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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 25 February 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because reference characters 302a and 304a are not directed to the contacting surfaces as disclosed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (US 20190299557) further in view of Bowen (US 20220324625) and Kontz (US 4645480).
Claim 1: Skinner discloses a box (container) comprising: sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions) configured to be joined together without the use of adhesive to form the container [as Skinner discloses that clips or a strap can be used, P. 0050, 0055]; at least one interface between the sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions) [see fig. 6], wherein each side 14 and end 15 (portion) consists entirely of expandable polystyrene based molded bead foam, wherein the box (container) is in the form of a shipper free of labels, tape, and adhesive, that there are many other ways of holding the box (container) assembled, and that if boxes (containers) do not need to be reused they can be adhesively secured together prior to use (see P. 0033, 0055, and fig. 4 & 6).
Skinner does not disclose wherein the at least one interface is heat-sealed, wherein the at least one heat-sealed interface comprises a tamper-evident seal, wherein a strength of adhesion between the at least two portions is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion between the at least two portions, wherein the container consists entirely of expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam, or wherein the box (container) is capable of being recycled or composted without removal of labels or additional packaging.
Bowen teaches polylactic acid foam material (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) used to produce expanded foam pieces (see P. 0145-0148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the box (container) out of polylactic acid foam material (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) instead of polystyrene, as taught by Bowen, in order to reduce waste due to its composability and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Kontz teaches fabricating cylindrical sleeves from rectangular blanks of an expanded polymeric material, wherein a seam sealing device seals overlapping leading and trailing edges of the blank to one another in a lapped seam, wherein, preferably the seal sealing device is a heat sealing device, and a hot air heat sealing device is preferred for expanded polystyrene and other popular types of expanded thermoplastic materials, resulting in an interface between the leading edge and trailing edge being heat-sealed (see C. 2 L. 30-33 and C. 3 L. 3-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have held the box (container) together only by heat sealing the interfaces between the sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions) instead of securing them by clips, straps, or adhesive, as taught by Kontz, in order to provide a stronger more durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions as well as reducing materials and associated costs.
The combination results in a box (container) which consists entirely of polylactic acid foam material (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) and wherein the box (container) is capable of being recycled or composted without removal of labels or additional packaging. Examiner notes that Skinner discloses that on at least one side of the blank there can be located a film of water-impervious material, such that the film is not required and in this case is absent (see P. 0012).
The at least one heat-sealed interface of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously comprises a tamper-evident seal as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical box (container) to the inventions claimed container and as the material of the prior art container of polylactic acid foam material is identical to the claimed material of polylactic acid-based molded bead foam. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the heat-sealed interface does not comprise a tamper-evident seal. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
The combination discloses wherein a strength of adhesion between the sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions) is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion between the sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the box (container) is configured to be composted without undergoing separation of any component part of the box (container).
Claim 11: The combination discloses the box (container) is in the form of a box having a plurality of sides 14 (see fig. 4).
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the box (container) is initially in the form of a blank 10 (fold-flat shipper) configured to fold into the box (container) for shipping commodities (see fig. 2 and fig. 4).
Claim 1: Under a second interpretation, Skinner discloses a container comprising: at least two portions configured to be joined together without the use of adhesive to form the container; at least one interface between the at least two portions, wherein each portion consists of expandable polystyrene based molded bead foam, wherein the box (container) is in the form of a shipper free of labels, tape, and adhesive, that there are many other ways of holding the box assembled, and that if boxes do not need to be reused they can be adhesively secured together prior to use (see P. 0033, 0055, fig. 4, and annotated fig. 7 below).
Bowen teaches polylactic acid foam material (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) used to produce expanded foam pieces (see P. 0145-0148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the container out of polylactic acid foam material (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) instead of polystyrene, as taught by Bowen, in order to reduce waste due to its composability and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Kontz teaches fabricating cylindrical sleeves from rectangular blanks of an expanded polymeric material, wherein a seam sealing device seals overlapping leading and trailing edges of the blank to one another in a lapped seam, wherein, preferably the seal sealing device is a heat sealing device, and a hot air heat sealing device is preferred for expanded polystyrene and other popular types of expanded thermoplastic materials, resulting in an interface between the leading edge and trailing edge being heat-sealed (see C. 2 L. 30-33 and C. 3 L. 3-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have held the container together only by heat sealing the interfaces between the at least two portions instead of securing the container by clips, straps, or adhesive, as taught by Kontz, in order to provide a stronger more durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions as well as reducing materials and associated costs.
The combination results in a container which consists entirely of polylactic acid foam material (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) and wherein the container is capable of being recycled or composted without removal of labels or additional packaging. Examiner notes that Skinner discloses that on at least one side of the blank there can be located a film of water-impervious material, such that the film is not required and in this case is absent (see P. 0012).
The at least one heat-sealed interface of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously comprises a tamper-evident seal as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical box (container) to the inventions claimed container and as the material of the prior art container of polylactic acid foam material is identical to the claimed material of polylactic acid-based molded bead foam. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the heat-sealed interface does not comprise a tamper-evident seal. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
The combination discloses wherein a strength of adhesion between the at least two portions is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion between the at least two portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the at least two portions are initially joined at a hinge 23 (hinged interface) (see fig. 2, 3c, 4, and annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the container is configured to be composted without undergoing separation of any component part of the container.
Claim 11: The combination discloses the container is in the form of a box having a plurality of sides 14 (see fig. 4).
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the container is initially in the form of a blank 10 (fold-flat shipper) configured to fold into the container for shipping commodities (see fig. 2 and fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (US 20190299557) further in view of Bowen (US 20220324625) and Matsumoto (JP 2004181820).
Claim 1: Skinner discloses a box (container) comprising: sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions) configured to be joined together without the use of adhesive to form the container [as Skinner discloses that clips or a strap can be used, P. 0050, 0055]; at least one interface between the sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions) [see fig. 6], wherein each side 14 and end 15 (portion) consists entirely of expandable polystyrene based molded bead foam, wherein the box (container) is in the form of a shipper free of labels, tape, and adhesive, that there are many other ways of holding the box (container) assembled, and that if boxes (containers) do not need to be reused they can be adhesively secured together prior to use (see P. 0033, 0055, and fig. 4 & 6).
Skinner does not disclose wherein the at least one interface is heat-sealed, wherein the at least one heat-sealed interface comprises a tamper-evident seal, wherein a strength of adhesion between the at least two portions is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion between the at least two portions, wherein the container consists entirely of expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam, or wherein the box (container) is capable of being recycled or composted without removal of labels or additional packaging.
Matsumoto teaches a concrete form made by foamed sheets of polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) using an inorganic inert gas-based blowing agent laminated upon one another and heat-fused/heat-sealed to produce a panel (see P. 0007, 0020, 0033, & 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the box (container) out of foamed polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) instead of polystyrene, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to reduce waste due to its composability, reduce petroleum consumption, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have held the box (container) together only by heat-fusing/heat-sealing the interfaces between the sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions) instead of securing them by clips, straps, or adhesive, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to provide a stronger more durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions as well as reducing materials and associated costs.
The combination results in a box (container) which consists entirely of polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) and wherein the box (container) is capable of being recycled or composted without removal of labels or additional packaging. Examiner notes that Skinner discloses that on at least one side of the blank there can be located a film of water-impervious material, such that the film is not required and in this case is absent (see P. 0012).
The at least one heat-fused/heat-sealed interface of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously comprises a tamper-evident seal as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical box (container) to the inventions claimed container and as the material of the prior art container of foamed polylactic acid-based resin is identical to the claimed material of polylactic acid-based molded bead foam. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the heat-fused/heat-sealed interface does not comprise a tamper-evident seal. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
The combination discloses wherein a strength of adhesion between the sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions) is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion between the sides 14 and ends 15 (at least two portions).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the box (container) is configured to be composted without undergoing separation of any component part of the box (container).
Claim 11: The combination discloses the box (container) is in the form of a box having a plurality of sides 14 (see fig. 4).
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the box (container) is initially in the form of a blank 10 (fold-flat shipper) configured to fold into the box (container) for shipping commodities (see fig. 2 and fig. 4).
Claim 1: Under a second interpretation, Skinner discloses a container comprising: at least two portions configured to be joined together without the use of adhesive to form the container; at least one interface between the at least two portions, wherein each portion consists of expandable polystyrene based molded bead foam, wherein the box (container) is in the form of a shipper free of labels, tape, and adhesive, that there are many other ways of holding the box assembled, and that if boxes do not need to be reused they can be adhesively secured together prior to use (see P. 0033, 0055, fig. 4, and annotated fig. 7 above).
Matsumoto teaches a concrete form made by foamed sheets of polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) using an inorganic inert gas-based blowing agent laminated upon one another and heat-fused/heat-sealed to produce a panel (see P. 0020, 0033, & 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the container out of foamed polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) instead of polystyrene, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to reduce waste due to its composability, reduce petroleum consumption, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have held the container together only by heat-fusing/heat-sealing the interfaces between the at least two portions instead of securing them by clips, straps, or adhesive, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to provide a stronger more durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions as well as reducing materials and associated costs.
The combination results in a container which consists entirely of polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) and wherein the container is capable of being recycled or composted without removal of labels or additional packaging. Examiner notes that Skinner discloses that on at least one side of the blank there can be located a film of water-impervious material, such that the film is not required and in this case is absent (see P. 0012).
The at least one heat-sealed interface of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously comprises a tamper-evident seal as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical box (container) to the inventions claimed container and as the material of the prior art container of foamed polylactic acid-based resin is identical to the claimed material of polylactic acid-based molded bead foam. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the heat-sealed interface does not comprise a tamper-evident seal. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
The combination discloses wherein a strength of adhesion between the at least two portions is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion between the at least two portions.
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the at least two portions are initially joined at a hinge 23 (hinged interface) (see fig. 2, 3c, 4, and annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the container is configured to be composted without undergoing separation of any component part of the container.
Claim 11: The combination discloses the container is in the form of a box having a plurality of sides 14 (see fig. 4).
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the container is initially in the form of a blank 10 (fold-flat shipper) configured to fold into the container for shipping commodities (see fig. 2 and fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraph 4 of office action dated 26 August 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 25 February 2026.
The specification objections in paragraphs 5-7 of office action dated 26 August 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 25 February 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s inherency argument is unsupported and conclusory as the mere fact that a container is heat-sealed does not inherently mean the seal is tamper-evident, that neither Skinner, Bowen, Kontz, nor Matsumoto teaches or suggests that their heat-sealed interfaces are designed to provide tamper-evident functionality either by name or by function, that the Examiner has not provided evidence that heat-sealing polylactic acid foam inherently produces a tamper-evident seal, that the Examiner has not explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect such a result, that the argument that structural identity leads to identical functional properties is conclusory without supporting evidence that the specific tamper-evident function would necessarily result from the combination, the Examiner responds that once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency the burden or production shifts to the applicant (MPEP 2112 V). Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01). Here, the Examiner has provided evidence establishing that the prior art combinations were structurally identical to the claimed invention and as such perform identically.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Examiner has failed to identify where the cited references teach or suggest that a strength of adhesion between the at least two portions is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion between the at least two portions and has not provided any explanation or rationale for how the cited references teach or suggest this specific limitation which represents a significant gap in the Examiner’s rejection as the Office Action does not include any substantive analysis of how the prior art discloses the ability to configure or adjust adhesion strength based on a cross-sectional parameter, the Examiner replies that the limitation of “wherein a strength of adhesion between the at least two portions is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion between the at least two portions” is a functional limitation. Any adhesion that exists between the at least two portions necessarily has a cross-section which provides a strength of adhesion. In the prior art, the quantity of heat-sealing at the interface between the at least two portions provides an amount of adhesion which has a cross-section that provides a strength of adhesion between the at least two portions. As such, the combinations disclose wherein a strength of adhesion between the at least two portions is configured to be adjustable based on a cross-section of adhesion, provided by the heat-sealed interface, between the at least two portions.
In response to applicant’s argument that they have theorized that the Examiner suggests that “more tape” or “more adhesive” results in “more adhesion”, the Examiner replies that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejections at hand which does not rely on tape or adhesive in any manner.
Conclusion
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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736