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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 9/16/25 have been entered. Claims 1 and 22 have been amended. Claims 4-6, 8, 18, 28, and 29 stand cancelled. Claims 10, 12-15, and 22-27 stand withdrawn. This leaves claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 19-21 currently active and pending.
See Allowable Subject Matter for Note.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enarsson et al. (WO 2014/142714).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7, Enarsson teaches a three-dimensional shaped packaging formed via thermoforming (hot pressing) (Enarsson pg 1, ln 7-10) of an airlaid sheet (air-laid blank) (Enarsson pg 3, ln 27 to pg 4, ln 1) at a pressure of 1-200 MPa (Enarsson pg 4, ln 21-22) comprising chemi-thermomechanical pulp (CTMP), a wood (natural fiber) based pulp (Enarsson pg 2, ln 22-28; pg 7, ln 7-11); where the CTMP fibers are present in an amount of 40-95 wt% (Enarsson pg 2, ln 22-26; pg 8, ln 8-11) along with a thermoplastic binder in an amount of 5-50 wt% (Enarsson pg 2, ln 22-26; pg 8, ln 14-16). Finally, Enarsson teaches that the density of the 3D shaped packaging product is from 50-250 kg/m3 (Enarsson pg 2, ln 22-26; pg 4, ln 15-23).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the weight% of CTMP fibers and binder taught by Enarsson overlaps with the instantly claimed weight% of CTMP fibers and binder and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
It is noted that while the limitations addressing thermoforming at a pressure of below 200 MPa were addressed, they are product-by-process limitations and do not directly impact he patentability of a product claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the density taught by Enarsson overlaps with the instantly claimed density and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Finally, because the thickness of the blank is a starting thickness and not a final structure thickness, it must be considered a product-by-process type limitation as it is not clear what impact this initial thickness has on the final product. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Regarding claim 9, Enarsson teaches a 3D shaped packaging product as above for claim 1. Enarsson further teaches that the thermoplastic polymer binder has a softening point that does not exceed the degradation/damage temperature of the CTMP (natural) fibers (Enarsson pg 21, ln 10-19).
Regarding claim 20, Enarsson teaches a 3D shaped packaging product as above for claim 1. Enarsson further teaches that the 3D packaging may further have at least one surface coated with a moisture barrier layer (Enarsson pg 18, ln 23-26).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enarsson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayes et al. (US 2021/0024706).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Enarsson teaches a 3D shaped packaging product as above for claim 1. Enarsson further teaches that the binder component is present in liquid form (Enarsson pg 11, ln 4-17).
Enarsson is silent with respect to the binder being bi-component thermoplastic polymer fibers, where one of the core or sheathe is any one or more of PE, EAA, EVA, PP, PS, PBAT, PBS, PLA, PET, or PCL and to having a binder fiber length of 1-12 mm.
Enarsson and Mayes are related in the field of dry-laid mats for thermoforming. Mayes teaches utilizing bi-component PP/PE fibers with a length of 6 mm (Mayes para 36) in place of liquid binders as functional equivalents (Mayes para 28). That is Mayes states that fibrous, powder, and liquid binders may be used in alternate (Mayes para 28; see MPEP 2144.06(II)). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fibrous binder, such as bi-component PP/PE fibers with a length of 6 mm as taught by Mayes as the binder of Enarsson because Mayes teaches these are functional equivalent options for binding pulp fibers.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the binder fiber length taught by Enarsson in view of Mayes overlaps with the instantly claimed binder fiber length and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enarsson as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mayes et al. (US 2021/0024706), and further in view of Aldén et al. (US 2020/0318292).
Regarding claim 16, Enarsson teaches a 3D shaped packaging product as above for claim 1. Enarsson further teaches that the binder component is present in liquid form (Enarsson pg 11, ln 4-17).
Enarsson is silent with respect to the binder being thermoplastic polymer fibers to having a binder fiber length of 100-600% greater than that of the natural fibers.
Enarsson and Mayes are related in the field of dry-laid mats for thermoforming. Mayes teaches utilizing bi-component PP/PE fibers with a length of 6 mm (Mayes para 36) in place of liquid binders as functional equivalents (Mayes para 28). That is Mayes states that fibrous, powder, and liquid binders may be used in alternate (Mayes para 28; see MPEP 2144.06(II)). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fibrous binder, such as bi-component PP/PE fibers with a length of 6 mm as taught by Mayes as the binder of Enarsson because Mayes teaches these are functional equivalent options for binding pulp fibers.
Enarsson in view of Mayes remains silent with respect to the length of cellulosic fibers from CTMP processes, and thus to the relative length of the binder fibers being 100-600% greater than the CTMP fibers.
Enarsson in view of Mayes and Aldén are related in the field of CTMP fibers formed for packaging materials. Aldén teaches that CTMP fibers are generally from 1.3-2.6 mm via length weighted average fiber length (Aldén para 14), noting that this length allows for a stiffer and stronger paper material that is still formable (Aldén para 14). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use CTMP fibers with a length of 1.3-2.6 mm as the CTMP fibers of Enarsson in view of Mayes because this would provide the resultant paper with additional stiffness and strength while still being formable.
Further, this yields a combination wherein the binder fibers are 6 mm relative to the CTMP fibers of 1.3-2.6 mm which means the binder fibers are roughly 200-400% larger than the CTMP fibers.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the fiber length ratio taught by Enarsson in view of Mayes in further view of Aldén overlaps with the instantly claimed fiber length ratio and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enarsson as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Aldén et al. (US 2020/0318292).
Regarding claim 19, Enarsson teaches a 3D shaped packaging product as above for claim 1.
While Enarsson teaches coating the web (Enarsson pg 18, ln 23-26), Enarsson is silent with respect to a heat sealing at least one surface.
Enarsson and Aldén are related in the field of CTMP webs formed for packaging materials. Aldén teaches heat sealing the outer layer(s) of the web to provide benefits such as liquid-tightness (Aldén para 98) and enable tailor-made packaging (Aldén para 101). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat seal the outer surface/layer of the packaging of Enarsson as taught by Aldén because this would provide Enarsson with the benefits of liquid-tightness while enabling the packaging to be further tailored to the intended use.
It is noted that “to inhibit linting from the at least one surface” is functional language. As Enarsson in view of Aldén teaches the claimed structure, it would be fully expected to act in the same manner and thus prevent linting at least at the heat sealed surface. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 21, Enarsson teaches a 3D shaped packaging product with at least one surface coated with a moisture barrier layer (Enarsson pg 18, ln 23-26) as above for claim 20.
Enarsson is silent with respect to the barrier layer being attached via a hotmelt glue or adhesive film.
Enarsson and Aldén are related in the field of CTMP webs formed for packaging materials. Aldén teaches utilizing an adhesive layer (film) to facilitate compatibility between the bulk/CTMP layer and any coating layers (Aldén para 95). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging of Enarsson to include an adhesive layer (film) between the CTMP and any coating layers as taught by Aldén to improve the compatibility between the CTMP and the coating layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowable subject matter has been withdrawn pursuant to review by Srilakshmi Kumar, TC 1700 Director, and the rejection instructed put into place.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 1/28/26