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 Amendment
Amendment to claims filed 12-9-25 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1-10, 16-25 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 16-18 are currently amened. Claims 11-15 are cancelled. Claims 20-25 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 16, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts et al. (2010/0000902).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts et al. discloses a method for producing a container (abstract) comprising fibers, wherein the method comprises:
Producing at least one part of the container by means of an injection molding method (para 9) using a fiber-containing fluid mass,
Wherein by the injection molding method, the fiber-containing fluid mass provided in a storage container is injected under pressure into the injection molding tool by a conveying and metering apparatus (para 53), and
Wherein a cavity of the injection molding tool thereby determines shape and surface structure of the at least one part of the container to be produced (claim 26, fig. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 2, Roberts et al. discloses wherein the fiber-containing fluid mass comprises biodegradable fibers (para 32),
And/or wherein the fiber-containing fluid mass comprises additives (para 47).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts et al. discloses wherein the fiber-containing fluid mass has thermoplastic properties (para 20), wherein, the fiber-containing fluid mass comprises a base material, which comprises a single material or a plurality of different materials (para 25-31), and a fluid comprising a single fluid type or a plurality of fluid types, wherein the base material comprises fibers or one origin or fibers of different origins (para 32-39).
Regarding claim 6, Roberts et al. discloses wherein the base material is in the form of granules or powder or paste prior to use in the injection molding method, wherein the base material is added to an extruder and is melted in the extruder, or wherein the base material is combined in a compounder and mixed there (see para 22, 48, 65, 67, 79-81, table 6).
Regarding claim 8, Roberts et al. discloses wherein the at least one part comprises at least one of a container (abstract, para 58).
Regarding claim 16, Roberts et al. discloses wherein the fibers comprise primary or secondary fibers or wood fibers or fibers from annual plants (para 33-37), wherein the base material further comprises starch (para 2, 23), wherein the base material additionally or alternatively comprises modified cellulose (para 33), wherein the base material additionally or alternatively comprises modified starch, wherein the base material additionally or alternatively comprises one or more additive (para 47).
Regarding claim 18, Roberts et al. discloses wherein the fibers include cellulosic fibers or wood fibers (para 33).
Regarding claim 21, Roberts et al. discloses wherein the starch is including corn starch, rice starch, wheat starch, and/or potato starch (para 2, 23).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 9, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. as applied to claim 1 or 5 above, and further in view of Hutchinson et al. (2006/0065992).
Regarding claim 3, Roberts et al. does not teach coating the at least one part after production. However, Hutchinson et al. teaches an article is provided comprising foam material that forms a coating on a paper or wood pulp based material or container (para 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts et al. with the teaching of Hutchinson et al., in order to made the container suitable for contacting food, providing structural strength, and the like (para 361).
Regarding claim 7, Hutchinson et al. further teaches wherein a cap is produced by means of the injection molding method (fig. 14A, 18, claim 1), wherein, a co-extrusion process is carried out (claim 2, para 27, 36, 236, 279-280, 430-431), wherein, the co-extrusion process forms one or more additional layers, wherein properties of the cap are achieved (para 38, 231).
Regarding claim 9, Hutchinson et al. teaches wherein the cap comprises a height (see fig. 14A, 18), wherein, the cap comprises an internal layer (para 410).
Regarding claim 20, Hutchinson et al. teaches wherein the co-extrusion process forms a first additional layer and a second additional layer and wherein in addition to the first additional layer, the second additional layer also comprises fibers (para 38, para 231).
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bengtson (English translation of JP2003081205).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts et al. does not teach arranging the at least one part on a main body of the container, wherein, the arranging comprises adhering the produced at least one part to the main body, or wherein the arranging comprises an injection-molding on of the at least one part to the main body by means of the injection molding method for producing the at least one part. However, Bengtson teaches the attachment of plastic parts to containers, in particular as opening devices such as lids, stoppers, caps, packages or covers, is well known in the field of packaging containers. The method of attaching the plastic part usually consists of forming the plastic part in advance by extrusion molding into a mold or injection molding, and attaching the plastic part to the packaging container by heat sealing/adhesive. Alternatively, the plastic parts may be molded directly onto, for example, the open top of a cup-shaped container of flexible web material, a simple container side wall, or the top (see para 2, fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts et al. with the teaching of Bengtson since Bengtson teaches that the injection molding of plastic parts such as lids is well known in the field of packaging containers.
Regarding claim 10, Bengtson teaches providing a main body 1 of the container (see para 2, fig. 6).
Claim(s) 17 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. in view of Hutchinson as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Licata (2005/0153118).
Regarding claim 17, Hutchinson et al. does no teach wherein the coating includes wax. However, Licata teaches that the moisture barrier properties of protein based films can be significantly for applications in which low water permeability is desired by incorporating fatty compounds such as beeswax or paraffin in the film formulation, thus reducing the water permeability (para 29, 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wax such as beeswax in the coating of Hutchinson et al. in order to reduce water permeability of the coating.
Regarding claim 25, Licata teaches wherein the wax is including beeswax (para 29, 63).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schiffer et al. (English translation of DE10202103400).
Regarding claim 19, Roberts et al. does not teach wherein the additives include starch, chalk, citrus fibers, lignin and/or wax. However, Schiffer et al. teaches that the fiber material can additionally container fillers and/or binders, and chalk is preferably used as a filler (para 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts et al. with the teaching of Schiffer et al. since Schiffer et al. teaches that chalk is a known filler for containers made of fiber material.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Drillon et al. (2025/0040684).
Regarding claim 22, Roberts et al. does not teach wherein the modified cellulose is including carboxymethycelluose and/or hydroxypropyl methycellulose. However, Drillon et al. teaches a packaging article comprising a compound chosen from cellulose-based polymers plant fibres and mixtures thereof chosen from wood pulp, carboxymethycelluloses (claim 2). Therefor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to choose carboxymethycellulose as the modified cellulose since Drillon et al. teaches that carboxymethycellulose is a known cellulose-based polymer for making packaging article comprising fibres.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Volgt et al. (US 5,936,014).
Regarding claim 23, Roberts et al. does not teach wherein the modified starch is including starch ether and/or starch ester. However, Volgt et al. teaches a packaging material comprises a blend of starch esters (claim 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select starch esters as the modifies starch since Volgt et al. teaches that starch esters are known material for packaging.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Pal et al. (2022/0034039).
Regarding claim 24, Roberts et al. does not teach wehrien the one or more additives are including citric acid and/or lecithin. However, Pal et al. teaches that additives for paper products can include soy lecithin protein. Soy lecithin, a lipid may also be used in the slurry for supporting fiber formation (para 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select lecithin as the additive since Pal et al. teaches that lecithin can be used for supporting fiber formation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742