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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 and 20, in the reply filed on 6/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and claim 13 recites the limitation "the plant-based fiber material comprises an amount of non-wood fiber material” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite or suggest any part of the claimed container is of plant-based fiber material. It appears that applicant may have intended to refer the plant-based fiber material as part of the moulded fiber recited in claim 1. Such interpretation is applied for purpose of examination. Claims 14-15 are rejected due to their dependency of claim 13. Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper et al. (US 2021/0009327; “Kuiper) in view of Kumamoto et al. (EP1126083; “Kumamoto”, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kuiper teaches a moulded fiber container (container 22, see annotated Fig. 1C, Fig. 1D, para [0073]-[0074]), the container comprising a cup-like container body configured for holding an amount of a dairy product (Fig. 1C, para [0073]) and having a bottom part and wall part (Fig. 1C, para [0073]); a flange configured for attaching a sealing lid thereon for closing the cup- like container body (see annotated Fig. 1C for reference to flange, bottom, wall part of the cup-like container of Kuiper);
- wherein the cup-like container body and the flange are a moulded fiber product (para [0024], [0036]-[0038], the container is of suitable moulded fibers, in particular, including suitable micro fibrillated cellulose/MFC), meeting the claimed limitations.
Kuiper further teaches the outer surface of cup-like container body is provided with an in-mould paper label (para [0077]), meeting the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the recitation “for dairy products” of claim 1 is considered as merely an intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the structure of the moulded fiber container of Kuiper is capable of performing the intended use.
Kuiper does not specifically teach wherein the inner surface of cup-like container body is provided with an inner barrier-coating, as instantly claimed.
Kumamoto teaches a formed molded container article that includes a container body portion of a moulded fiber (para [0035]-[0036] [0039] [0040]) and an inner barrier coating (para [0101]-[0102]) that the suitable coatings include those of silicon based coating to provide desired moisture barrier properties (para [0105] [0108] [0111]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuiper in view the teachings of Kumamoto, to include an inner barrier coating as taught by Kumamoto to the inner surface of the container body, to provide a container improved moisture barrier properties as taught by Kumamoto (para [0105] [0108] [0111]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory container that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 2-4, Kumamoto teaches a formed molded container article that includes a container body portion of a moulded fiber (para [0035]-[0036] [0039] [0040]) and an inner barrier coating (para [0101]-[0102]) that the suitable coatings include those of silicon based coating to provide desired moisture barrier properties (para [0105] [0108] [0111]). Kumamoto teaches the use of silicon-based barrier coating, which encompasses silicon-based coating comprising a silicon oxide and/or silane; and Kumamoto also teaches suitable silicon-based coating includes a desired amount of wax (para [0108]), meeting the claimed material limitations of claims 2-4.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuiper in view the teachings of Kumamoto, to include a silicon-based barrier coating as the inner barrier coating as taught by Kumamoto to the inner surface of the container body, to provide a container improved moisture barrier properties as taught by Kumamoto (para [0105] [0108] [0111]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory container that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Kuiper teaches the moulded fiber product comprises an amount of plant-based fiber material, wherein at least a part of the amount is microfibrillated cellulose (para [0024] [0037], plant-based fiber, biomass fibers).
Regarding claim 6, Kuiper recognizes the amount of microfibrillated cellulose is a result effective variable that it affects the fiber-fiber bond strength and reinforcement and thus affect the mechanical properties of the resulting product (para [0024]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the amount of the microfibrillated cellulose of the fiber product (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the microfibrillated cellulose through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., bond strength, and reinforcement and, the mechanical properties of the resulting product) of the fiber moulded container once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., in the range of 1.2 wt% to 10 wt% of the moulded fiber product of claim 6. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Kuiper teaches the moulded fiber product comprises an amount of biodegradable aliphatic polyester (para [0013]–[0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Kuiper teaches the biodegradable aliphatic polyester comprises an amount of one or more of PBS, PHB, PHA, PCL, PLA, PGA, PBST, PBAT, PHBH, PBHT and PHBV (para [0019]).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 20, Kuiper teaches that the suitable amount of biodegradable aliphatic polyester in the moulded fiber product is in the range of 2 to 10 wt% (para [0017]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.5 wt% to 20 wt of claim 9, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 2 wt% to 10 wt.%. of claim 10, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 12 wt of claim 11, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 6.5 wt.% to 20 wt.%. of claim 20. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 13-14, Kuiper teaches the inclusion of the suitable plant-based fiber material that comprises an amount of non-wood fiber material (para [0037]), including various non-wood fiber material, biomass fiber from plant origin, rice-plant derived fiber material (para [0037] [0038]), considered as meeting the claimed limitations. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 13-14 made of record in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 15, Kuiper teaches the inclusion of desired amount of non-wood fiber material and Kuiper recognizes the amount of non-wood fiber material is a result effective variable that it affects the overall strength and stability of the resulting product (para [0037]). See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 15 made of record in this Office Action.
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the amount of non-wood fiber material (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the non-wood fiber material through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., overall strength and stability) of the fiber moulded container once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., in the range of at least 5 wt.% of claim 15. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper in view of Kumamoto as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Phipps et al. (US 2017/0306562; “Phipps”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Kuiper in view of Kumamoto as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kuiper does not specifically teach the inclusion of calcium carbonate and/or calcium bicarbonate as instantly claimed.
Phipps teaches fibers material that includes microfibrillated cellulose fiber including plant-based fiber material (para [0003]-[0007] [0236]) and also teaching the inclusion of suitable inorganic particular material such as calcium carbonate that provides improved elastic modulus and tensile strength (para [0421]-[0424], [0425]-[0428]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Kuiper in view the teachings of Phipps, to include to the fiber material for the moulded fiber container, the suitable calcium carbonate as taught by Phipps, to provide the container with improved elastic modulus and tensile strength as taught by Phipps (para [0421]-[0424], [0425]-[0428]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory container that is the same as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper in view of Kumamoto as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Vierboom (US 2021/0130030; “Vierboom”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Kuiper in view of Kumamoto as discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kuiper does not specifically teach the fiber length as instantly claimed.
Vierboom teaches a container of moulded fibers and in particular the fibers are of plant fibers that provide the resultant container with rigid shape and mechanical stability (para [0030] [0154]-[00157]). Vierboom teaches using fibers of suitable length of about 0.5 to 4 mm (para [0157]), which length range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of above 1.1 mm of claim 16. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Kuiper in view the teachings of Vierboom, to select and include fibers of the suitable fiber length as taught by Vierboom (which length reads on and overlaps with the instantly claimed range, as discussed above), to provide a container with rigid shape and mechanical stability as taught by Vierboom (para [0030] [0154]-[00157]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory container that is the same as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luna et al. (US 2015/0330025) that teaches coating for paper or cardboard article and that hydrophobicity properties are conferred to the paper and cardboard through the use of coatings of auto-assembled silicon oxide nanoparticles and functionalized with fluorocarbon groups and groups such as silanes (para [0001] [0068] [0071]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights