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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/11/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/30/2024 and 9/6/2024 were filed after the mailing date of the ADS on 11/13/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites that “the pores have an average size of 300 mesh or more to 500 mesh or less”. Mesh sizing is commonly used for the sizing of particles, not pores. It is, as a result, unclear and indefinite if applicant intended to size the pores of the zeolite or the size of the zeolite particles themselves. Mesh sizing is moreover an approximate sizing method, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite and rendering this limitation unsearchable as presented.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al (WO 2025048082 A1, priority to KR 20230115972 A, effective filing date 9/1/2023, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a composition for a food container comprising a polymer resin, a zeolite, an antimicrobial additive, and a porous adsorbent powder (page 1, lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 2, Choi further discloses that the average size of the pores in the zeolite is 300 mesh or more and 500 mesh or less (page 1, lines 51-52).
Regarding claim 3, Choi further discloses that the antibacterial additive is hinokitiol (page 1, line 54).
Regarding claim 4, Choi further discloses that the average particle size of the porous adsorption powder is 500 mesh or more and 700 mesh or less (page 1, lines 56-57).
Regarding claim 5, Choi further discloses that the porous adsorption powder is at least one selected from the group consisting of montmorillonite, bio-ceramic, pegmatite, fine powder silica, kaolin (China clay), diatomaceous earth, bentonite, titanium dioxide, tourmaline, germanium, quartz (quartz porphyry), shells, pumice, vermiculite, mica (sericite), quartz, muscovite, loess (yellow ocher), kaolin, activated carbon, and combinations thereof (page 1, line 59 to page 2, line 2).
Regarding claim 6, Choi further discloses that the polymer resin includes at least one selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, polyester, polyethylene, polystyrene, polylactic acid, polybutylene succinate, polyhydroxybutyrate, polyhydroxyalkanoate, polycyclohexane-1,4-dimethylene terephthalate, and combinations thereof (page 2, lines 4-7).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9, and 10, Choi further discloses that the polymer resin is present at 75 parts by weight or more and 98 parts by weight or less, the zeolite is present at 1 part by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less, the antibacterial additive is present at 0.1 parts by weight or more and 5 parts by mass or less, and the porous adsorption powder is present at 1 part by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the composition (page 2, lines 9-19).
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 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20010104010 A, priority date 5/12/2000, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses plastic products for food preservation, comprising (page 1, lines 11-18), based on the total weight of the composition (page 4, lines 20-21):
1.5-20 parts by weight of zeolite;
1.5-10 parts by weight (page 5, lines 8-11) of one or more materials selected from sericite, vermiculite, ochre, kaolin, and germanium, among others (porous adsorption powders);
0.2-0.5 parts by weight of a silver antimicrobial agent (antimicrobial additive);
3-30 parts by weight of a ceramic material;
70-97 parts by weight of a plastic resin (polymer resin).
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not particularly disclose the zeolite pores having an average size of from 300 to 500 mesh. As set forth in the above rejection for claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), this claim limitation was deemed unsearchable. In the alternative, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that their porous materials have a particle size of from 0.5-5 microns (page 1, lines 11-18). Kim does not particularly note the mesh size. It is noted that mesh sizing represents an approximation, with applicant’s own specification stating that mesh “may refer to the size of a particle diameter that can pass through the number of meshes included in a square with sizes of 1 inch” [0036]. Noting that 500 mesh has openings of approximately 25 microns and 700 mesh has openings of approximately 15 microns, it is noted that Kim’s disclosed porous materials of 0.5-5 microns in size would be able to pass through meshes in this range, thus rendering claim 4 obvious.
Regarding claim 5, as set forth in the above rejection with respect to claim 1, Kim discloses 1.5-10 parts by weight (page 5, lines 8-11) of one or more materials selected from sericite, vermiculite, ochre (yellow ocher), kaolin, and germanium, among others (page 1, lines 11-18). It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Kim particularly discloses that the plastic resin may be, for example, polyethylene or polypropylene (page 6, lines 9-17). It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9, and 10, the ranges of components disclosed by Kim as set forth in the above rejection with respect to claim 1 overlap, encompass, or lie inside the ranges present in the instant claims. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20010104010 A, priority date 5/12/2000, English translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narita et al (JP 2020048441 A, priority date 9/25/2018, English translation attached).
The above rejection with respect to Kim is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above rejection. Kim discloses a silver antimicrobial agent but does not particularly disclose hinokitiol.
In the same field of endeavor, Narita et al discloses a produce packaging container for suppressing bacterial growth, comprising:
A polymer film [0014] containing pores [0022], which may be polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polybutylene succinate, or polylactic acid, among others [0026], preferably a polyester [0027];
A moisture absorbent, such as activated carbon, zeolite, or synthetic zeolite, among others [0054]; and
An antibacterial agent, which is preferably hinokitiol [0055].
Narita particularly discloses that natural antibacterial agents such as hinokitiol are preferred, as there is little concern about their contact with fruits and vegetables [0055]. Narita discloses a short list of exemplary natural antibacterial agents, which are chitosan, allyl isothiocyanate, hinokitiol, and limonene [0055]. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the antimicrobial plastic composition for food preservation disclosed by Kim with hinokitiol, one of the exemplary natural antibacterial agents disclosed by Narita, motivated by a desire to minimize concerns about contact with fruits and vegetables, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagata et al (JP 3655974 B2, priority date 8/22/1996, English translation attached) discloses a food freshness preserving container [0001], comprising: an antibacterial agent, such as allyl isothiocyanate or hinokitiol [0010], and a polyurethane-based resin [0014].
Wood et al (AU 2014227556 B2, priority date 9/22/2014, copy attached) discloses a composition useful for preparation of food storage articles (page 60, lines 3-6), comprising: a cyclodextrin complex comprising a cyclodextrin compound and a complexed compound, which in some embodiments is hinokitiol (page 16, line 18), present from about 0.001 to 25% by weight of the composition (page 24, line 29 to page 25, line 1); and a polymer carrier (Abstract).
Ohama et al (JP H11130608 A, priority date 10/27/1997, English translation attached) discloses an antimicrobial composition useful in preparation of food packaging containers [0013], comprising: an isothiocyanate and a ferrous salt [0005]; porous fine particles including crystalline silicates such as zeolite, montmorillonite, and mixtures thereof, among others, with an average particle size from 0.1 to 50 µm [0007]; antibacterial agents, particularly plant essential oils such as hinokitiol [0008]; and a film-forming resin [0010]. Ohama further discloses that the porous fine particles adsorb the isothiocyanate and suppress its evaporation [0007].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Savannah G Phillips whose telephone number is (571)270-0822. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/SAVANNAH G. PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights