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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues:
Lai is non-Analogous Art
Applicants respectfully submit that Lai is non-analogous art and therefore cannot properly be applied in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103. Under the controlling two-part test outlined in MPEP 2141.01(a) prior art is analogous only if: It is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed; or It is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor faced, meaning it logically would have commended itself to a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to solve that problem. Lai satisfies neither requirement.
Not from the Same Field of Endeavor
The field of the present application concerns:
- Packaging systems for abrasive articles,
- Moisture control to preserve phenolic-based bonded abrasive wheels,
- Packaging materials and structures suitable for industrial tools,
- Rechargeable moisture-control systems compatible with rigid industrial packaging.
By contrast:
- Lai is directed to containers for biological test strips (e.g., blood glucose test strips).
- Lai is concerned with small-scale, hand-held consumer diagnostic supplies.
- Structural features of Lai (inner container body, peeping structures, moisture-indicating
pellets used for single-use disposable biological supplies) bear no relationship to
industrial abrasive products or their packaging environments.
These two fields-industrial abrasive-tool packaging versus consumer diagnostic-strip storage-have different end uses, different functional constraints, different relevant materials, and different performance concerns.
No person of ordinary skill in the abrasive-article packaging field would consider the biological-test-strip containers of Lai to be within the same field.
Not Reasonably Pertinent to the Problem Solved
The problem addressed by the present application is:
- Preventing performance degradation of abrasive articles, particularly bonded wheels,
caused by long-term moisture exposure,
- Achieving this using rigid, sustainable, and recyclable industrial packaging,
- Incorporating a rechargeable moisture control feature, i.e., a unit engineered to be
oven-regenerated or otherwise restored to capacity,
- Providing moisture-resistant seals capable of protecting heavy industrial articles
through multi-stage distribution, transport, and workshop usage.
Lai does not address any of these problems.
Zhao is not Analogous Art
Applicants respectfully submit that Zhao is non-analogous art and therefore cannot properly be applied in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Zhao satisfies neither prong of the Analogous Art test laid out in MPEP 2141.01(a).
Zhao Is Not from the Same Field of Endeavor
The present application is directed to:
- Packaging systems for abrasive articles, particularly bonded abrasive wheels;
- Moisture-management systems in industrial packaging environments;
- Packaging suitable for rigid, recyclable, industrial-grade containers;
- Rechargeable moisture-control units intended for repeated use;
- Moisture protection during industrial storage, distribution, and workshop operation.
By contrast:
- Zhao, like Lai, is directed to storage containers for biological test strips used in
consumer diagnostic applications.
- The purpose, construction, and operational environment of Zhao's container are
fundamentally different from those of abrasive-article packaging.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for abrasive articles” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicant's argument that Lai is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lai is within the field of endeavor of moisture control devices, as well as Zhao.
Examiner further notes that Lai also teaches [0006] It is another object of the present invention to provide the dry discoloration elements to the desiccant container for maintaining internal dryness and for indicating the internal dryness by absorbing moisture to discolor.
Applicant Argues:
Specifically:
- Lai's moisture-indicating pellets are single-use discoloration elements, intended
merely to signal dampness of biological strips and are not described as rechargeable or
regenerable.
- Lai does not address long-term storage stability of industrial polymeric composites
such as phenolic-bonded abrasive wheels.
- Lai does not address moisture-barrier design for rigid industrial packaging or industrial
supply chain conditions.
-Lai does not discuss MVTR requirements, rigid mechanical integrity, or moisture levels
that affect abrasive-tool performance.
- Lai's "peeping structure" design solves a consumer-facing visibility problem,
irrelevant to industrial packaging.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill confronting the technical problem of designing a moisture-protective, industrial-strength packaging system for abrasive wheels would not logically look to Lai for guidance.
As recognized in the MPEP and the guide:
"A reference is reasonably pertinent only if it logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering the inventor's problem."
Lai's consumer diagnostic strip container would not logically commend itself to an engineer tasked with protecting the shelf life and mechanical integrity of resin-bonded abrasive wheels.
For these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is improper. Reconsideration is respectfully requested.
- Zhao addresses contamination/dampness of medical consumables, not the structural
or performance degradation of heavy industrial abrasive tools.
The two fields differ in, among other features:
- Materials used
- Performance requirements
- Storage environments
- Mechanical stresses
- Failure modes
- Scale and rigidity of the container
- Industry standards and use-case environments
No person of ordinary skill in the field of abrasive-article packaging would consider consumer biological-strip containers to be within the same technological field.
Zhao Is Not Reasonably Pertinent to the Problem Addressed
The problem addressed in the present application is:
- Preventing moisture-related degradation in abrasive wheels and similar industrial
abrasive products;
- Providing rechargeable moisture-control systems compatible with rigid packaging;
- Ensuring moisture stability across extended industrial storage and distribution;
- Providing seals capable of reducing moisture ingress in large, rigid industrial
containers.
Zhao does not address any of these problems.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant Argues:
Zhao's moisture-control elements are non-rechargeable discoloration elements used only to signal moisture presence for one-time consumer diagnostic supplies.
Zhao does not teach regeneration, oven drying, or reversible adsorption behavior required for a "rechargeable moisture control feature" as understood in the present application.
Zhao does not describe:
- Industrial packaging
- Rigid, large-scale moisture-barrier systems
- MVTR performance
- High-mass abrasive wheels - Phenolic-resin degradation
- Long-term environmental exposure during industrial shipping or storage
Zhao solves a user-visibility and contamination-awareness problem, not a moisture-barrier longevity and performance-preservation problem.
Thus, Zhao would not logically commend itself to a packaging engineer confronted with moisture-management for abrasive wheels. Zhao solves a fundamentally different problem in a different industry using different materials and constraints.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant Argues:
Less than All Elements
Even if Lai and Zhao were analogous, they do not teach or suggest all elements of claim 1
Assuming arguendo that Lai and Zhao are considered analogous art, the rejection under §103 remains improper because the combination fails to teach or suggest several key limitations of claim 1. The examiner has not shown-nor do the references disclose-the required features of a packaging system for abrasive articles, nor the claimed rechargeable moisture control feature, nor the claimed sealing feature, as explained below.
2. The references do not teach or suggest a "rechargeable moisture control feature"
Claim 1 explicitly requires:
- a rechargeable moisture control feature
- that removes moisture from the internal atmosphere.
The present application's specification defines "rechargeable" through:
- drying the desiccant in an oven, - restoring adsorption capacity, or
- regenerating the moisture-control function for repeated use.
Neither reference discloses or suggests rechargeability:
- Lai discloses dry discoloration elements, such as water glass, used solely for visual indication of moisture. These elements:
- are consumable,
- are never described as being regenerated,
- do not contemplate oven-drying or restoration, and
- are intended for disposable test-strip packaging.
- Zhao (paragraph [0022]) merely lists desiccant types and moisture-indicating materials. Zhao likewise provides no disclosure of regeneration, reversible adsorption behavior, recharge cycles, drying, or any mechanism enabling reuse.
Nothing in either reference suggests modifying the disclosed moisture indicators into regenerable units.
Thus, neither Lai nor Zhao teaches or suggests the required rechargeable moisture-control feature.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that abrasive articles are a part of the preamble, and do not afford a limitation. Examiner notes that Lai teaches a lid which seals a container, thus, a sealing feature.
Examiner notes that Zhao teaches (desiccant/anhydrous calcium sulfate/anhydrous copper sulfate – “will absorb and bind with water” and “can be regenerated by simple heating and reused many times”. Lai teaches a type of desiccant (alkali- silicate material). Examiner finds that Zhao teaches, as broadly interpreted in view of one of ordinary skill in the art, a rechargeable moisture control feature.
Applicant has provided no structure or description within the claims that would teach away from the prior art as cited.
Applicant Argues:
3. The references do not teach a "sealing feature" as claimed
Claim 1 requires:
-"a sealing feature between the container portion and the lid portion."
The references do not disclose such a sealing feature:
Lai describes only that the cover "engages" the container (e.g., para. [0026]). But does not disclose or suggest a sealing feature. E.g., for example, none of a gasket, seal, film, adhesive, or compressible moisture-blocking element is disclosed. Applicant respectfully submits that the closure is for containment, not moisture control.
Examiner’s Response:
Claim 1 requires “a sealing feature between the container portion and the lid portion” with no specifics as to what a sealing feature is.
Lai teaches a lid which seals a container when the lid is applied, thus a sealing feature is present, whether it is the inner walls of the lid or the combination of the inner walls and the outer walls of the container, otherwise the lid would not seal. Applicant has provided no structure within the claim as to what a feature is, thus, as broadly interpreted, Lai discloses a sealing feature that is or occurs between a container portion and a lid portion.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that none of a gasket, seal, film, adhesive, or compressible moisture-blocking element is claimed in claim 1. Where claimed in claim 16, Examiner notes that neither Lai or Zhao are used to teach such. Kahler is used to teach a sealing feature is a film.
Applicant Argues:
Claim(s) 23, 26, and 29 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latournerie et al. (US 2020 0122914 A]-hereinafter Latournerie) in view of Lai.
Applicant respectfully reiterates the arguments above with respect to Lai being a nonanalogous reference. Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination is improper for that reason.
No Motivation to Combine
As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submits that there is no proper motivation to combine Latournerie with Lai.
Applicants respectfully submit that even if Latournerie and Lai were assumed analogous, the Office has not articulated any reason-with a rational underpinning-to combine the references, as required by KSR v. Teleflex and In re Kahn.
The combination proposed by the Examiner is unsupported, technically incompatible, and contrary to the teachings of the references.
Because the rejection lacks a proper motivation to combine, the § 103 rejection cannot stand.
1. The References Solve Fundamentally Different Problems in Unrelated Contexts
- Latournerie is concerned with:
" reducing moisture uptake of bonded abrasive wheels,
" long-term performance retention under industrial humidity, " desiccant capacity and barrier packaging performance, and
. harsh, high-humidity, long-duration industrial environments.
- Lai addresses:
" providing user-visible moisture-indicator beads in containers for biological test strips,
" helping consumers determine if medical strips are damp,
" consumer-level, small-scale packaging,
" no industrial performance consequences, and
. not moisture-protective packaging, but rather a visual dampness warning.
The problems, users, operating environments, and design constraints are completely different.
Nothing in Latournerie suggests a need for visual humidity indicators. Nothing in Lai suggests moisture-barrier packaging or industrial desiccant performance.
Absent a shared problem, In re Kahn prohibits combining the references without a reasoned explanation.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is arguing features which are not a part of claim 23.
Both Latournerie and Lai are concerned with the degradation of products located within a housing. Both Latournerie and Lai disclose desiccant materials as solutions to degradation issues. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Latournerie with that of Lai to allow a user to determine the status (level of degradation) of products within a container.
Applicant Argues:
2. The Office Action's Proposed Substitution Adds Features That Contradict Latournerie's
Core Teaching
Latournerie emphasizes barrier performance:
- high moisture-barrier materials (e.g., HDPE, metalized PET),
- low-WVTR structures,
- sealed buckets or pouches.
In contrast:
- Lai's "peeping structures" introduce transparent regions with higher moisture permeability than metalized barrier films.
- Adding transparent windows or visible indicator compartments would degrade the moisture protection that Latournerie's packaging is expressly designed to achieve.
Thus, adopting Lai's transparent indicator structures would undermine the core purpose of Latournerie.
Under MPEP §2143.01(V) and cases like In re Ratti, such a modification "would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose," and thereby cannot support obviousness.
3. Latournerie Relies on Loose Desiccant; Lai's Loose Indicator Pellets Cannot Function in
That Context
The Office Action appears to assume that Lai's loose color-change pellets can simply be "combined" with Latournerie's desiccant.
However:
- Latournerie's desiccant is physically loose (powders, granules) and fills the bottom of
a bucket or pouch.
- Lai's indicator pellets are designed to sit in an isolated, visible compartment so color
changes are observable.
- In an abrasive-article package with dozens of wheels stacked vertically, Lai's pellets
would be:
- physically hidden,
- crushed, displaced, or trapped under the wheels,
- not visible due to opaque polypropylene or barrier films, and
- unable to perform their intended function.
Applicant respectfully submits that no skilled artisan would place Lai's indicator pellets in a location where they cannot be seen.
The references are therefore structurally incompatible.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant Argues:
4. Latournerie Uses No Indicator, and Nothing Suggests Adding One
Latournerie relies entirely on:
- desiccant quantity,
- desiccant composition, - high-barrier packaging,
- WVTR values, and
- aging studies showing moisture uptake reduction.
Nowhere does Latournerie propose: - that a moisture indicator is needed,
- that users should visually assess moisture state, - that desiccant saturation should be signaled, or
- that transparency is desirable.
Indeed, industrial abrasive wheels do not require consumer-facing visual indicators; they require performance-preserving barrier packaging.
Thus, there is no suggestion in Latournerie to import Lai's consumer-oriented, visibility-dependent indicator structures.
5. Lai Provides No Teaching or Suggestion Relevant to Industrial Abrasive-Article Packaging
Lai never mentions:
- abrasive articles,
- industrial packaging,
- rigid buckets,
- desiccant loading or capacity,
- low-WVTR materials,
- multilayer barrier films, or
- moisture-protective shipping containers.
Lai's solution is directed to diagnostic test strips and resolving consumer uncertainty about dampness.
A skilled artisan designing industrial abrasive-article packaging would have no reason to consider consumer-grade moisture-indicator structures for medical strips.
6. The Office Action Provides Only a Conclusory Statement, Not a Reasoned Rationale
Per KSR and In re Kahn, "conclusory statements" or "common sense" assertions are insufficient.
The Office Action must identify:
- why a skilled artisan would have selected Lai's color-change indicators,
- why they would incorporate them into a sealed industrial abrasive-article package, and
- why the artisan would modify a barrier-focused design with features that contradict its goals.
The Office Action lacks any such explanation.
For at least these reasons, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response:In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is arguing features which are not a part of claim 23.
Applicant Argues:
Less than All Elements
However, assuming arguendo that Lai is an analogous reference, and that there is a proper motivation to combine, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references still fail to teach or suggest the limitations of independent claim 23.
1. The Combination of Latournerie and Lai Does Not Teach or Suggest
"a housing ... wherein the housing has a transparent portion"
Applicants respectfully submit that the rejection of claim 23 is improper because the cited art fails to teach or suggest the claimed "transparent portion" of the abrasive-article housing.
In particular, Latournerie does not disclose any transparent portion in its abrasive-article packages, and Lai's transparent structures serve a fundamentally different purpose and are not directed to the abrasive-article housing required by the claim.
Accordingly, the combination does not disclose each and every element of claim 23, and a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
Latournerie Does Not Teach or Suggest Any Transparent Portion
Latournerie describes packaging for abrasive articles such as bonded abrasive wheels, including:
- rigid polypropylene buckets (FIG. 1),
- multilayer barrier films (FIG. 4),
- high-barrier polymer/foil laminates (FIG. 5-6), and
- metalized PET films.
Across these embodiments, the packaging materials are expressly described as:
- polymers such as polypropylene, polyethylene, HDPE,
- metal foils such as aluminum foil,
- metalized films (e.g., metallized PET), or
- multilayer barrier structures comprising support and barrier layers.
These materials are used for their low water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) properties.
Nothing in Latournerie discloses:
- any transparent portion,
- any viewing window,
- any translucent material, or
- any structure that permits internal visibility.
To the contrary, Latournerie emphasizes barrier performance, which is typically inconsistent with transparency (e.g., metallized PET, aluminum foil, laminated barrier films). The reference is silent on transparency and does not contemplate a see-through region in any housing for abrasive articles.
Thus, Latournerie cannot supply the claimed transparency requirement.
Lai's Transparent "Peeping Structures" Do Not Teach a Transparent Portion of an
Abrasive-Article Housing
The Office Action relies on Lai to supply the "transparent portion." However, Lai's transparent elements are directed to consumer test-strip containers, not abrasive-article housing.
More importantly, Lai's transparent structures are:
- designed specifically for viewing discoloration pellets,
- positioned relative to an inner container body containing test strips,
- embedded in moisture-indicating portions for observing indicator pellets, and
- configured for a completely different functional purpose.
These transparent features are used only to observe color change in passive moisture-indicator beads.
Nothing in Lai teaches or suggests adding a transparent region to a rigid abrasive-article housing for observing abrasive tools or desiccant performance.
Lai contains no teaching that a transparent portion is desirable or useful for:
- abrasive wheels,
- industrial packaging,
- rigid bucket-type housings, or
- barrier-seal packages.
Lai therefore does not cure the deficiencies of Latournerie.
Examiner’s Response:In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner notes that claim 23 recites “wherein the housing has a transparent portion”. Lai teaches a transparent portion.
Examiner notes that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant Argues:
There is No Articulated Reason to Combine Lai's Transparent Indicator Window with Latournerie's Abrasive-Article Packaging
Even if Lai is considered analogous, there is no teaching, no suggestion, and no articulated reasoning why a skilled person designing moisture-barrier industrial packaging for abrasive wheels would add a transparent window-a feature that would decrease barrier performance, contradicting the primary objective of Latournerie.
Packaging engineers typically select materials for low WVTR, and transparent materials such as clear PP, PET, or PC generally exhibit higher WVTR than the opaque and metallized materials emphasized in Latournerie. A transparent region would thus degrade the critical performance characteristic Latournerie seeks to achieve.
Under MPEP §2143 and KSR, obviousness requires a reason with a rational underpinning; none is present here.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves as both references are concerned with degradation of product, and Lai presents a transparent portion as part of a solution of such.
Applicant Argues:
1. Neither Latournerie nor Lai Teaches or Suggests "a moisture control feature ... removably coupled to an interior of the housing"
Applicants respectfully submit that the §103 rejection of claim 23 is improper because neither Latournerie nor Lai discloses, teaches, or suggests a moisture-control feature that is removably coupled to an interior of an abrasive-article housing, as expressly required by the claim.
The Office Action has not identified, and cannot identify, any structure in the cited references that satisfies this element.
Because at least this limitation is missing, no prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Latournerie Discloses Only Loose Desiccant, Not a Removably Coupled Component
Latournerie teaches placing a desiccant 110 inside an abrasive-article package. However:
- The desiccant is simply placed within the enclosed volume (see FIG. 1, FIG. 5).
- The desiccant is not attached to any surface.
- The desiccant is not coupled, mechanically or otherwise, to the interior of the package.
- No removable attachment mechanism is disclosed (e.g., clips, seats, brackets, posts, recess couplings, threaded cartridges, or detents).
- Latournerie repeatedly illustrates the desiccant as a loose aggregate (clay, molecular sieves, bentonite powders), freely distributed within the packaging volume.
Independent Claim 23, in contrast, expressly requires: "a moisture control feature ... removably coupled to an interior of the housing."
A loose pile of desiccant sitting on the bottom of a bucket or bag cannot satisfy "removably coupled." Because (1) There is no coupling, and (2) There is no removable structure. Further, no part of Latournerie suggests altering the desiccant into a device, module, or container that mechanically interfaces with the housing.
Thus, Latournerie alone cannot supply this limitation.
Lai Discloses Loose Indicator Pellets, Not a Removably Coupled Feature
Lai's "dry discoloration elements 5" behave in essentially the same way as Latournerie's desiccant-they are loose pellets positioned between an inner and outer container.
Specifically:
- They are not mounted to any wall.
- They are not removably attached to any interior surface.
- They are simply placed in a moisture-indicating region.
- Lai uses no coupling structures (supports, tabs, cartridges, compartments, etc.).
- Lai does not contemplate a "feature" designed for removal, replacement, or recharging.
Thus, Lai also fails to satisfy the "removably coupled" requirement.
A loose desiccant cannot be removed as a "unit," cannot be reinserted as a "unit," and is not "coupled" to anything.
Given that both references solve their problems with loose pellets or powders, there is no reason to modify them to add the claimed removable-coupling structure, especially in view of the rigid industrial packaging context of claim 23.
Under MPEP §2143.01, when a proposed modification would require redesign or reengineering of the reference's basic structure, it is not proper to assume that a skilled artisan would have made such modification.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies:
- The desiccant is not attached to any surface.
- The desiccant is not coupled, mechanically or otherwise, to the interior of the package.
- No removable attachment mechanism is disclosed (e.g., clips, seats, brackets, posts, recess couplings, threaded cartridges, or detents).
- They are not mounted to any wall.
- They are not removably attached to any interior surface.
- They are simply placed in a moisture-indicating region.
- Lai uses no coupling structures (supports, tabs, cartridges, compartments, etc.).
- Lai does not contemplate a "feature" designed for removal, replacement, or recharging.
- structurally integrated with the container interior (by coupling),
- but also designed for removability (e.g., for recharging or replacement), and
- functionally positioned within the housing.
Latournerie and Lai both use dispersed particulate material with no fixed location, no container integration, and no removable mount.
are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant appears to argue specific details of what the term coupled means that are not recited in the claims.
Examiner further notes, that at minimum, Lai teaches a “physical coupling/attachment” (which is not specifically claimed by claim 23) in Fig. 8. In Fig. 8 the elements (5) are part of a containment portion (611) which is coupled to the housing (coupled to the lid, which is a part of the housing, and furthermore, coupled to lid which is then coupled to the main body portion of housing which would represent another form of coupling, as well as removably coupled).
Examiner further notes that additionally, Figs. 2-6 all suggest/show a device capable of removing the materials (5) therefrom, thus it would be obvious that Fig. 8 would likewise be capable of such.
Applicant Argues:
3. Neither Latournerie nor Lai Teaches or Suggests "a moisture indication that indicates that the moisture control feature has reached a moisture collection capacity"
Applicants respectfully submit that the §103 rejection of claim 23 is improper because neither Latournerie nor Lai discloses, teaches, or suggests a moisture indicator that signals when the desiccant has reached its moisture collection capacity. The references do not disclose an indicator of desiccant saturation, nor do they disclose any capacity-based threshold behavior.
Because at least this claim element is entirely missing, the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Latournerie Discloses No Moisture Indicator of Any Kind
Latournerie discloses
- abrasive-article packaging,
- the inclusion of desiccants (e.g., calcium-ion-modified clays, molecular sieves, silica gels), and
- moisture-barrier materials.
BUT Latournerie never discloses any capacity-based indication of desiccant saturation
Latournerie provides only desiccant materials and high-barrier packaging systems. There is no teaching of measuring or indicating the desiccant's remaining capacity.
Thus, Latournerie does not satisfy this claim element and does not provide any relevant teaching for a moisture indicator.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant Argues:
Lai's Discoloration Elements Do Not Indicate Desiccant Capacity
The Office Action appears to rely on Lai to supply the "moisture indication" element. However, Lai's indicator does not meet the claim limitation.
Lai's "dry discoloration elements" (water-glass pellets, silica-gel indicator beads, etc.):
- change color when they themselves absorb moisture,
- serve as presence-of-moisture detectors,
- are used to monitor the ambient humidity inside a test-strip container,
- but are not desiccants that remove moisture in a capacity-dependent manner.
Critically, Applicant respectfully submits that:
- Lai's pellets do not indicate that a desiccant has reached its moisture-collection capacity.
- They do not track total moisture uptake versus saturation threshold.
- They do not signal exhaustion of a moisture-control feature.
- They do not detect the state of any other moisture-control material.
Per the claim, the indicator must reflect the capacity state of the moisture control feature (a desiccant).
Lai's indicator reflects instantaneous humidity, not desiccant saturation.
Thus, Lai does not cure the deficiency of Latournerie.
Accordingly, the §103 rejection of claim 23 is unsupported because the cited art fails to teach or suggest the noted claim limitation.
For these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 23 is allowable over the cited references. As claims 26 and 29 depend from independent claim 23, Applicant respectfully submits that these claims are also allowable based on said dependence.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is arguing features which are not a part of claim 23.
Lai teaches moisture indicating (coloring) that indicates that the moisture control feature (5) has reached a moisture collection capacity (see paragraphs [0010, 0025, 0029, and 0047]).
For the reasons stated above, the claim stand rejected as previously presented.
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, 2, 7-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 2019/0031422 A1 – hereinafter Lai) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2006/0196761 A1 – hereinafter Zhao).
Re Claim 1:Lai discloses a packaging system for abrasive articles, the packaging system comprising: a container portion (1) sized to receive the abrasive articles; a lid portion (2) that removably couples to the container portion (1); a sealing feature between the container portion (1) and the lid portion (2) (see paragraph [0026]); a rechargeable moisture control feature (5), housed within the packaging system, and wherein the rechargeable moisture control feature (5) removes moisture from an atmosphere within the packaging system; and a moisture indicator (coloring) that indicates whether moisture is present within the container portion (see paragraphs [0010, 0025, 0029, and 0047]) (see Figs. 1-9), but where if fails to specifically teach a rechargeable moisture control feature.
Zhao teaches a rechargeable moisture control feature (see paragraph [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lai with that of Zhao, to allow for reusing of a moisture control feature many times.
Further Re Claim 2:
Lai discloses wherein the container portion (1) or the lid portion (2) have a transparent area such that the moisture indicator is visible (see Abstract, see paragraphs [0008 and 0009]).
Further Re Claims 7 and 8:
Lai discloses wherein the rechargeable moisture feature (5) removes moisture through adsorption (see Abstract, see paragraph [0028]).
Further Re Claims 9 and 11:
Lai discloses wherein the moisture indicator (coloring) indicates whether moisture is present above a threshold concentration (see paragraph [0025]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Zhao and further in view of Gay. R. Novak (US 2012/0256750 A – hereinafter Novak).
Re Claim 12:
Lai in view of Zhao discloses the device of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the moisture indicator is a conductivity indication, indicating that moisture is present at a concentration sufficient for the moisture control feature to conduct electricity.
Novak further in view teaches wherein a moisture indicator (electrical signal) is a conductivity indication, indicating that moisture is present at a concentration sufficient for a moisture control feature (300-C) to conduct electricity (see paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lai in view of Zhao, with that of Novak, to allow for an alternative indicating means for indicating a presence of moisture, which would allow for an increased range or indicating means, thus, assuring a user is aware of the moisture change.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Zhao and further in view of William F. Kahler (US 4,911,344 – hereinafter Kahler).
Re Claims 16 and 18:
Lai in view of Zhao discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the sealing feature is a film or an adhesive.
Kahler further in view teaches wherein a sealing feature is a film or an adhesive (see col. 2 lines 44-68). Re Claim 18: Kahler further in view teaches wherein the sealing feature is integral to the container portion or the lid portion and comprises a closure mechanism (32, 56) (see col. 2 lines 44-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lai in view of Zhao, with that of Kahler, to form a sealed unitary construction as known within the art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Zhao and further in view of Hans O. Ribi (US 2012/0266806 A1 – hereinafter Ribi).
Re Claims 20:
Lai in view of Zhao discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach a shelf life indicator.
Ribi further in view teaches a shelf life indicator (see Abstract, see paragraph [0134]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lai in view of Zhao, with that of Ribi, to assure that a supply chain of products meets established standards.
Claim(s) 23, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latournerie et al. (US 2020/0122914 A1 – hereinafter Latournerie) in view of Lai.
Re Claims 23 and 29:
Latournerie discloses a method of reducing moisture in an abrasive article during transportation or storage, the method comprising: providing a housing (100) with a shape that receives an abrasive article (104), providing a moisture control feature (110), within the packaging housing (100), wherein the moisture control feature (110) is removably coupled to an interior of the housing (100); providing a seal that reduces moisture transmission into the housing (100) (see paragraphs [0029 and 0030]) (see Figs. 1-10B), but fails to teach wherein the housing has a transparent portion; and providing a moisture indication that indicates that the moisture control feature has reached a moisture collection capacity.
Lai teaches wherein a housing (10) has a transparent portion (see Abstract, see paragraphs [0008 and 0009]); wherein a moisture control feature (5) is removably coupled to an interior of the housing (10) (see Fig. 8) (see Figs. 3-9); providing a seal that reduces moisture transmission into the housing (see paragraph [0026]); and providing a moisture indication (coloring) that indicates that the moisture control feature (5) has reached a moisture collection capacity (see paragraphs [0010, 0025, 0029, and 0047]) (see Figs. 1-9). Re Claim 29: Lai teaches wherein a lid portion (2) and a container portion (1) are bio-based, recyclable, reusable or compostable (see Figs. 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Latournerie with that of Lai, to allow for indicating when moisture is present in a product, thus, allowing a user to determine the status of contents.
Further Re Claim 26:
Latournerie discloses wherein the housing (100) comprises a lid portion (106) and a container portion (102) (see Fig. 1).
Further Re Claim 29:
Latournerie discloses wherein the lid portion (106) and the container portion (102) are bio-based, recyclable, reusable or compostable (see Figs. 1-10B).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latournerie in view of Lai and further in view of Zhao.
Re Claim 31:
Latournerie in view of Lai discloses the device of claim 23, but where if fails to specifically teach wherein the moisture control feature is rechargeable.
Zhao further in view teaches wherein a moisture control feature is rechargeable (see paragraph [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Latournerie in view of Lai with that of Zhao, to allow for reusing of a moisture control feature many times.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latournerie in view of Lai and further in view of Kahler.
Re Claim 34:
Latournerie in view of Lai discloses the device of claim 23, but fails to teach wherein the seal is a film seal, an adhesive seal, a flange, or a compressible component.
Kahler further in view teaches wherein a seal is a film seal, an adhesive seal, a flange, or a compressible component (see col. 2 lines 44-68).Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Latournerie in view of Lai, with that of Kahler, to form a sealed unitary construction as known within the art.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latournerie in view of Lai and further in view of Lewison, JR. et al. (US 20160304247 A1 – hereinafter Lewison).
Re Claim 35:
Latournerie in view of Lai discloses the device of claim 23, but fails to teach flushing the housing with argon or nitrogen gas.
Lewison further in view teaches flushing a housing with argon or nitrogen gas (see paragraph [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Latournerie in view of Lai, with that of Lewison to allow for protecting the contents of a receptacle.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latournerie in view of Lai and further in view of Zhao.
Re Claim 42:
Latournerie discloses a packaged abrasive article comprising: a bonded abrasive wheel (104) comprising a phenolic resin bond (see paragraph [0044]); a container portion (102) containing the bonded abrasive wheel (104); a lid portion (106) that removably couples to the container portion (102); a sealing feature (friction fit, press fit, screw top, peel tab) between the container portion (102) and the lid portion (106) (see paragraph [0029]); and a moisture control feature (110), but fails to teach a rechargeable moisture control feature, housed within the packaging system, and wherein the rechargeable moisture control feature removes moisture from an atmosphere within the packaging system; and a moisture indicator that indicates whether moisture is present within the container portion.
Lai teaches a sealing feature between the container portion (1) and the lid portion (2) (see paragraph [0026]); a rechargeable moisture control feature (5), housed within the packaging system, and wherein the rechargeable moisture control feature (5) removes moisture from an atmosphere within the packaging system; and a moisture indicator (coloring) that indicates whether moisture is present within the container portion (see paragraphs [0010, 0025, 0029, and 0047]) (see Figs. 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Latournerie with that of Lai, to allow for indicating when moisture is present in a product, thus, allowing a user to determine the status of contents.
Zhao teaches a rechargeable moisture control feature (see paragraph [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Latournerie with that of Lai and Zhao, to allow for reusing of a moisture control feature many times.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Damon Keith DeBusk (US 2017/0074531 A1) – teaches drying desiccants (paragraph [0004]).
-Thomas W. Astle – teaches desiccants recharged to a dry condition (col. 15 lines 25-46).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651