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
The amendment filed 05/21/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a body” in claim 33 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Looks like applicant has not labeled or assigned a number to “the body”. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima (US5588544A), Dinzinger (US20220041319A1) and further in view of Takani (US20130180088A1).
Regarding claim 33, Takashima teaches a molded product made of a fiber material, comprising (fig.1A shows the container which can be molded from a fiber material):
a body (fig.1A shows the body 11); and
a connection element, wherein the connection element includes a thin connecting wall with a plurality of openings through which the fiber material of the molded product projects (fig.1A-1B shows the connecting elements 2A that includes a thin wall 3A with openings 15A that can have the material of the bottle pass through; “Through-holes 15 are formed in the cylindrical wall of the cylindrical body 3A, permitting bottle resin 23 material to pass through.” Col.8 lines 37-39; it is noted applicant has not defined a thin wall i.e. thin with respect to what);
wherein the connection element is anchored to the body by a layer of deposited fiber material protruding through the plurality of openings in the thin connecting wall (fig.1A shows the connection element 2A is anchored in to the body 11 by a layer that gets layer of deposited material protruding through the opening of the wall 3A).
Takashima does not teach wherein the fiber material is a cellulose fiber material.
Dinzinger teaches wherein the fiber material is a cellulose fiber material (fig.1 shows the beverage cup that is made from a fibre/cellulose starch mix). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fiber material disclosed by Takashima by adding the teaching of fiber cellulose material as disclosed by Dinzinger in order to make cups out of recyclable material and have positive carbon footprint. “While conventional cups are made of plastic or else paper coated with plastic or wax, cups of the present invention are made of purely plant-based materials, such as cellulose hydrate and cardboard or fiber/cellulose starch mix, as well as non-vulcanized natural rubber or plant-based wax and a mix of cellulose hydrate, cardboard, fiber/cellulose and/or starch. The cups are thus not only easy to recycle or compost, they are also produced from renewable raw materials that have a positive carbon footprint. Due to the plant-based starch content, the cups can even be used as plant fertilizer or serve as fish food should they ever end up in the sea. Therefore, the cups of the present invention form a very good, environmentally friendly and environmentally conscious alternative to common disposable beverage cups.” (0006, Dinzinger)Takashima as modified right above does not teach wherein injection molding can be used to produce a cellulose pulp fiber.
Takani does teach wherein injection molding can be used to produce a cellulose pulp fiber (“he engaging element may be produced using known injection molding techniques. In particular, it is possible to produce it by mixing wood or wood-free pulp obtained from wood, cotton, flax, hemp, straw, oriental paper-bush (Mitsumata), and paper mulberry (Kouzo) and so on, or a paper member of an used newspaper, a magazine, a corrugated board and so on, used paper pulp of a paper member, a board, a cut scrap paper, a torn paper caused through papermaking process, a broken paper, a dropped paper, an used refuse paper and so on, or a mixture thereof with a predetermined amount of a pellet material of the polyolefin together while heating in an injection molding machine; and filling the mixture to an injection molding mold. Water may be added in conjunction when starch is contained, and drying process for drying the water after the injection molding (pulp injection molding) may be preferably adoptable.”-0042). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the molded product disclosed by Takashima as modified above by adding the teaching of injection molding to produce a fiber cellulose product as disclosed by Takani in order to achieve biodegradability while using injection molding in particular pulp injection molding.
Regarding the specific process of forming the molded product, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 33 above and further in view of Dinzinger (US20220041319A1).
Regarding claim 34, the references as applied to claim 33 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Takashima further teaches wherein the molded product is a container having at least one opening, wherein the think connecting wall surrounds the at least one opening (fig.1A shows the perform 11 that will be a container that will be molded from the product and will have an opening similar to bottle 13 and the wall 3A will be surrounding the middle of the opening), wherein the container includes a cover (fig.1A a cap can be added to container molded to cover the opening “The bottle neck structure of claim 18 further comprising means for mechanically strengthening said resin core member so that said cap may be affixed to said bottle when said bottle is filled with a hot liquid”-Claim 20) wherein the connection element is injection molded (fig.1A connecting element 2A’s is injection molded). Takashima does not teach wherein the container is coated with a biodegradable or bioinert coating, wherein the connection element is injection molded, and/or wherein the connection element is made of a biodegradable material.
Dinzinger teaches wherein the container is coated with a biodegradable or bioinert coating and wherein the connection element is made of a biodegradable material (“wherein a first layer consists of cellulose hydrate and is connected to a second layer by a coating with primer material, wherein in both layers the bottom and the side wall are produced in one piece, and a method for producing a cup with at least two layers, wherein a first layer consists of natural rubber or plant-based wax and a second layer consists of a mixture of cellulose hydrate ,cardboard, fiber/cellulose and/or starch and the bottom is produced together with the cup”-0140, Dinzinger and “By using non-vulcanized natural rubber or wax and a mix of cellulose hydrate, cardboard, fiber/pulp and/or starch, the cups and lids of the present invention are functional and versatile, but unlike conventional disposable cups, are fully biodegradable or even compostable.”-0070; “This is the case, for example, when at least one layer of the base and sidewall are produced by a compression molding process or casting process (e.g., hot compression molding process or injection molding process).”-0105). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container and the connecting element disclosed by Takashima by adding the biodegradable material and coating as disclosed by Dinzinger in order to make the containers fully biodegradable and compostable. “Preferred primers of the present invention are vegan, fully biodegradable, compostable, acid-free, and/or crystal clear.”(0079, Dinzinger)
Regarding claim 35, the references as applied to claim 34 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Takashima as modified in claim 34 further teaches wherein the coating is a primer including cellulose fibers, casein, whey, agar-agar, psyllium husks, and/or silicon dioxide (“wherein a first layer consists of cellulose hydrate and is connected to a second layer by a coating with primer material, wherein in both layers the bottom and the side wall are produced in one piece, and a method for producing a cup with at least two layers, wherein a first layer consists of natural rubber or plant-based wax and a second layer consists of a mixture of cellulose hydrate ,cardboard, fiber/cellulose and/or starch and the bottom is produced together with the cup”-0140, Dinzinger).
Claim(s) 34-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 33 above and further in view of Huang (US 20100181372 A1).
Regarding claim 34, the references as applied to claim 33 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Takashima further teaches wherein the molded product is a container having at least one opening, wherein the connecting wall surrounds the at least one opening (fig.1A shows the perform 11 that will be a container that will be molded from the product and will have an opening similar to bottle 13 and the wall 3A will be surrounding the middle of the opening), wherein the container includes a cover (fig.1A a cap can be added to container molded to cover the opening “The bottle neck structure of claim 18 further comprising means for mechanically strengthening said resin core member so that said cap may be affixed to said bottle when said bottle is filled with a hot liquid”-Claim 20). Takashima does not teach wherein the container is coated with a biodegradable or bioinert coating, wherein the connection element is injection molded, and/or wherein the connection element is made of a biodegradable material.
Huang does teach where the container is coated with a biodegradable or bioinert coating (“The cup 2 may be made by first forming the container body 21 with a predetermined shape, followed by applying the first and second biodegradable coating compositions respectively onto the inner and outer surfaces 211, 213 to form the inner and outer protecting layers 22, 33. Alternatively, opposite surfaces of a paper sheet may be coated respectively with the first and second biodegradable coating compositions so as to form the inner and outer protecting layers 22, 33 thereon..”-0026, Huang). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container disclosed by Takashima by adding the teaching of first and second biodegradable coating as disclosed by Huang in order to coat the container with biodegradable coating that are both food safe and protect the environment.
Regarding the specific process of forming the connection element, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 35, the references as applied to claim 34 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Takashima as modified in claim 34 does not teach wherein the coating is a primer including cellulose fibers, casein, whey, agar-agar, psyllium husks, and/or silicon dioxide.
Dinzinger does teach wherein the coating is a primer including cellulose fibers, casein, whey, agar-agar, psyllium husks, and/or silicon dioxide (“wherein a first layer consists of cellulose hydrate and is connected to a second layer by a coating with primer material, wherein in both layers the bottom and the side wall are produced in one piece, and a method for producing a cup with at least two layers, wherein a first layer consists of natural rubber or plant-based wax and a second layer consists of a mixture of cellulose hydrate ,cardboard, fiber/cellulose and/or starch and the bottom is produced together with the cup”-0140, Dinzinger). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating disclosed by claim 34 by adding the teaching of cellulose fiber as disclosed by Dinzinger in order to make the entirety of the container including the coating to be biodegradable and to provide with a positive carbon footprint. “The cups are thus not only easy to recycle or compost, they are also produced from renewable raw materials that have a positive carbon footprint. Due to the plant-based starch content, the cups can even be used as plant fertilizer or serve as fish food should they ever end up in the sea. Therefore, the cups of the present invention form a very good, environmentally friendly and environmentally conscious alternative to common disposable beverage cups.” (0006, Dinzinger)
Regarding claim 37, the references as applied to claim 34 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Takashima as modified in claim 34 further teaches wherein the container is coated with a second biodegradable coating or a second bioinert coating (“The cup 2 may be made by first forming the container body 21 with a predetermined shape, followed by applying the first and second biodegradable coating compositions respectively onto the inner and outer surfaces 211, 213 to form the inner and outer protecting layers 22, 33. Alternatively, opposite surfaces of a paper sheet may be coated respectively with the first and second biodegradable coating compositions so as to form the inner and outer protecting layers 22, 33 thereon..”-0026, Huang).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 37 and further in view of Patel (US 20160360783 A1).
Regarding claim 38, the references as applied to claim 37 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Takashima as modified in claim 37 does not teach wherein the second biodegradable coating or the second bioinert coating includes linseed oil, carnauba wax, and/or beeswax.
Patel does teach wherein the biodegradable coating includes linseed oil, carnauba wax, and/or beeswax (“In some embodiments the coating 310 may comprise, by way of example, a varnish, a paint, a wax (e.g., beeswax, Chinese, lanolin, shellac, spermaceti, bayberry, carnauba, candelilla, castor, esparto, Japan, jojoba, ouricury, rice bran, soy, tallow tree, ceresin, montan, ozocerite, peat, paraffin, microcrystalline, petroleum jelly, polyethylene wax, Fischer-Tropsch, esterified, saponified, substituted amide, and polymerized α-olefins)..”-0116, Patel). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second biodegradable coating disclosed by claim 37 by adding the teaching of beeswax coating as disclosed by Patel in order to provide additional moisture resistance to protect the units of the product or performs other functions. “while the coating 310 provides additional moisture resistance to protect the units of the product or performs other functions.” (0116, Patel)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to claim 33 made the claim that was already broad even broader. The addition of the body, which is not labeled/shown or discussed in specification, added nothing to the claim. Prior art of Takashima still reads on the claim as written, especially now since the claim has been made broader. Applicant’s new limitation is addressed above and the prior art states “Through-holes 15 are formed in the cylindrical wall of the cylindrical body 3A, permitting bottle resin 23 material to pass through.” in Col. 8 lines 37-39. The resin of the bottle material, i.e. “the body” goes though the openings 15. Applicant also argues that Takashima does not teach the it is made of cellulose fibers material. If applicant reads the rejection given above nowhere does the action states that Takashima teaches that, for the material a secondary reference of Dinzinger is used that shows the fiber materials can be cellulose fiber material and why they are advantageous. Applicant’s second argument is that the injection molding of the Takashima cannot be used for the cellulose fiber this is not persuasive as that is product by process. Regarding the specific process of forming the molded product, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Regardless of applicant making that assumption, additional reference of Takani has been used to show different injection molding can be used for the cellulose fibers i.e. injection molding (pulp injection molding). Additional refence can be used since applicant amended the claim. The prior art shows the claimed structure, which according to the claim is a body, connecting element with a wall and openings and is anchored in the body and material protruding from the openings. That is the entire claim 33 nothing else is even claimed. Applicant also argues the “thin connecting wall” and offers no frame of reference hence the wall described in the prior is a “thin wall”. Applicant also argues the secondary refence stating it discloses no connection element, this is not persuasive as the Dinzinger reference was not used to disclose such element it was used to show the teaching of the cellulose material. No other arguments were made.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights