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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 15-17, continuous coating species in the reply filed on October 21, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are linked by the common features and purpose, and that the prior art, US 3,111,142 teaches of a cellulose bat within a box and thus does not teach of a flexible food safe sheet with an antimicrobial surface as claimed. This is not found persuasive because lack of unity is based on the common/linking feature recited between the groups being known and/or obvious over the prior art, such that it does not make a contribution. In this case, the linking feature is the flexible food safe sheet with an antimicrobial major surface as stated in the restriction requirement. This feature was known in the prior art as shown by Wilhoit below, and thus the groups are not linked by a special technical feature. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-14 and 18 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to 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). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 15 and 17 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 a meat surface and as food-contact safe as recited in claim 15, the claimed limitation of application to a meat surface is intended use and only requires the ability of the product to perform. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lu et al (US 2007/0275101) teaches removable antimicrobial coating surfaces for papers/sheets.
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