Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Claims 2-19, 21, and 22 are currently pending with claims 1 and 20 being cancelled.
The art rejections over Fehr in view of Li, and further in view of Leser have been withdrawn in view of the amendment and response filed on 11/10/2025.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to JP 2002011838 to Yoshida et al. (hereinafter “Yoshida”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002011838 to Yoshida et al. (hereinafter “Yoshida”) in view of US 2016/0082692 to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
As to claims 2, 19 and 21, Yoshida discloses a rigid insulative cup comprising a container formed to include an interior region bonded by a side wall and a floor (paragraphs 2, 3, 67 and 68), wherein the side wall of the rigid insulative cup is formed of a laminate structure arranged sequentially from top to bottom as follows: a biaxially oriented film, a non-foamed layer, a foamed layer, and a biaxially oriented film (paragraphs 43, 56 and 58). An ink layer is printed on the biaxially oriented film (paragraph 40). The foamed layer contains a mixed resin comprising of 98-60 wt% of a polypropylene-based resin and 2 to 40 wt% of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer (paragraph 17). The foamed and non-foamed layer comprise polypropylene (paragraphs 17 and 58).
Yoshida does not explicitly disclose the non-foamed layer comprising regrind in an amount of 0.05 to 99.5% by weight; nor does the rigid insulative cup, when unfilled, have a rigidity of at least about 0.6 kg-F.
Li, however, discloses a multilayer sheet 300 for forming an insulated container comprising an expanded core material 302 and an unexpanded skin layer 304 disposed on one surface of the expanded core material (figure 9A). The multilayer sheet has a density from 11.5 to 12.5 lb/ft3 or 0.18 to 0.20 g/cc (paragraph 79). The unexpanded skin layer comprises 50 wt% of polypropylene and 50 wt% of regrind (table 6, example 13). The regrind is referred to a material of previously multilayer sheet comprising expanded and unexpanded material and said material being reduced in size to particles that can be re-introduced into the processing stream for extrusion (paragraph 99). The regrind is obtained from adhesive-free multilayer sheet, thereby containing no adhesives (paragraphs 131 and 132). The regrind also includes ink (paragraphs 45 and 99). The expanded core material comprises a blend of two or more polypropylene-based resins wherein the polypropylene based resins are high melt strength polypropylene resins (table 1, example 3). The expanded core material further includes regrind (paragraph 99). Li further discloses that the resin of the expanded core material can be the same as that of the unexpanded skin layer (paragraph 67). The unexpanded skin layer comprises a blend of high melt strength polyolefin-based resins and up to 30 wt% of regrind, or more (paragraphs 97 and 99). The examiner takes the position that the expanded core material can include a blend of high melt strength polyolefin-based resins and up to 30 wt% of regrind wherein the high melt strength polyolefin-based resin is a high melt strength polypropylene-based resin (paragraph 99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an unexpanded skin layer disclosed in Li for the non-foamed layer disclosed in Yoshida, motivated by the desire to facilitate recycling while reducing the cost of the material.
The combined disclosures of the Yoshida and Li result in a rigid insulative cup where the non-foamed layer comprises polypropylene and regrind. Hence, the modified non-foamed layer, and the biaxially oriented film are made of different compositions.
It appears that the rigid insulated cup of Yoshida in view of Li meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claim. The resulting rigid insulative cup comprises a container formed to include an interior region bonded by a side wall and a floor, wherein the side wall of the rigid insulative cup is formed of a laminate structure arranged sequentially from top to bottom as follows: a biaxially oriented film, a non-foamed layer, a foamed layer, and a biaxially oriented film. An ink layer is printed on the biaxially oriented film. The foamed layer contains a mixed resin comprising of 98-60 wt% of a polypropylene-based resin and 2 to 40 wt% of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer. The foamed and non-foamed layer comprise polypropylene. The resulting non-foamed layer comprises polypropylene and 0.05-99.5 wt% of regrind.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the resulting rigid insulative cup, when unfilled, would inherently have a rigidity of at least about 0.6 kg-F as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claims 3 and 4, neither Yoshida nor Li discloses or suggests that the rigid insulative cup having (i) a rigidity of less than about 1.7 kg-F when filled at room temperature and lidded; and (ii) a top load of a least about 90 lbf.
It appears that the rigid insulated cup of Yoshida in view of Li meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claim. The resulting rigid insulative cup comprises a container formed to include an interior region bonded by a side wall and a floor, wherein the side wall of the rigid insulative cup is formed of a laminate structure arranged sequentially from top to bottom as follows: a biaxially oriented film, a non-foamed layer, a foamed layer, and a biaxially oriented film. An ink layer is printed on the biaxially oriented film. The foamed layer contains a mixed resin comprising of 98-60 wt% of a polypropylene-based resin and 2 to 40 wt% of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer. The foamed and non-foamed layer comprise polypropylene. The resulting non-foamed layer comprises polypropylene and 0.05-99.5 wt% of regrind.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that (i) the rigidity of less than 1.7 kg-F, when filled at room temperature and lidded; and (ii) the top load of a least about 90 lbf would inherently be present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claim 5, Yoshida discloses that the foam layer and the non-foamed layer comprise polypropylene (paragraph 58).
As to claims 6-8, neither Yoshida nor Li discloses or suggests the side wall of the rigid insulative cup having a puncture resistance of at least about 6000 gf using a ¼’’ probe, and an Elmendorf Tear in the machine direction (MD) of at least 200 gf.
It appears that the rigid insulated cup of Yoshida in view of Li meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claim. The resulting rigid insulative cup comprises a container formed to include an interior region bonded by a side wall and a floor, wherein the side wall of the rigid insulative cup is formed of a laminate structure arranged sequentially from top to bottom as follows: a biaxially oriented film, a non-foamed layer, a foamed layer, and a biaxially oriented film. An ink layer is printed on the biaxially oriented film. The foamed layer contains a mixed resin comprising of 98-60 wt% of a polypropylene-based resin and 2 to 40 wt% of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer. The foamed and non-foamed layer comprise polypropylene. The resulting non-foamed layer comprises polypropylene and 0.05-99.5 wt% of regrind.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the side wall of the container having a puncture resistance of at least about 6000 gf using a ¼’’ probe, and an Elmendorf Tear in the MD of at least 200 gf would be inherently present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claims 9-12, and 14-18, Yoshida discloses that the foamed layer comprises a mixed resin of polypropylene and ethylene-α-olefin copolymer (paragraph 17). Yoshida does not disclose the foamed layer comprising 40-99.5% by weight of a base resin blend, and up to 50% by weight of regrind.
Li, however, discloses a multilayer sheet 300 for forming an insulated container comprising an expanded core material 302 and an unexpanded skin layer 304 disposed on one surface of the expanded core material (figure 9A). An ink of all the colors is printed on the multilayer sheet (paragraph 45). The multilayer sheet has a density from 11.5 to 12.5 lb/ft3 or 0.18 to 0.20 g/cc (paragraph 79). The unexpanded skin layer comprises 50 wt% of polypropylene and 50 wt% of regrind (table 6, example 13). The unexpanded skin layer further contains a colorant (paragraph 103). The regrind is referred to a material of previously multilayer sheet comprising expanded and unexpanded material and said material being reduced in size to particles that can be re-introduced into the processing stream for extrusion (paragraph 99). The regrind is obtained from adhesive-free multilayer sheet, thereby containing no adhesives (paragraphs 131 and 132). The regrind also includes ink (paragraphs 45 and 99). The expanded core material comprises a blend of two or more polypropylene-based resins wherein the polypropylene based resins are high melt strength polypropylene resins (paragraph 54). This means the expanded core material can include three high melt strength polypropylene resins and one of them corresponding to the claimed high crystallinity polymer. The expanded core material further includes regrind (paragraph 99). Li further discloses that the resin of the expanded core material can be the same as that of the unexpanded skin layer (paragraph 67). The unexpanded skin layer comprises a blend of high melt strength polyolefin-based resins and up to 30 wt% of regrind, or more (paragraphs 97 and 99). The examiner takes the position that the expanded core material can include a blend of high melt strength polyolefin-based resins and up to 30 wt% of regrind wherein the high melt strength polyolefin-based resin is a high melt strength polypropylene-based resin (paragraph 99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an expanded core material disclosed in Li for the foamed layer disclosed in Yoshida, motivated by the desire to provide an insulative cup having higher flexural modulus and excellent thermal insulation performance.
As to claim 13, Yoshida discloses the non-foamed layer is consisting of polypropylene resin (paragraph 58). The non-foamed layer is not an adhesive layer.
As to claim 22, Yoshida discloses a rigid insulative cup comprising a container formed to include an interior region bonded by a side wall and a floor (paragraphs 2, 3, 67 and 68), wherein the side wall of the rigid insulative cup is formed of a laminate structure arranged sequentially from top to bottom as follows: a biaxially oriented film, a non-foamed layer, a foamed layer, and a biaxially oriented film (paragraphs 43, 56 and 58). An ink layer is printed on the biaxially oriented film (paragraph 40). The foamed layer contains a mixed resin comprising of 98-60 wt% of a polypropylene-based resin and 2 to 40 wt% of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer (paragraph 17).
Yoshida does not explicitly disclose (i) the non-foamed layer comprising regrind in an amount of 0.05 to 99.5% by weight; and (ii) the foamed layer comprising 40-99.5% by weight of a base resin blend, and up to about 50% by weight regrind.
Li, however, discloses a multilayer sheet 300 for forming an insulated container comprising an expanded core material 302 and an unexpanded skin layer 304 disposed on one surface of the expanded core material (figure 9A). The multilayer sheet has a density from 11.5 to 12.5 lb/ft3 or 0.18 to 0.20 g/cc (paragraph 79). The unexpanded skin layer comprises 50 wt% of polypropylene and 50 wt% of regrind (table 6, example 13). The regrind is referred to a material of previously multilayer sheet comprising expanded and unexpanded material and said material being reduced in size to particles that can be re-introduced into the processing stream for extrusion (paragraph 99). The regrind is obtained from adhesive-free multilayer sheet, thereby containing no adhesives (paragraphs 131 and 132). The regrind also includes ink (paragraphs 45 and 99). The expanded core material comprises a blend of two or more polypropylene-based resins wherein the polypropylene based resins are high melt strength polypropylene resins (table 1, example 3). The expanded core material further includes regrind (paragraph 99). Li further discloses that the resin of the expanded core material can be the same as that of the unexpanded skin layer (paragraph 67). The unexpanded skin layer comprises a blend of high melt strength polyolefin-based resins and up to 30 wt% of regrind, or more (paragraphs 97 and 99). The examiner takes the position that the expanded core material can include a blend of high melt strength polyolefin-based resins and up to 30 wt% of regrind wherein the high melt strength polyolefin-based resin is a high melt strength polypropylene-based resin (paragraph 99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an unexpanded skin layer disclosed in Li for the non-foamed layer disclosed in Yoshida, motivated by the desire to facilitate recycling while reducing the cost of the material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an expanded core material disclosed in Li for the foamed layer disclosed in Yoshida motivated by the desire to provide an insulative cup having higher flexural modulus and excellent thermal insulation performance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Li as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of US 2012/0318807 to Leser et al. (hereinafter “Leser”).
Assuming that Yoshida in view of Li does not teach a high crystallinity copolymer- an assertion with which the examiner does not agree regarding the previous discussion- the claim is not rendered unobvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Leser’s disclosure of the high crystallinity copolymer when seeking to improve the mechanical strength of the container disclosed in Yoshida/Li.
Leser, however, discloses an insulative cup comprising a container formed to include an interior region bounded by a side wall and a floor, wherein the side wall includes an inner surface and an outer surface and comprises an expanded core layer, a film layer provided on the expanded core layer and an ink layer provided on the film layer (abstract, figures 9 and 10). The expanded core layer is comprised a high melt strength polypropylene, a high crystallinity polymer, a nucleating agent, a colorant and a slip agent (paragraph 122, example 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a high crystallinity polymer disclosed in Leser in the expanded core material disclosed in Yoshida/Li motivated by the desire to enhance puncture resistance, and frangibility resistance.
Response to Arguments
The rejections over Fehr in view of Li and further in view of Leser have been withdrawn because Fehr discloses a flexible container which is different from a rigid container required by the claimed. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new combination of Yoshida and Li.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788