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, 3-8, 10 and 12-14, in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1 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 1 recites the limitation "at least one of the upper or lower recyclable plastic layers includes a metallised film sublayer, the metallised BOPP sublayer having a thickness" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-8 and 12-14 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
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, 4, 7-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn et al. (WO 2019/051530) in view of Miyawaki et al. (JP 2015-189495), Baldwin et al. (US 2016/0185025) and Stanley et al. (US 2014/0099455).
Regarding claim 1, Penn teaches a fluted sheeting (“fluted sheeting”) (Paragraph [0001]). The sheeting includes an upper plastic wall and a lower plastic wall with a fluted sheeting interposed between wherein each of the layers may be formed from a combinations of plastics including polyethylene and polypropylene (“an upper recyclable plastic layer; a lower recyclable plastic layer; a recyclable fluted plastic layer, interposed between the upper and lower recyclable plastic layers”) (Paragraphs [0002]; [0008]).
Penn is silent with respect to one of the upper and lower plastic walls comprising a printable BOPP sublayer, a base sublayer comprising a PE plastic, or a bioplastic/compostable plastic, or a PP plastic, wherein the printable BOPP sublayer is layered to the base sublayer with an intermediate liquid laminating LDPE material.
Miyawaki teaches a packaging bag which is formed from a laminated film which includes a substrate formed from biaxially stretched polypropylene having a sufficiently high tensile strength (“printable BOPP layer”) and a sealant layer formed from polyethylenes (“base sublayer”) and an adhesive joining the two being LDPE resin (“intermediate liquid laminating LDPE”) (Paragraphs [0014]; [0018]; [0019]; [0022]). This combination provides sufficient sealant and tensile strength properties to avoid premature opening when steam is generated (Paragraphs [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form one of the upper or lower walls to include a substrate formed from biaxially stretched polypropylene having a sufficiently high tensile strength (“printable BOPP layer”) and a sealant layer formed from polyethylenes (“base sublayer”) and an adhesive joining the two being LDPE resin (“intermediate liquid laminating LDPE”) as taught by Miyawaki such that this combination provides sufficient sealant and tensile strength properties to avoid premature opening when steam is generated.
Penn is silent with respect to one of the upper and lower plastic walls comprising a metallised film sublayer, the metallised BOPP sublayer having a thickness between about 15 microns and about 50 microns; and the metallised upper or layer further includes a closed cell PE foam sublayer, layered to the metallised layer, the foam sublayer having a thickness between about 1 mm to 10 mm.
Baldwin teaches multilayer polyolefin foam structures (Paragraph [0001]). The foam structures may be formed for packaging and barrier films (Paragraph [0003]). The foams may be a closed cell polyethylene foam with a film layer (Paragraphs [0010]-[0011]). The film layer may be a vacuum metallized polypropylene for barrier applications (Paragraph [0077]). The foam layer may have a thickness of 0.8 to 20 mm (Pargraph [0148]).
Stanley teaches flexible barrier packages including a barrier layer formed from metallized BOPP having a thickness of up to 50 microns (Paragraphs 0009]; [0050]-[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form one of the upper or lower walls to be formed from a closed cell crosslinked polyethylene foam with a metallized BOPP barrier layer, wherein the foam has a thickness of up to 20 mm and the barrier layer has a thickness of up to 50 microns, such that the combination provides improved barrier properties as taught by Baldwin and Stanley.
Regarding claim 4, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Baldwin teaches the foams having thicknesses in the range of 0.8 to 20 mm.
Regarding claim 7, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the combination teaches the materials for each of the layers of the sheeting of claim 1 which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as providing an effective thermal and moisture barrier as required by claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 2, the fluted layer comprises a repeating pattern of recesses which take the shape of a hexagon.
Regarding claim 14, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Penn further teaches the sheeting having a thickness of about 7 mm (Paragraph [0028]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn et al. (WO 2019/051530) in view of Miyawaki et al. (JP 2015-189495), Baldwin et al. (US 2016/0185025) and Stanley et al. (US 2014/0099455), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cheng (CN 1911610).
Regarding claim 3, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the sealant layer is formed from polyethylenes including HDPE (Paragraph [0021]).
Penn and Miyawaki are silent with respect to the sealant layer further comprising calcium carbonate in a range of 50% to 70%.
Cheng teaches a raw material composition which includes 40-50 parts of polyethylene and 50-60 parts of calcium carbonate which utilizes light and heavy calcium carbonate for low cost and easy processing while being able to be mechanically packaged (Paragraphs [0004]; [0007]; [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the sealant layers, which include HDPE, to further include 50-60 parts of calcium carbonate which utilizes light and heavy calcium carbonate for low cost and easy processing while being able to be mechanically packaged as taught by Cheng.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn et al. (WO 2019/051530) in view of Miyawaki et al. (JP 2015-189495), Baldwin et al. (US 2016/0185025) and Stanley et al. (US 2014/0099455), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wolf et al. (US 2017/0197750).
Regarding claims 5-6, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Penn is silent with respect to the sheeting being formed to comprise a foldable blank for packaging, the foldable blank being configured to be die cut, as required by claim 5. Penn is also silent with respect to the blanks being configured to form a box with a closable lid, as required by claim 6.
Wolf teaches a container which is formed from a blank of a fluted sheet which is unitary, planar and die-cut (Paragraph [0041]). The blanks formed into containers provide improved shipping and storage capabilities (Paragraph [0005]). The containers also form a box with a closable lid (Paragraph [0038]; Fig. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the sheeting of Penn as blanks which are die-cut in and fold into a container with a lid in order to provide improved shipping and storage capabilities as taught by Wolf.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn et al. (WO 2019/051530) in view of Miyawaki et al. (JP 2015-189495), Baldwin et al. (US 2016/0185025) and Stanley et al. (US 2014/0099455), as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Fascio (US 2005/0214512).
Regarding claim 10, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Penn is silent with respect to the flutes of the sheeting having a thermally insulating filler.
Fascio teaches a corrugated product for use as protective packaging or insulation barrier (Paragraph [0005]). The products include a corrugated sheet in which the corrugations further include an expanded foam which provides cushioning and insulation properties (Paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to fill the flutes of Penn with an expanded foam in order to provide improved cushioning and insulation properties as taught by Fascio.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn et al. (WO 2019/051530) in view of Miyawaki et al. (JP 2015-189495), Baldwin et al. (US 2016/0185025) and Stanley et al. (US 2014/0099455), as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Larsen (WO 90/09927).
Regarding claim 12, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Penn is silent with respect to at least one edge of the sheeting being sealed.
Larsen teaches a sealed packaging of a punched corrugated cardboard which has a waterproof sheet adhered to both sides of the corrugated cardboard and welded outside of the periphery of the blank to waterproof the package (Pg. 1, Lines 5-14; Fig. 1). The blank is then useful for the transportation of fresh food (Pg. 3, Lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the sheeting of Penn to further include a waterproof sheet to the upper and lower portions in order to waterproof the sheeting as taught by Larsen.
Regarding claim 13, Penn teaches the sheeting as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Penn is silent with respect to an interposed sheet provided between the upper layer and a further upper layer.
Penn is silent with respect to at least one edge of the sheeting being sealed.
Larsen teaches a sealed packaging of a punched corrugated cardboard which has a waterproof sheet adhered to both sides of the corrugated cardboard and welded outside of the periphery of the blank to waterproof the package (Pg. 1, Lines 5-14; Fig. 1). The blank is then useful for the transportation of fresh food (Pg. 3, Lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the sheeting of Penn to further include a waterproof sheet to the upper and lower portions in order to waterproof the sheeting as taught by Larsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the waterproof sheet is a further upper layer and the sealant layer teaches an interposed sheet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights