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 2024/0002121, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12 November 2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 22 August 2025 (hereinafter “NFOA”) has been entered. Claims 6, 8, 12-14, 23-24, and 26 have been canceled, new claims 27-29 have been added, and claims 1, 7, and 15-21 have been amended.
As such, claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 15-22, 25, and 27-29 remain pending, claims 9-11 remain withdrawn as a result of previous restriction/election, and claims 1-5, 7, 15-22, 25, and 27-29 are under consideration on the merits.
The amendments to claims 17-22, and cancelation of claim 26, have overcome the corresponding rejections thereof under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth [NFOA, ¶12-16]. As such, the aforesaid 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. Additionally, the cancelation of claim 26 has overcome the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 [NFOA, ¶18-19] – the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s statements presented on p. 7 of the Remarks filed 12 November 2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”) regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered and are found persuasive to the extent that the aforesaid 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn. However, it is noted that new objections to claim 4 and the spec, respectively, are set forth below in view of said statements – see “Response to Arguments” section below for further details/explanation.
Further, the amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and under 35 U.S.C. 103, previously set forth in the NFOA. Specifically, the following rejections have been withdrawn: claims 1, 2, 4, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Patel; claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-16, 21-22, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bengtsson; claims 1-3, 13-15, 21-22, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bried; claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bengtsson as applied to claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1); claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bried as applied to claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), further in view of Jogikalmath and Larson (optionally evidenced by Lee); claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bried as applied to claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), further in view of Andersen; and claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bried as applied to claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Furthermore, the amendments to the claims have overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-2 as unpatentable over claim 9 or claim 10 of U.S. Patent 11,622,575 previously set forth [NFOA, ¶74-76]. As such, the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
In view of the foregoing, it is noted that new grounds of rejection are set forth below, necessitated by the amendments to the claims and made in view of alternative embodiment(s)/interpretations of the previously cited prior art and newly cited prior art identified as a result of additional search/consideration completed by the undersigned Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0005, 0062, 0075, 0080, 0082] – the term “homogenous” is respectfully objected to as constituting a typographical error, and/or an improper term which is similar to or incorrectly synonymous with “homogeneous”, in view of Applicant’s statements presented on p. 7 of the Remarks (citing to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of “homogeneous”)
It is respectfully suggested to amend the spec as follows, in each instance: “homogeneous”
The aforecited paragraph numbers of the published application correspond to the following sections of the original specification filed 19 May 2023 (Substitute Specification – Clean Copy): [p. 1 ln. 32, p. 12 ln. 12, p. 15 ln. 19, p. 17 ln. 3 and 18]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “homogenous” is respectfully objected to on the same grounds set forth above in objection to the disclosure – in order to correct/overcome the issue, it is respectfully suggested to amend claim 4 as follows: “wherein the composite material is homogeneous.”
In accordance with Applicant’s statements presented on p. 7 of the Remarks identified above, claim 4 is interpreted for examination on the merits in accordance with the suggested amendment
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 15-16, 21-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2016/0360783; “Patel”) (previously cited), in view of Otani et al. (US 2003/0029591; “Otani”) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Patel discloses a container for smokeless tobacco products (substance delivery product container for storing products for oral use), said container including a base and a lid configured to releasably attach (couple/decouple) to the base, wherein the base and lid define a compartment for accommodating the products therein [Abstract; Figs. 9-15; 0001-0002, 0025-0031, 0046, 0083, 0085, 0087, 0100]. Patel discloses that the container base and/or lid are suitably formed from a composite material (combined material 303) comprising a mixture/combination of pulp derived from a plant material, e.g. wood pulp/fibers [0100, 0104-0107, 0111] (second material, second material is a fibrous material, wherein the fibrous material is a bio-based fibrous material) and a resin, e.g. polyolefin [0110-0112] (first material, first material is a plastic material). The polyolefin may be polyethylene or polypropylene, and may be mixed with the pulp in particulate form to facilitate dispersion in/with the pulp [0112]. The resultant mixture is heated [0112] to form the composite, and may also be pressurized in a mold [0013, 0057, 0106, 0112, 0120-0123] to form the base and lid of the container.
With respect to the difference(s) relative to the substance delivery product container defined by claim 1, Patel is silent regarding the resin (e.g. polyolefin) defining 50-80% (any basis) of the composite material.
However, Patel discloses that other details regarding the pulp material and molds configured to mold pulp material may be found in US Pat. No. 7,077,933 to Otani et al. [0106] – Patel incorporates therein the disclosure of US 7,077,933 to Otani et al. (hereinafter “’933 patent”) by reference [0106].
Otani – which is the US published application (10/204,859) of the ‘933 patent – teaches that when polyolefin resins are utilized in combination with the pulp fiber material to form a composite material, specifically, added to the pulp in particulate or fibrous form, the proportion of the polyolefin resin in the composite is from 1-70% by weight [0021]. Otani also recognizes that polyethylene is suitable for use as the aforesaid polyolefin resin [0080].
Patel and Otani each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – pulp-based composite material molded into containers. 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 composite material forming the container of Patel by having utilized 1-70 wt.% of the polyolefin resin based on the overall weight of the composite material, as Patel explicitly recognizes the disclosure/teachings of Otani via incorporation therein by reference, and/or in order to impart a desired/predetermined and/or requisite degree of resistance to fluid, moisture, or air transmission (i.e. to increase moisture barrier, fluid barrier, or air barrier properties) to the container [Patel, 0110-0112].
The composite material of Patel, and container formed therefrom, in accordance with the aforesaid modification (hereinafter “modified Patel”) would have included 1-70 wt.% polyolefin resin, e.g. polyethylene or polypropylene resin (first material), with the pulp/fibers (hereinafter “fibrous material”) (second material) constituting the remainder amount (30-99 wt.%). The amount of 1-70 wt.% polyolefin resin overlaps with (encompasses lower bound, within upper bound) the claimed range of 50-80% of the first material, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
The container formed from the composite material of modified Patel, set forth above, reads on the substance delivery product container for storing products for oral use (hereinafter “container”) defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the container defined by claim 2. The lid is configured to couple and decouple with the base of the container of modified Patel (releasably attachable to the base), and together the base and lid define a compartment for accommodating the smokeless tobacco (or other) products.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the container defined by claim 3. Given that the container of modified Patel is formed from polyolefin resin and bio-based fibrous material, wherein the former is readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as recyclable and the latter readily recognized as compostable and/or recyclable, and given that claim 3 does not specify a degree and/or standard of compostability or recyclability which the composite material is required to exhibit, the container of modified Patel is reasonably interpreted as being at least some degree of compostable and/or recyclable (see MPEP 2111; MPEP 2111.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2173.01(I)) and/or it stands to reason that the container would have necessarily exhibited at least some degree of compostability and/or recyclability absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2112(IV) and (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; MPEP 2145(I)). As such, the container of modified Patel reads on the container defined by claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, in view of Applicant’s statements on p. 7 of the Remarks related to the claimed term “homogenous”, i.e. homogeneous (see claim/specification objections above), and in accordance with Applicant’s spec [0082] which states: “preferably, the elementary fibers of the bio based fibrous material are distributed evenly throughout the fossil-derived polymer or plastic” corresponding to the composite material being “homogenous”, Patel discloses that the polyolefin resin is mixed with, infused with, or otherwise dispersed in, the fibrous material, together (and in the aforesaid state(s)) defining the resultant composite material which forms the container [0111-0112]. Given that the polyolefin resin is mixed with, infused with, or dispersed in the fibrous material, and given that the claim does not define a requisite degree of homogeneity (i.e. a requisite degree of the fibrous material being evenly distributed throughout the plastic material) or define any other material characteristics/properties or process steps necessary for the composite material to be homogeneous, the composite material of modified Patel is reasonably interpreted as being homogeneous, as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that the phrase/term “elementary fibers” is not explicitly defined in the claim or the specification, and in particular, is not defined (over a plurality of paragraphs in the specification) in terms of form/degree of continuity, arrangement direction, genus/species from which they are derived, length, diameter, or aspect ratio [0011, 0016-0017, 0071, 0074-0082]. As such, the term “elementary” is interpreted, in view of the specification, as being nominal and therefore not imparting any particular limitation to the term “fibers”.
In view of the foregoing, the fibrous material, i.e. plant derived pulp material, e.g. wood pulp/fibers of the composite material of modified Patel, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, read on the claimed bio based fibrous material comprising “[elementary] fibers comprising cellulose”. The wood pulp/fibers, e.g. derived from hardwood or softwood, or other wood(s) [Patel, 0105, 0107], necessarily include at least some degree of cellulose/cellulosic material – see spec [0079-0080].
Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated herein by reference. Given that polyolefin resin and fibrous material (of the composite material of modified Patel) may be mixed with one another, and/or the polyolefin resin dispersed in the fibrous material (e.g. wood pulp/fibers) (prior to heat consolidation), there is a reasonable expectation that the fibrous material would have exhibited at least some degree of discontinuity in the composite material, absent factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; MPEP 2145(I). The foregoing reads on “wherein the fibrous material forms a discontinuous fiber reinforcement in the composite material” under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof in view of Applicant’s spec, of which is the fibrous material exhibiting any degree of discontinuity.
Regarding claims 21-22, in view of the rejections of claim 1 and claim 15 above, Patel discloses that the plant derived pulp material, in addition or the alternative to comprising wood pulp/fibers (e.g. hardwood/softwood), may comprise pulp/fibers derived from agricultural products including, inter alia flax, flax fiber, and hemp/hemp pulp [0105]. In view of MPEP 2144.06(I) and (II), MPEP 2144.07, and MPEP 2131.02(II), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized pulp/fibers derived from any one or more of flax/flax fiber and hemp/hemp pulp, as the plant derived pulp material of the composite material of modified Patel in addition to, or as an alternative to, the aforesaid wood pulp/fibers, absent an express suggestion or teaching to do so.
The composite material resultant from the aforesaid modification would have included the polyolefin resin and the plant derived pulp material, said pulp material comprising pulp/fibers derived from flax/flax fiber and/or hemp/hemp pulp; or comprising pulp/fibers derived from wood pulp/fibers, and one or both of pulp/fibers derived from flax/flax fiber and derived from hemp/hemp pulp. Accordingly, either of the aforesaid embodiments of the container of modified Patel formed from the composite material reads on each container defined by claims 21 and 22, respectively, as dependent upon claim 15.
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the container defined by claim 25. The fibrous material (second material) defines 30-99 wt.% of the composite material of the container of modified Patel, of which overlaps with (within lower bound, encompasses upper bound) the claimed range of 20-50%, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ohta et al. (US 5,198,167; “Ohta”) (newly cited).
Larsson (US 6,136,150; “Larsson”) (newly cited) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection claim 1 above establishes the composite material, and container formed therefrom, of modified Patel.
Patel, as modified, is silent regarding the composite material being anisotropic, that is, regarding the composite material exhibiting any degree of anisotropy with respect to any physical or mechanical property thereof.
However, Patel discloses that the container may be formed by a molding process wherein the combination/mixture of fibrous material and polyolefin resin – which may also include water or other liquids to form a slurry – is directed into a mold, such as sprayed into a mold exhibiting the shape of the base or lid of the container, followed by applying pressure to the deposited slurry with an opposing mold surface [0013, 0112, 0120-0123, 0129].
Ohta is directed to/teaches a fiber molding process for forming fiber-reinforced composite materials wherein the fiber component thereof is substantially oriented in one direction, said process comprising depositing a slurry inclusive of the fiber component in a mold and applying pressure to the deposited slurry from two directions, e.g. perpendicular relative to one another simultaneously or in sequence, while removing liquid from the slurry [Abstract; Figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3A-3B, 4, 5D-5E, 6-7; col. 2 ln. 24-27, 60-68; col. 4 ln. 6-17]. The molding process causes the fibers to be substantially oriented in one direction as desired/predetermined, resulting in an increased fiber content in the composite material and higher maximum strength due to the orientation of the fibers [col. 7; col. 11].
Ohta, directed to fiber-reinforced composite materials and alignment of the fibers therein via compression molding of a fiber-based slurry, constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention (see spec, [0074]). 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 composite material/container of modified Patel (set forth above in rejection of claim 1) by having applied pressure from two directions during molding of the slurry/mixture, as taught by Ohta in order to orient the fibers (fibrous material) in substantially one direction in the composite material to thereby increase the maximum strength exhibited by the material and increase the overall fiber-density.
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the fibrous material component of the composite material of modified Patel would have been oriented in substantially one direction, thereby resulting in the composite material, and container formed therefrom, necessarily exhibiting at least some degree of anisotropy in one or more physical/mechanical properties [Larsson, col. 1 ln. 21-31]. The composite material, and container formed therefrom, of modified Patel set forth hereinabove reads on the container defined by claim 5, “wherein the composite material is an anisotropic material” under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof in view of Applicant’s spec.
Claims 7 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0062998; “Chen”) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 7, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, the composite material forming the container of modified Patel includes the polyolefin resin component (first material, first material is a plastic). As disclosed by Patel, the polyolefin is suitably polyethylene or polypropylene, though not limited thereto.
With respect to the difference(s) relative to the substance delivery product container defined by claim 7, modified Patel is silent regarding the polyolefin resin (plastic) being a bio-derived polymer.
Chen teaches that as alternatives to petroleum-derived polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene, bio-polyethylene (bio-PE) and bio-polypropylene (bio-PP) [0004, 0010, 0048, 0066-0067] – which may be in fibrous or particulate form [0010, 0066] – are known to have excellent barrier properties and are suitable for use in forming composite materials as the resin component [which is] blended with cellulosic, plant-derived pulp/fibers [0003-0004, 0047-0048, 0051, 0054, 0066, 0068]. The composite material is suitably formed by mixing the pulp/fibrous component and resin component, and applying heat prior to or during molding (the mixture) to consolidate/shape the composite, and may include subsequent drying [0012, 0066, 0068, 0072] – the composite material is suitable for formation into consumer products including, inter alia containers and packaging articles [0006-0007, 0054, 0075].
In light of the aforecited disclosure/teachings, Chen constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. 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 composite material (and container formed therefrom) of modified Patel (as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1) by having utilized bio-PE or bio-PP in place of polyethylene or polypropylene (petroleum-derived) as the polyolefin resin component of the composite material, as bio-PE and bio-PP would have been readily recognized as functionally equivalent alternatives to polyethylene and polypropylene, capable of providing increased barrier properties desired by Patel, and suitable for the intended use as the resin component of cellulosic pulp/fiber-based composite materials (blends) which are heat-consolidated and molded into containers or other packaging articles. See MPEP 2144.06(II) and MPEP 2144.07.
In accordance with the foregoing modification, the polyolefin resin component (first material, first material is a plastic) of the composite material, and container formed therefrom, of modified Patel would have been bio-PE or bio-PP, said polyolefin resin component defining from 1-70 wt.% of the composite material. The bio-PE or bio-PP polyolefin resin component reads on the plastic being a bio-derived polymer as defined by claim 7.
Regarding claims 27 and 29, the rejection of claim 7 above reads on each container defined by claim 27 and 29 respectively. That is, the polyolefin resin component of the composite material/container of modified Patel would have been at least one of bio-PE and bio-PP (claim 27, bio-derived polyolefin; claim 29, bio-derived polyolefin is at least one of bio-polyethylene or bio-polypropylene).
Regarding claim 28, it is noted that the claim limitation “the bio-derived polyolefin is a recycled material” constitutes a product-by-process claim limitation. Applicant is respectfully directed to MPEP 2113(I) and (II) – even 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. Further, the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing patentability, in particular where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which it is made or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product.
In view of the rejections of claim 7 and claim 27 above, in the instant case – in view of Applicant’s spec – there would not have been a nonobvious difference between the “bio-PE” or “bio-PP” of the composite material of modified Patel and the claimed bio-derived polyolefin which is a recycled material, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the structural characteristics of the recycled material to be distinct from the bio-PE or bio-PP of modified Patel. That is, Applicant’s spec indicates that recycled polyolefins may contain contaminants, of which may be removed by processing [0009, 0067-0068]. As such, the bio-derived polyolefin recycled material, as claimed and in view of the spec (see MPEP 2111.01(II)), would have been no different from, and/or materially indistinguishable from, the bio-PE or bio-PP of modified Patel which may, but is not explicitly required, to include any additives and which may or may not include contaminants.
In view of the foregoing, the bio-PE or bio-PP polyolefin resin component of the composite material/container of modified Patel set forth above in the rejections of claim 7 and claim 27 reads on bio-derived polyolefin that is recycled material defined by claim 28.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Otani as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Jogikalmath et al. (US 2014/0224443; “Jogikalmath”) and Larson et al. (US 6,129,815; “Larson”) (both previously cited).
Lee et al. (US 2013/0199743; “Lee”) (previously cited) is optionally relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the grounds of rejection.
Regarding claims 17-19, as set forth above in the rejections of claim 15 and claim 1, the composite material of the container of modified Patel includes the fibrous material component, i.e. pulp derived from a plant material or wood pulp/fibers, of which suitably includes hardwood or softwood pulp/fibers [Patel, 0105, 0107] (bio-based fibrous material comprising elementary fibers comprising cellulose).
With respect to the difference(s) relative to the substance delivery product container defined by claims 17-19, modified Patel is silent regarding the average length, average diameter, and length to diameter ratio of the hardwood or softwood fibers (fibrous material) of the composite material.
Jogikalmath is directed to papermaking processes comprising slurries of different fibrous (pulp) components for forming high-strength paper products, such as molded articles [Abstract; 0002-0003, 0012, 0027, 0036]. Jogikalmath teaches that paper-based and paperboard-based products often utilize a mixture of hardwood and softwood fibers to attain specific physical properties [0065] – hardwood fibers are short in length, typically 1 mm long and exhibit a diameter of around 20 µm, resulting in a length to diameter ratio of 50:1, and softwood fibers are (relatively) long in length, typically around 3 mm long and exhibit a diameter of 30 µm, resulting in a length to diameter ratio of 100:1 [0065]. Softwood (long) fibers offer high strength due to their ability to overlap and intertwine, whereas hardwood (short) fibers offer good formability and improve aesthetics of the surface [0065]. The use hardwood and softwood fibers in combination provides for sufficient stiffness, strength, and bulk typically required for packaging articles [0065].
Larson teaches/evidences that low-average (cellulosic) fiber length pulp, typically formed from hardwood pulp fibers, exhibit an average fiber length of less than about 1.2 mm, e.g. 0.7-1.2 mm; and that high-average (cellulosic) fiber length pulp, typically formed from softwood pulp fibers, exhibit an average fiber length of greater than about 1.5 mm, e.g. about 1.5 mm to about 6 mm [col. 7 ln. 17-37].
Lee evidences that “long fibers”, in reference to cellulosic fibers obtained from pulping processes utilizing wood or agricultural sources, typically exhibit fiber lengths of about 1.016 mm to about 6.096 mm; and that “short fibers”, in reference to cellulosic fibers obtained from pulping processes utilizing agricultural sources, typically exhibit fiber lengths of about 0.1016 mm to about 1.016 mm [0027-0029].
Jogikalmath, Larson, and Lee (optional consideration) are each in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and constitute prior art which is directly analogous thereto. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, and given that Patel explicitly teaches use of softwood pulp/fibers as the fibrous material of the composite, 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 fibrous material component of the composite of modified Patel (set forth above in rejections of claims 1 and 15) by having utilized softwood pulp/fibers having (specifically) an average length of greater than about 1.5 mm, e.g. 3 mm up to about 6 mm, an average diameter of 30 µm, and a length to diameter ratio of about 100:1 or greater, as the aforesaid dimensions/ratio would have been readily recognized as suitable for softwood pulp/fibers intended for use in forming pressed/molded paper-based articles, including packaging products, requiring strength, stiffness, and wood aesthetic/design (MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance with the foregoing modification, the fibrous material of the composite of modified Patel, and container formed therefrom, would have comprised or consisted of softwood pulp/fibers having an average length of greater than about 1.5 mm, up to 6 mm; an average diameter of 30 µm; and a length-to-diameter ratio of about 100:1 or greater. The average length range is within the claimed range of about 0.1 mm to about 15 mm (claim 17); the average diameter is within the claimed range of about 10 µm to about 100 µm (claim 18); and the length-to-diameter ratio (100:1 or greater) is within the lower bound of, and encompasses the upper bound of the claimed range of about 2 to about 1500, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)) (claim 19). The container formed from the composite material of modified Patel, set forth above, reads on each container defined by the respective limitations of claims 17-19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Otani as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Jogikalmath, Larson, and Andersen et al. (US 5,514,430; “Andersen”) (previously cited).
Additionally, claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Otani as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Jogikalmath, Larson, and Andersen.
Regarding claim 20, as set forth above in the rejections of claim 15 and claim 1, the composite material of the container of modified Patel includes the fibrous material component, i.e. pulp derived from a plant material or wood pulp/fibers, of which suitably includes hardwood or softwood pulp/fibers [Patel, 0105, 0107] (bio-based fibrous material comprising elementary fibers comprising cellulose).
With respect to the difference relative to the substance delivery product container defined by claim 20, modified Patel is silent regarding the softwood pulp/fibers (fibrous material) of the composite material being arranged bidirectionally.
The disclosure/teachings of Jogikalmath and Larson, set forth/cited above in the rejection of claims 17-19, is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity).
Andersen is directed to containers intended for use in storing, dispensing, and/or packaging food and beverage products, and which may be lightweight, inexpensive, and (more) environmentally neutral (relative to prior art containers) [Abstract; col. 1 ln. 30-65, col. 2 ln. 1-11]. The containers are suitably formed, e.g. molded from a blend (composite material) of hydraulic binder and, inter alia cellulosic fibers such as cellulosic hardwood or softwood fibers exhibiting a high length to width (i.e. diameter) ratio such as at least about 10:1, preferably at least 100:1 [col. 8 ln. 10-23, 48-67, col. 9 ln. 1-22, col. 11 ln. 48–col. 12 ln. 67, col. 30 ln. 8-52, 61-67]. Andersen teaches that the fibers may be bidirectionally (or unidirectionally) oriented in the molded container, resulting in containers having a more uniform strength (or increased tensile strength or toughness) in contrast to fibers which are randomly dispersed throughout the (binder) matrix [col. 12 ln. 47–col. 13 ln. 10; col. 39 ln. 12-19]. In view of the aforecited disclosure/teachings, Andersen constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention.
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 composite material of modified Patel (set forth above in rejections of claim 15 and claim 1) by (i) having utilized softwood pulp/fibers having the length-to-diameter ratio (and corresponding dimensions) set forth above in the rejection of claims 17-19 (as taught by Jogikalmath and Larson) as the fibrous material of the composite, for the aforesaid reason(s)/rationale set forth in said rejection, and by (ii) aligning/orienting or otherwise arranging the softwood pulp/fibers (having the aforesaid length-to-diameter ratio) bidirectionally (as taught by Andersen), in order to achieve a higher degree of, or impart, strength uniformity to the composite material and container formed therefrom.
In accordance with the foregoing modifications, the fibrous material of the composite material of modified Patel (and container formed therefrom) would have comprised or consisted of softwood pulp/fibers exhibiting a length of about 3 mm, a diameter of 30 µm, and a length-to-diameter ratio of about 100:1, and would have been arranged bidirectionally within the composite material (mixture of polyolefin resin and said softwood pulp/fibers) and container formed therefrom, thereby reading on the container defined by claim 20.
Regarding claims 17-19, the rejection of claim 20 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on each container defined by claims 17-19, respectively. The instant rejection of claims 17-19 constitutes a copending rejection set forth in the alternative to the rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Patel in view of Otani, Jogikalmath, and Larson (optionally evidenced by Lee).
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 6-7 of the Remarks directed to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) pertaining to the claim term “homogenous”, it is respectfully noted that in view of Applicant’s citation to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, taken in view of the spec [0082], the rejection under 112(b) has been reconsidered and withdrawn as an effort to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution. However, it is also noted that the Merriam-Webster definition relied upon by Applicant in the Remarks is that of homogeneous, and not “homogenous” as claimed and as referenced/recited in the Remarks, wherein the Examiner articulated the distinction between, and also similarities of, said terms in the grounds of rejection of claim 4 in the previous 112(b) rejection as contributing to the ambiguity. Nevertheless, given the aforecited section(s) of the spec and the definition for homogeneous relied upon by Applicant, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending claim 4 and the specification to recite “homogeneous” in place of “homogenous”, as indicated above in the objections to claim 4 and the specification.
Applicant’s remaining arguments presented on pp. 8-13 of the Remarks have been fully considered but are moot, as the arguments are directed to the rejections under 102(a)(1) and 103 previously set forth in the NFOA which have been overcome by the amendments to the claims and withdrawn as a result. See ¶7-8 above.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes prior art which IS not relied upon herein, but IS considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art IS purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
WO 2017/049021 to Banerjie et al. (copy provided herewith) – discloses composite materials comprising a cellulosic fiber component and bio-polymer component, suitable for molding into containers [Abstract; 0029, 0041-0050, 0056, 0058-0062, 0068-0069, 0076-0079]
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights