatively, the core of the binder fibers may be formed from PET, of which exhibits a Tm of 260° C which is above the range of 170° C to 190° C disclosed by Chase.
The sheath of the binder fibers is formed from PVOH, of which begins to melt at about 70°C and exhibits a Tm of about (as low as) 170° C to 200° C (the latter being approximately equivalent to the decomposition temperature thereof), as evidenced by Marten [col. 1 ln. 5-40]. The aforesaid beginning of melt (70 ° C) is below the heat processing temperature range of Chase, and the lowest Tm of about 170° C is below a majority of the temperatures encompassed by the aforesaid range (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Furthermore, as disclosed in Berger, the PVOH of the sheath is suitably plasticized e.g. glycerol-based plasticizer, and may contain residual acetate groups via being partially hydrolyzed (preferred by Berger) [cols. 7-8], wherein Marten evidences that plasticized PVOH (hydrolysis degrees of about 98%, 88%, and 80%) may exhibit Tm of approx. 145° C or less [col. 16 ln. 30-50], of which is below the heat processing temperature range of Chase. The foregoing renders prima facie obvious the blank defined by claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the blank defined by claim 8. The bi-co binder fibers (core) are suitably made from (i.e. inclusive of) PE, PP, or PET.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the blank defined by claim 10. The bi-co binder fibers (sheath) are suitably made from (i.e. inclusive of) PVOH.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the blank defined by claim 11. The bi-co binder fibers are formed from PP, PE, or PET as the core thermoplastic polymer, and PVOH as the sheath thermoplastic polymer.
Regarding claim 12, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Chase discloses that the insulation material (1) exhibits a density of about 1 to 7 lb/ft3, i.e. about 16 to 112 kg/m3 [0019], of which overlaps with, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of 10-60 kg/m3 (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Chase discloses that the insulation material (1) exhibits a thickness of about 0.25 to 3 in., i.e. about 6.35 to 76.2 mm [0019], of which overlaps with, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of at least 10 mm (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and reads on the folded 3D-shaped packaging product defined by each and every limitation of claim 23. The insulation material (1) of modified Chase, in folded configuration as depicted and having been folded at the plurality of indentations, reads on the folded, 3D shaped packaging product defined by claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, in view of the rejection of claim 23 above, the insulation material (1) of modified Chase in said folded configuration reads on the product defined by claim 24 – the insulation material (1) is divided into, e.g. three segments with each segment separated by a respective indentation along which the insulation material (1) is folded. The segmented, folded insulation material (1), as disposed or intended to be disposed within the box implicitly defines an intermediate segment interposed between respective first and second segments (at least two side walls), wherein the first and second segments extend from the intermediate segment at the respective indentations/folds at a 90° angle or an angle which is substantially close to 90°. See Figure 1 above.
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and reads on the 3D-shaped product defined by each and every limitation of claim 25. The one or more indentations, which define fold lines, of the insulation material (1) of modified Chase read on the functional/intended use language of “for folding the 3D shaped product into a folded 3D shaped packaging product for cushioning, or thermal insulation, or both of packaged goods (see ¶28 above).
Regarding claim 26, it is first noted that claim 25, upon which claim 26 is directly dependent, is directed to the 3D-shaped product and does not require a folded 3D shaped packaging product. As such, claim 26 also does not require a folded 3D shaped packaging product, and is thereby interpreted to read as: “wherein the 3D shaped product has a density that is equal to or less than four times a density of the air-laid blank”. In view thereof, given that the insulation material (1) of modified Chase is (simply) folded at the indentation(s) to form the 3D shaped product (i.e. to exhibit the folded configuration intended for disposal within the box), the density of the insulation material (1) is unaltered. Given that the insulation material (1) of modified Chase reads on the claimed air-laid blank as detailed above in the rejection of claim 1, the density of the material (1) in folded configuration (3D shaped product) is therefore equal to that of the insulation material (1) (air-laid blank) prior to folding.
Regarding claim 27, in view of the rejection of claim 25 above, the rejections of claims 12 and 26 above are incorporated herein by reference and, in totality, read on the 3D shaped product defined by claim 27. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 28-29, in view of the rejection of claim 25 above, the rejection of claims 3-4 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on each product defined by claims 28-29.
Regarding claim 30, in view of the rejection of claim 25 above, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the product defined by claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, in view of the rejection of claim 25 above, the rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the product defined by claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, in view of the rejection of claim 25 above, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the product defined by claim 32.
Regarding claim 34, in view of the rejection of claim 25 above, the rejection of claim 10 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the product defined by claim 34
Regarding claim 35, in view of the rejection of claim 25 above, the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the product defined by claim 35.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 10-11 of the Remarks filed 23 March 2026, directed to the disclosure/teachings of the prior art to Collison previously cited/relied upon in the FOA as a secondary reference [FOA, ¶8, ¶18-19], have been fully considered and found persuasive. Thereby, the rejection of the claims under 103 previously set forth in the FOA, which relied upon “Collison and/or Fredlund” [FOA, ¶8(iii)], has been withdrawn.
However, new grounds of rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13, 23-32, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth above, which do not rely upon the disclosure/teachings of Collison, but rather, rely upon only those of Fredlund. The arguments presented in the Remarks filed 23 March 2026 do not contest, or otherwise identify any deficiencies in, the disclosure/teachings of Fredlund which were relied upon to establish the prima facie case of obviousness previously set forth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782