DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenbaum et al. (US 2005/0098928) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2019/0270289).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 17 and 19-20, Rosenbaum discloses cellulose based multilayer three dimensional food packaging (0015, 0023, 0026, 0028, 0030, claim 31) comprising a PLA film, i.e. biodegradable plastic film, (0016, 0018) and a porous moulding of cellulose material as a support (0026, 0031).
Rosenbaum discloses interlayer (0032) but does not disclose barrier paper layer.
Okamoto discloses paper barrier material having gas barrier layer and vapor barrier layer on paper base material to obtain excellent gas barrier and water vapor barrier properties (0014, 0016) wherein the paper has a basis weight of 20 to 500 g/m2 (0034), the vapor barrier layer has a basis weight of 3 to 30 g/m2 (0043) and the gas barrier layer has a basis weight of 0.2 to 20 g/m2 (0049) and therefore the total basis weight of the paper barrier material is from 23.2 g/m2 (20+3+0.2) to 550 g/m2 (500+30+20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier paper layer of Okamoto in the interlayer of Rosenbaum to obtain excellent gas barrier and water vapor barrier properties. Therefore, the multilayer of Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto meets the claimed limitation of inside to the outside a plastic layer, a barrier paper layer and moulded cellulose layer (0021-0023). Given that the multilayer of Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the same film structure as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the multilayer of Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto would intrinsically possess the same properties as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 1, wherein the plastic layer is PLA, i.e. biodegradable, and has a thickness of 10 to 100 microns (0042).
Regarding claim 4, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 1, wherein the barrier paper layer is thin organic layer paper (0037, 0044).
Regarding claim 5, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 1, wherein the molded cellulose layer is made with paper or cardboard, i.e. recycle paper pulp, (0023, 0031) and has a suitable thickness (0031).
Regarding claim 6, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 1, wherein Rosenbaum does not specifically disclose the moulded cellulose layer is prepared by thermoforming.
Although Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto does not disclose thermoforming, it is noted that “[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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto meets the requirements of the claimed multilayer three dimensional food shape, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto clearly meets the requirements of the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 1 wherein Rosenbaum does not specifically disclose skin vacuum lamination process.
Regarding claim 9, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 1 wherein Rosenbaum discloses the food packaging is biodegradable (0001, 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 10, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 1 wherein Rosenbaum discloses the packaging is used in foods, i.e. primary packaging, (claim 31).
Regarding claims 11-12, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 1 wherein Rosenbaum discloses the multilayer food packaging is food tray (claim 27, 31).
Regarding claim 16, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 3, wherein the plastic layer has a thickness of 10 to 100 microns (0042).
Regarding claim 18, Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the multilayer of claim 5, wherein Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto does not specifically disclose a basis weight of moulded cellulose layer. However, Rosenbaum discloses any suitable thickness for moulded cellulose layer. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would use any appropriate basis weight, including that presently claim, to achieve a desired thickness to meet end users requirement.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenbaum et al. (US 2005/0098928) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2019/0270289) in view of Aulin et al. (US 2017/0342661).
Regarding claim 5, Rosenbaum discloses cellulose based multilayer three dimensional food packaging (0015, 0023, 0026, 0028, 0030, claim 31) comprising a PLA film, i.e. biodegradable plastic film, (0016, 0018) and a porous moulding of cellulose material as a support (0026, 0031).
Rosenbaum discloses interlayer (0032) but does not disclose barrier paper layer.
Okamoto discloses paper barrier material having gas barrier layer and vapor barrier layer on paper base material to obtain excellent gas barrier and water vapor barrier properties (0014, 0016) wherein the paper has a basis weight of 20 to 500 g/m2 (0034), the vapor barrier layer has a basis weight of 3 to 30 g/m2 (0043) and the gas barrier layer has a basis weight of 0.2 to 20 g/m2 (0049) and therefore the total basis weight of the paper barrier material is from 23.2 g/m2 (20+3+0.2) to 550 g/m2 (500+30+20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier paper layer of Okamoto in the interlayer of Rosenbaum to obtain excellent gas barrier and water vapor barrier properties.
Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto discloses the molded cellulose layer is made with paper or cardboard (0023, 0031) but is silent with respect to mechanical pulp.
Aulin discloses packaging material (0002) comprising a cardboard comprising mechanical pulp (0038) to obtain suitable cardboard for packaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mechanical pulp of Aulin in the cardboard of Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto to obtain suitable cardboard for packaging.
Given that the multilayer of Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto and Aulin discloses the same film structure as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the multilayer of Rosenbaum in view of Okamoto and Aulin would intrinsically possess the same properties as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that if the interlayer of Rosenbaum’s film was modified by Okamoto, Rosenbaum’s film would not be able to be heated, stretched and molded to create the environmentally friendly packaging. However, it is noted that Rosenbaum does not only disclose PLA based film but also discloses a porous moulding of cellulose material as a support as explained above. Further, there is no evidence, i.e. data, to support applicant’s position.
Applicant argues that if a proposed modification or combination of prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima obvious. However, it is noted that there would be no change in the principle of operation given that Rosenbaum already discloses cellulose based material layer.
Applicant argues that there is no reason or suggestion to modify the packing of Rosenbaum to position the plastic layer on an innermost surface of the packaging, the moulded cellulose layer on an outermost surface of the packaging the barrier layer of Okamoto therebetween. Paragraphs 0021-0023 and figures 1 and 2 of Rosenbaum clearly satisfy the claimed conditions of the plastic layer on an innermost surface of the packaging and the moulded cellulose layer on an outermost surface of the packaging. Further, Okamoto discloses paper barrier material having gas barrier layer and vapor barrier layer on paper base material to obtain excellent gas barrier and water vapor barrier properties, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier paper layer of Okamoto in the interlayer of Rosenbaum to obtain excellent gas barrier and water vapor barrier properties.
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 SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights