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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 13-17, 22-28 are currently pending.
Claims 3-5, 12, 18-21, and 29-30 are canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 2014/0110292 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-8,
Chao teaches a reusable silicone wrap, the wrap having a shore A hardness value of from 20 to 80, which overlaps with the claimed about 20 to about 70 and the narrower range of from about 20 to about 60, and a thickness from 0.05 mm to about 5 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range about 0.02 mm to about 1.0 mm and the narrower range of about 0.02 mm to about 0.5 mm (Chao: abstract; par. 0011).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding 10 and 11,
Chao teaches the reusable silicone wrap required by claim 1. Chao further teaches the wrap is dimensioned to wrap around foodstuff to form an airtight seal around foodstuff by engaging one or more surfaces as air is isolated (Chao: par. 0022).
Regarding claim 22,
Chao teaches the reusable silicone wrap required by claim 1. Chao further teaches the wrap would have a foodstuff-facing surface and an environment facing surface (Chao: abstract; par. 0022).
Regarding claim 28,
Chao teaches the reusable silicone wrap required by claim 1. Chao further teaches the silicone wrap is formed by a compression molding process (Chao: abstract). However, the limitations requiring the process in which the wrap is produced are product by process limitations.
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference from the claimed silicone wrap and the silicone wrap disclosed by Chao.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Gao et al. (US 2020/0255663 A1).
Regarding claims 13-17,
Chao teaches the reusable silicone wrap required by claim 1. Chao does not explicitly teach wherein the wrap is made from a liquid silicone rubber (LSR) composition comprising LSR and additives in the claimed proportions.
Gao teaches using liquid silicon rubber compositions comprising liquid silicon rubber and reinforcing filler (additives) to provide improved processing to increase efficiency, minimize waste, allow greater flexibility in type and amounts of ingredients and additives in said silicone rubber compositions and may be used in bakery ware and home appliances (Gao: abstract; par. 0002 and 0146). The reinforcing filler additives may be added in an amount of from 1 to 10wt% to provide improved physical properties, which overlaps with the claimed 0.2 to about 3 wt% (Gao: par. 0096). The total weight percent based of additional ingredients based on the liquid silicone rubber (components A + B) is from 1 to 20 wt%, which would leave the remaining amount the liquid silicone rubber being from 99 to 20 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed about 97 to about 99.8 wt% of said LSR (Gao: par. 0127).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Chao and Gao are in the corresponding field of silicone rubber compositions for use in kitchen/food applications. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize LSR with a filler additive in the claimed proportions for the silicone wrap of Chao to provide improved processing and physical properties as taught by Gao.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Tilman et al. (US 2008/0044113 A1).
Regarding claims 23-25,
Chao teaches the reusable silicone wrap required by claim 22. Chao does not explicitly teach wherein the food-stuff facing surface and the environment-facing surface is microtextured.
Tilman teaches a silicone food package (Tilman: abstract). Tilman teaches multiple applications of texturing on the silicone packaging. A textural indication may be utilized on the exterior (the environment-facing) surface of the package to serve as an external visual indicator (Tilman: par. 0138). Additionally, textured standoff areas may be implemented on the inside or interior of each panel (the food-facing surface) to have slight air gaps or spacings between items positioned next to the films (Tilman: par. 0165 and 0193). The textured areas may have textures of protrusions, dots, bumps, etc. and may have 0.01 mm (10 microns) high and thus may be considered microtextured (Tilman: par. 0185).
Chao and Tilman are in the corresponding field of silicon films for use in food-stuff applications. Therefore, it would be obvious to macrotexture the environment and food-facing surfaces of Chao to provide visual indicators and/or provide areas that provide spacings or slight airgaps for the intended purposes as taught by Tilman.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Thrasher (US 2018/0177315 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 27,
Chao teaches the reusable silicone wrap required by claim 22. Chao does not explicitly teach further comprising an aesthetic layer immobilized on the environment-facing surface that comprises a colorant or graphics.
Thrasher teaches a silicone wrap that covers the opening of a drinking container (Thrasher: abstract; par. 0019). The wrap may have identifying indicia (an aesthetic layer) such as a graphic design, printed patterns, logos, slogans, and/or names immobilized on an environment-facing surface to promote business or collectability of the product (Thrash: par. 0024).
Chao and Thrasher are in the corresponding field of silicone wraps for use in food based applications. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply an aesthetic layer having printed designs of graphics on an environment-facing surface of Chao to promote business or collectability of the product as taught by Thrasher.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 Veronica D. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights