DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim(s) 1, 17, 20-23, 25-34, 38, 40, 43, 45 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 17, 20-23, 25-34, 45 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 1, 38, 40, 43 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 2-16, 18-19, 24, 35-37, 39, 41-42, 44 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 17-34) in the reply filed on 06/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 1, 38, 40, 43 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 20-23, 25-34, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• EP 1884594 (KASTNER-EP ‘594),
in view of VARNADORE ET AL (US 2022/0064371), citing SWOBODA ET AL (US 6,893,693),
and in view of FOSTER ET AL (US 6,245,388),
and in view of KASTNER ET AL (US 2010/0276327),
and in view of MARX ET AL (US 4,606,496) and/or ROBERTSON (US 2015/0048089).
KASTNER-EP ‘594 discloses a migration-resistant coated paper-based material comprising:
• a paper substrate (e.g., paperboard, cardboard, etc.) with a typical basis weight of 35-250 g/m2;
• a first coating layer formed from an aqueous dispersion of a polyester-acrylate and optionally additives (e.g., fillers, pigments, etc.), wherein said coating layer:
(i) has a typical thickness of 5-25 microns;
(ii) provides resistance to the migration of low and high molecular, polar and non-polar substances (corresponding to the recited “aqueous-based polyester acrylate copolyester dispersion basecoat”); and
(iii) styrene-butadiene is not required in said coating layer;
• a second coating layer formed from an aqueous dispersion of a polyester-acrylate and optionally additives (e.g., fillers, pigments, etc.), wherein said coating layer:
(i) provides resistance to the migration of low and high molecular, polar and non-polar substances (corresponding to the recited “aqueous-based polyester acrylate copolyester dispersion barrier topcoat”);
(ii) can have the same (or different) composition and/or application weight as the first coating layer;
wherein the migration-resistant coated paper-based material is useful for packaging materials (e.g., but not limited to, bags, pouches, trays, lids, etc.) for food products. (entire document, e.g., paragraph 0001-0006, 0012-0014, 0017-0019, 0023-0024, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss “dual ovenable” or “thermoformable” materials.
VARNADORE ET AL ‘371 discloses that it is well known in the art that aqueous dispersions of water-dispersible polyester-acrylate copolymers can be formulated to produce coatings with a variety of one or more functionalities (e.g., barrier coatings; ink receptivity; water repellency; oil and grease resistance; altered surface energy; release characteristics; improved gloss; decreased moisture vapor transfer rate (MVTR); adhesion promotion (for use as primer coatings, etc.); pigment binding (for colored coatings, etc.); heat-sealability; flexibility (for use in folded cartons, etc.); elasticity (for forming press-ware using high temperatures, etc.); heat-resistance (to withstand press-forming with heat, as discussed in SWOBODA ET AL ‘693); ability to be repulpable and/or recyclable and/or compostable; etc.) for paper-based substrates, wherein the functional coatings can be FDA compliant for food contact and food packaging. The reference further disclose that it is well known in the art to optionally incorporate pigments and/or other functional additives (e.g., other polymeric binders; etc.) into said polyester-acrylate copolymer-based coatings. The reference further discloses a non-limiting, illustrative example of a coated paper-based material can have a two-layer coating system comprising:
(i) a primer coating (corresponding to the recited “basecoat”) with a typical coating weight of 5-15 gsm;
(ii) a topical coating (corresponding to the recited “barrier topcoat”) with a typical coating weight of 3-10 gsm to provide required barrier properties);
wherein the two-layer coating system provides good barrier properties and heat-sealability. (entire document, e.g., paragraph 0001, 0008, 0029-0031, 0049-0051, 0054-0055, 0059-0073, etc.)
SWOBODA ET AL ‘693 further discloses that it is well known in the art to form heat-pressed paperboard food containers using paperboard blanks (46) with radially arranged scores (48) (corresponding to the recited “blank comprising radial score lines”). (Figure 3; line 35-40, col. 7; line 18-22, 38-39, 51-56, col. 8; etc.)
FOSTER ET AL ‘388 discloses that it is well known in the art that aqueous dispersions of copolymers of polyester and acrylic can be utilized as coatings for cellulose-based (e.g., pulp, paperboard, etc.) substrates utilized for “dual ovenable” food containers. (line 4-34, col. 1; line 35, col. 5 to line 8, col. 6; etc.)
KASTNER ET AL ‘327 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize water-based polyester-acrylate coatings to substrates (e.g., paper-based, etc.) in packaging materials suitable for heating in microwaves or ovens (corresponding to the recited “dual ovenable”). (paragraph 0014, 0024, etc.)
MARX ET AL ‘496 discloses that it is well known in the art to form paper-based products (e.g., trays; plates; etc.) from paperboard blanks (40) with radial score lines (42) using press-forming with heat (corresponding to the recited “thermoformable”; corresponding to the recited “in a thermoformed condition” of claim 45). (Figure 3; line 9-12, 22-43, col. 1; line 38-63, col. 3; line 38-45, col. 4; line 1-11, col. 5; line 24-46, col. 6; etc.)
ROBERTSON ‘089 discloses that it is well known in the art to form paper-based products (e.g., lids; etc.) (16) from paperboard blanks provided with radial score lines using press-forming with heat (corresponding to the recited “thermoformable”; corresponding to the recited “in a thermoformed condition” of claim 45). (Figure 2, 5, etc.; paragraph 0019-0020, 0028, etc.)
Regarding claims 17, 20-23, 25-26, 28, 34, 45, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known polyester-acrylate copolymer-based coating compositions capable of exhibiting excellent heat-resistance, elasticity, and/or adhesion (as disclosed in VARNADORE ET AL ‘371) to form both the first and second coating layers migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 to produce paper-based packaging materials capable of: (i) tolerating heat-assisted press-forming without thermal degradation; and (ii) being formed by heat-assisted press-forming; (corresponding to the recited “thermoformable”) in order to produce known types of paper-based press-ware (e.g., plates, trays, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “in a thermoformed condition” of claim 45) for food products.
Further regarding claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized food-safe, heat-resistant polyester-acrylate copolymer-based coating compositions (as suggested in VARNADORE ET AL ‘371) to form both the first and second coating layers in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 in order to produce food-safe packaging materials capable of withstanding both conventional oven and microwave cooking or heating conditions (corresponding to the recited “dual ovenable”) as suggested in FOSTER ET AL ‘388 and KASTNER ET AL ‘327.
Further regarding claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would have produced the coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 in the form of blanks with radial score lines (as suggested in SWOBODA ET AL ‘693 and MARX ET AL ‘496 and/or ROBERTSON ‘089) which are suitable for use in conventional heat-assisted press-forming processes (corresponding to the recited “thermoformable”) in order to facilitate the production of various shaped paper-based packaging materials (e.g., but not limited to, trays as disclosed in KASTNER-EP ‘594 and MARX ET AL ‘496; lids as disclosed in KASTNER-EP ‘594 and ROBERTSON ‘089; etc.) (corresponding to the recited “in a thermoformed condition” of claim 45).
Regarding claims 20-22, since KASTNER-EP ‘594 discloses coated paper-based materials with polyester-acrylate coating layers with a typical thickness of 5-25 microns; the Examiner has reason to believe that the individual and combined coating layer thicknesses disclosed in KASTNER-EP ‘594 at least partially read on the basis weight recited in claim 21, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594. For example, assuming a general density of polymer-based coatings of about 1-2 g/cm3 or more (depending on the amount of higher density fillers or additives), a coating layer with a thickness of about 7 microns can correspond to a coat weight of about 7-14 g/cm3 and a two-layer coating system with two layers with individual thicknesses of about 7 microns can correspond to a two-layer coat weight of 14-38 g/cm3.
Alternatively and/or additionally, regarding claims 20-22, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the individual and combined thickness of a two-layer coating system in order to obtain the desired performance properties (e.g., flexibility, barrier properties, adhesion, heat-sealable, etc.) -- for example: (i) a primer coating (corresponding to the recited “basecoat”) with a typical coating weight of 5-15 gsm; (ii) a topical coating (corresponding to the recited “barrier topcoat”) with a typical coating weight of 3-10 gsm; as suggested in VARNADORE ET AL ‘371).
Regarding claim 23, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated pigments into in the first coating layer (corresponding to the recited “basecoat”) in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 in order to provide specific decorative or aesthetic effects.
Regarding claim 27, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the surface tension of the first coating layer (corresponding to the recited “basecoat”) in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 (e.g., by incorporating effective amounts of surfactants and/or other surface-energy modifying agents, etc.) in order to optimize effective wetting and coverage of specific untreated and/or pre-treated paper-based substrates.
Regarding claim 29, one of ordinary skill in the art would have omitted the presence of opacifying pigments in the second coating layer (corresponding to the recited “topcoat”) in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 in order to permit viewing of the underlying basecoat and/or the paper-based substrate.
Regarding claim 30, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the formulation of the polyester-acrylate coating layers in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 (e.g., using suitable selection of polyester and acrylate monomers, etc.) in order to facilitate thermal bonding (e.g., heat-sealability, as suggested in VARNADORE ET AL ‘371) at specific temperatures (e.g., 250 ºF or more) as desired for specific packaging applications.
Regarding claim 31, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the formulation of the polyester-acrylate coating layers in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 in order to provide a FDA-compliant, food-safe coating (e.g., as represented by a low chloroform-soluble extractives value) capable of tolerating high temperatures experienced during high temperature formation of press-ware (as suggested in VARNADORE ET AL ‘371) and/or experienced during heating using conventional oven and/or microwaves (as suggested in FOSTER ET AL ‘388 and KASTNER ET AL ‘327).
Regarding claim 32, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the formulation of the polyester-acrylate coating layers in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 (e.g., by incorporating effective amounts of flexibility-improving additional binders and/or additives, such as plasticizers, etc.) in order to provide sufficient flexibility for use in sharply creased and folded cartons (as suggested in VARNADORE ET AL ‘371) without cracking (e.g., as represented by the crack-resistant creasing criteria of claim 32).
Regarding claim 33, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the formulation of the polyester-acrylate coating layers and/or incorporated effective amounts of conventional friction-reducing additives (e.g., slip agents; lubricants; anti-blocking particles; etc.) in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 in order to provide excellent anti-blocking characteristics (as represented by the recited block resistance) to prevent sticking during stacking.
Regarding claim 34, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the formulation of the polyester-acrylate coating layers in the migration-resistant coated paper-based materials of KASTNER-EP ‘594 in order to provide sufficient heat resistance and flexibility to withstand high temperatures (e.g., 200-425 ºF, etc.) experienced during heat-assisted formation of press-ware (as suggested in VARNADORE ET AL ‘371 and SWOBODA ET AL ‘693).
The Examiner cautions that if Applicant chooses to argue that the physical properties recited in claims 27, 30-34 cannot be obtained by one of ordinary skill in the art using known improvement and/or modification techniques or methods (e.g., as mentioned above) using routine experimentation, this may raise significant issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement, and that Applicant’s arguments and/or assertions may be used as admissions or supporting evidence with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 12/08/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HYDER ET AL (US 2010/0243722) disclose container lids made from press-formed paperboard blanks with radial score lines.
BAUM (US 5,230,939) and WNEK (US 2011/0062050) and IWAYA (US 6,093,460) disclose trays made from press-formed paperboard blanks with radial score lines.
ASAYAMA ET AL (US 2002/0012759) disclose trays made from press-formed paper-based blanks with radial score lines.
CALVERT (US 2022/0064868) disclose thermoformable dual-ovenable acrylic-coated cellulose-based materials.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 24, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787