DETAILED ACTION
Amendments made May 15, 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 1-14 and 18 have been withdrawn.
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 .
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.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: hide flap 140 (paragraph 19) has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the drawings filed on May 15, 2026 which show reference character 140.
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 19 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 19 recites the flexible sheet comprises a “fiber-based” substrate. It is unclear as to how much fiber a substrate must have in order to be considered “fiber-based”. For example, it is unclear as to if the term simply requires fiber as the majority component compared to all other components, or if it requires the fiber be in some unknown percentage, such as 90% and above, or 50% and above, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15,17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilhoit (EP 0384319 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wilhoit teaches of a flexible antimicrobial sheet by teaching of a food packaging film comprising an antimicrobial composition, wherein a food packaging film is defined as flexible sheet (abstract, page 7 lines 38-39, page 8 lines 24-25). Furthermore, as the antimicrobial composition is on the film, may be applied as coating through known methods such as a bath of solution, and is taught to be on either side of the film (page 8 lines 24-25, page 9 lines 4-5 and 48-58, and page 10 line 16), the film of Wilhoit would comprise a sheet with a first and second major surface, i.e. a top and bottom surface, with an antimicrobial surface on the first major surface.
Regarding the sheet as for application to an exposed meat surface of an animal carcass and as food-contact safe wherein the first major surface is configured to be placed on the exposed surface during process of the animal carcass and act as a barrier to transfer of contaminants therethrough as recited in claim 15, the claimed limitation of application to an exposed meat carcass surface is intended use and only requires the ability of the product to perform, and the limitation of the surface as configured to be placed on the exposed meat surface is considered to impart the limitations of a food safe material which would provide a physical barrier to the transfer of contaminants. As Wilhoit teaches the film is capable of transferring the antimicrobial agent to the food, wherein it is in direct contact with the food, and that the foodstuff may be meat, the product of the prior art would meet the limitations as claimed (page 3 lines 25-31 and 47-53, page 7 lines 11-15, page 8 lines 9-11, page 9 lines 4-5, 20 and 23-24, and page 10 lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 17, Wilhoit teaches that the antimicrobial agent and additives including binding and chelating agents were applied to the outer surface of the film by passing the film through a solution containing the agent and additives (page 7 lines 12-15, page 8 lines 9-12 and 16-20, page 9 lines 48-58, and page 10 lines 34-35). Wilhoit teaches that suitable chelating agents including the following compounds and salts thereof: acetic acid, gluconic acid, lactic acid, and tetra and tri metaphosphate (page 5 lines 1-2, 32, 49, and page 6 lines 22 and 25). Thus, the product of Wilhoit would contain an antimicrobial agent as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Wilhoit teaches that the film may be in rolls or cut lengths and may be shirred by conventional methods (page 10 lines 43-45), and thus is considered to encompass the flexible sheet as a roll configured to be cut or torn to size at an operation station of an animal carcass processing line as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or alternatively 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhoit (EP 0384319 A1).
As discussed above, Wilhoit teaches of a flexible antimicrobial sheet coated on a surface with an antimicrobial composition for direct application to food surfaces for transferring the antimicrobials to the food. Wilhoit teaches that the antimicrobial agent and additives including binding and chelating agents may be applied to the outer surface of the film by passing the film through a solution containing the agent and additives (page 7 lines 12-15, page 8 lines 9-12 and 16-20, page 9 lines 48-58, and page 10 lines 34-35).
Regarding the flexible antimicrobial sheet wherein the antimicrobial is applied to a surface as a component of a continuous coating comprising a binder and optional additional ingredients suitable for use in a food-contact safe coating as recited in claim 16, the claimed limitation is a product by process claim, and thus the recited method is considered only in as much as it affects the product claimed. In the instant case, the recited process would result in a continuous coating on the sheet comprising a binder and optional additional ingredients safe for food contact. As discussed above, Wilhoit teaches of applying a food coating comprising an antimicrobial and additives including a binder to the sheet by known coating methods, such as and including a dip bath, and wherein the surface contacts the food directly and transfers the antimicrobial agents. Thus, as the sheet was placed within a coating bath, i.e. within the coating solution disclosed by Wilhoit, it would have been encompassed or alternatively obvious that the sheet have a continuous coating layer comprising a binder and optional additional ingredients suitable for use in a food-safe contact coating. It would have been further obvious for the coating to be continuous across the sheet so that anywhere the sheet was applied to the food the desired function of transferring the antimicrobials could be attained.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhoit (EP 0384319 A1) in view of Ackerman et al (WO 2004/071749).
As discussed above, Wilhoit teaches of a flexible antimicrobial sheet for food packaging comprising an antimicrobial composition.
Wilhoit is silent to the flexible sheet as comprising a fiber-based substrate comprising paper having a weight of from about 30-45g/m2 as recited in claim 19.
Ackerman teaches sheet material, i.e. a flexible sheet, for the preparation and handling of foods (title and paragraphs 2-5). Ackerman teaches that the sheet material includes a cut though indicator which is a tissue layer of paper having a weight basis of 20pounds per 3000ft2 (about 33 g/m2) which will absorb any food liquid, prevent a mess, and indicate to the user than a cut through has been made (paragraph 86). It is noted that the term fiber-based is unclear as discussed above, however as paper is disclosed as a fiber-based material (instant specification paragraph 31), the teachings of paper are considered to encompass fiber-based as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the antimicrobial food sheet as taught by Wilhoit to comprise paper, i.e. fiber-based substrate, having a weight of from about 30-45g/m2 in order to absorb any food liquid and/or prevent a mess and/or indicate to the user than a cut through has been made in view of Ackerman.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wilhoit teaches of a sheet for packaging and does not teach the sheet as for application to an exposed meat surface of an animal carcass wherein the first major surface is configured to be placed on the exposed surface during process of the animal carcass and act as a barrier to transfer of contaminants therethrough as recited in claim 15. This argument is not convincing for the reasons stated above.
It is further noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Although the claim has been amended to also recite that the first major surface is configured to be placed on the exposed meat surface and act as a barrier, any food safe sheet would have surfaces that were configured to be placed against food and provide at least a physical barrier. Thus, the argued amendments are not seen to distinguish the claims from the prior art as argued.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6991844 teaches cut resistant sheet material with specific weight properties.
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 KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights