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 .
Amended claim 22 and newly submitted claims 26-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The claims includes features and limitations, for example with the feature a second opening at a top end between the first base layer and the second base layer for venting the container, that relate to an embodiment that was restricted and not elected in the Restriction Requirement mailed 8/12/2024 and the Response to Election/Restriction filed 9/17/2024. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 1/23/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-17 and 22-27 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 6-7 and 18-21 are cancelled. Claims 26-27 are new. Claims 22-27 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and subsequent dependent claims 3 and 9 include new limitations that were not highlighted by underlining to indicate that it has been newly added, for instance, the limitation “paper” added before base layer throughout the claims and the limitation “metallized” added in the end of claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 8-11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’ Hara et al. US 2021/0139200 A1 in view of Wiedmeyer US 2008/0121681 A1.
With regards to claim 1, O’ Hara (Fig. 2A-3 and Para. 0053-0054) discloses a container 20 comprising: a pair of opposing side panels (middle of Para. 0053; 308-311); and a pair of opposing main panels (middle of Para. 0053; 304/305; side panel 308 is attached to main panel 305 by way of panels 304 and 306 in the unfolded state, and/or by way of side panel 310 in the assembled state), each side panel of the pair of opposing side panels attached to each main panel of the pair of opposing main panels, the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels together at least partially defining a cavity within the container; wherein the pair of opposing side panels and the pair of opposing main panels are defined by a blank, the blank comprising co-extensive layers comprising a paper base layer (kraft paper; fluted and non-fluted sheet; Para. 0042 and 0053-0054) and a metallized film layer (metallization layer described in Para. 0012-0013, 0041-0043 and 0053), the metallized film layer deposited directly upon and coupled to the paper base layer (Para. 0043, 0053-0054), the metallized film layer positioned facing the cavity, the metallized film layer defining the cavity (Para. 0042), both the paper base layer and the metallized film layer being repulpable (Para. 0070).
Although in Para. 0042, O’ Hara recites the film is “a fluted sheet material and a planar sheet material (base layer), each having an inner face and an outer face, wherein at least one inner face is provided with a thin film metallic coating”. O’Hara may not explicitly disclose that the film being positioned facing the cavity and defining the cavity.
However, Wiedmeyer, teaches that it was known in the art to have a container 10 comprising: a panel 12, a cavity within the container; having a base layer (26 outer layer; Para. 0022 and 0025) and a metallized film (24 inner ply; Para. 0022-0024), the film coupled to the base layer (coupled together via layer 25), the film positioned facing the cavity and the film defining the cavity (Para. 0022-0023 and 0025).
O’Hara recites in the end of Para. 0076, that additional coatings of a micro plastics material could be applied to one or more of the surfaces of the corrugated material to provide a degree of water resistance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container in O’ Hara by having the film positioned facing the cavity and the film defining the cavity as taught by Wiedmeyer for the purposes of creating a waterproof cavity.
With regards to claim 8, O’ Hara (Fig. 2A-3 and Para. 0053-0054) discloses the paper base layer (fluted and non-fluted sheet) comprises kraft paper.
With regards to claim 9, O’ Hara (Fig. 2A-3 and Para. 0053-0054) discloses the container 20 (Fig. 2B) defines a top end and a bottom end; the container further comprises a bottom panel 306 arranged at the bottom end; the bottom panel is defined by the blank; and each of the bottom panel, the pair of opposing side panels, and the pair of opposing main panels comprise the paper base layer and the metallized film layer.
With regards to claim 10, O’ Hara (Fig. 2A-3 and Para. 0053-0054) discloses an opening is defined at the top end of the container; the container is configurable in an open configuration and a closed configuration: in the open configuration (Fig. 2B), the opening is uncovered to allow access to the cavity; and in the closed configuration (Fig. 2C), the top end of the container is sealed to prohibit access to the cavity.
With regards to claim 11, O’ Hara (Fig. 2A-3 and Para. 0055) discloses in the closed configuration: the top end of the container 20 is rolled down to cover the opening; and the container further comprises a tape strip 21 sealing the top end of the container in the closed configuration.
With regards to claim 14, O’ Hara (Fig. 3 Para. 0053-0054) discloses the blank is a first sheet; the container further comprises a second sheet coupled to the first sheet; and the second sheet comprises a second base layer.
O’ Hara discloses in Para. 0053 and 0072; the blank is formed of a single face that has two layers one liner (first sheet) and one fluted (second sheet).
With regards to claim 15, O’ Hara (Fig. 3 Para. 0053-0054 and 0072) discloses the second base layer is coupled to the paper base layer, and wherein the paper base layer (liner/first sheet) is arranged between the metallized film layer (metallization layer) and the second base layer (fluted/second sheet).
With regards to claim 16, O’ Hara (Fig. 5 Para. 0053-0054) discloses a gap is defined between the first sheet and the second sheet, and wherein air is retained between the first sheet and the second sheet to further insulate the cavity. (shown in Fig. 5)
With regards to claim 17, O’ Hara (Fig. 3 Para. 0053-0054) discloses the film layer comprises a reflective layer and a protective layer; the protective layer is positioned over the reflective layer; and the protective layer comprises either a polymer layer or coating, a wax layer or coating, or a lacquer layer or coating. (Para. 0076; aluminum can serve as a reflector and micro plastics material provide a degree of water resistance)
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’ Hara et al. US 2021/0139200 A1 in view of Wiedmeyer US 2008/0121681 A1 and further in view of Mendenhall et al. US 4,874,620.
With regards to claim 12, O’ Hara (Fig. 2A-3 and Para. 0055) discloses in the closed configuration, the pair of opposing main panels are sealed together at a seal 21 but it does not specifically disclose each of the pair of opposing side panels are sealed to each of the pair of opposing main panels.
However, Mendenhall teaches that it was known in the art to have a container 1 having main panels 2/3 and opposing side panels 4/5 with each of the pair of opposing side panels sealed to each of the pair of opposing main panels at a seal (at 17). (Col 3:31-54)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container in O’ Hara by having each of the pair of opposing side panels sealed to each of the pair of opposing main panels at a seal as taught by Mendenhall for the purposes of creating a permanent closure.
With regards to claim 13, Mendenhall further teaches the seal 17 comprises a hot seal. (Col 3:44-48 and 5:39-43)
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’ Hara et al. US 2021/0139200 A1 in view of Wiedmeyer US 2008/0121681 A1.
With regards to claim 3, O’ Hara (Fig. 2A-3 and Para. 0053-0054) discloses a container 20 comprising: a pair of opposing side panels (middle of Para. 0053; 308-311); and a pair of opposing main panels (middle of Para. 0053; 304/305; side panel 308 is attached to main panel 305 by way of panels 304 and 306 in the unfolded state, and/or by way of side panel 310 in the assembled state), each side panel of the pair of opposing side panels attached to each main panel of the pair of opposing main panels, the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels together at least partially defining a cavity within the container; wherein the pair of opposing side panels and the pair of opposing main panels are defined by a blank, the blank comprising co-extensive layers comprising a paper base layer (kraft paper; fluted and non-fluted sheet; Para. 0042 and 0053-0054) and a metallized film layer (metallization layer described in Para. 0012-0013, 0041-0043 and 0053), the metallized film layer positioned facing the cavity, the metallized film layer defining the cavity (Para. 0042), both the paper base layer and the metallized film layer being repulpable (Para. 0070).
Although in Para. 0042, O’ Hara recites the film is “a fluted sheet material and a planar sheet material (base layer), each having an inner face and an outer face, wherein at least one inner face is provided with a thin film metallic coating”. O’Hara may not explicitly disclose that the film being positioned facing the cavity and defining the cavity.
See claim 1, for Wiedmeyer specific teaching of the metallized film layer being positioned facing the cavity and defining the cavity.
O’ Hara (Fig. 2A-3 and Para. 0053-0054) discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the metallized film layer is bonded to an intermediary layer, and the intermediary layer is coupled to the base layer between the metallized film layer and the paper base layer.
However, Wiedmeyer, teaches that it was known in the art to have a container 10 that has a metallized film layer 24 (inner layer) is bonded to an intermediary layer 25 (middle layer), and the intermediary layer is coupled to the paper base layer 26 (outer layer) between the film and the base layer. (Para. 0023 and 0026)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container in O’ Hara by having an intermediate layer coupled to the base layer between the film and the base layer as taught by Wiedmeyer for the purposes of creating a heat insulator.
With regards to claim 4, Wiedmeyer further teaches the intermediary layer (25; middle layer) comprises polyester. (Para. 0023 and 0026)
With regards to claim 5, Wiedmeyer further teaches the intermediary layer (25; middle layer) comprises starch. (Para. 0023 and 0026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the reference Wiedmeyer is non-analogous art because it is directed to a different field of endeavor and addresses a problem unrelated to the one confronted by the claimed invention-namely "waterproofing a cup" rather than "providing insulation for a shopping bag.". In response to applicant's argument that Wiedmeyer is non-analogous 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, the Wiedmeyer reference is considered analogous art. Wiedmeyer may provide “waterproofing” as a claimed feature, however, as stated above, Wiedmeyer discloses a container formed of multiple layers of material that include paper, film and metals to provide insulation to the contents inside the container, similar to the present invention.
The Applicant argues the reference Wiedmeyer teaches away from and there is also no reason to combine with O'Hara because Wiedmeyer states and highlights in the Background of the specification that "paper cups are relatively poor thermal insulators...” and Applicant later states “the teachings of Wiedmeyer would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art away from, not toward, the claimed configuration”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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, The statements highlighted by Applicant were made in the background of the reference to highlight the disadvantages of the containers as a single layer paper container. However, further in the specification Wiedmeyer discusses the advantages of multiple layers of materials of the container to provide good insulation performance to the container, that includes paper, film and metal, in para. 0023, 0025-0026 and 0028-0029.
The Applicant argues “Both O'Hara and Wiedmeyer fail to disclose, to teach, or to suggest a "blank comprising co-extensive layers comprising a paper base layer and a metallized film layer." Similarly, neither O'Hara nor Wiedmeyer disclose, teach, or suggest "the metallized film layer deposited directly upon and coupled to the base layer." Finally, both O'Hara and Wiedmeyer fail to disclose, to teach, or to suggest "both the paper base layer and the metallized film layer being repulpable."” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, O’ Hara discloses a container 20 (bag 10 is not considered in the claim rejection), as described in para. 0053-0054, “a metallization layer over at least one surface of the fluted and non-fluted sheets” of the container. O’ Hara recites “a fluted sheet material and a planar sheet material (base layer), each having an inner face and an outer face, wherein at least one inner face is provided with a thin film metallic coating”. O’Hara may not explicitly disclose that the film being positioned facing the cavity and defining the cavity, therefore, Wiedmeyer, was cited to teach that it was known in the art to have a container that has the arrangement of the film facing the cavity. O'Hara teaches the repulping of metallized films in Para. 0070.
The arguments with regards to claims 22-27, were not considered due to restriction requirement stated above.
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 JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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. Avilés 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736