DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The second-to-last wherein clause should have an “and” after the semicolon to precede the final wherein clause.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-21 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, from which the remaining claims depend, the limitation “wherein the second area A2 is essentially equal to said first area A1” is indefinite because it is not clear how A2, which includes the spout, and thus a major void in its area, can be “essentially equal” to A1. Examiner notes instant Figure 1 clearly shows the highlighted region A2 less than A1 based on the presence of the spout (160). Examiner suggests Applicant amend the claim to more accurately capture the geometric relationship of A1 and A2, e.g. that they have substantially similar diameters.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the term “essentially prevented” comprise. In other words, it is unclear how much leakage must be prevented in order to meet the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “when included” is unclear. More specifically, it is unclear if it refers to the closure device, cup, or both. Additionally, it is unclear if the cup, and its physical structure including the impermeable coating layer, are being positively claimed. Examiner notes the preamble of parent claim 1 defines the scope of the claims as being drawn to the closure element adapted for use with a cup, and thus does not appear to positively claim the cup.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0084361 (Dayton) in view of US 2007/0181591 (Pierce).
Regarding claim 1, Dayton teaches a closure element (120) adapted for use with a cup (104) having a top opening (unlabeled; clearly seen in Figure 1A defined by the rim of the container, and mentioned at least in para. [0013] as “an opening of the paper container”) with a first area A1 in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to an axis A (Examiner notes this limitation is rejected above under 35 USC 112(b); A1 is defined by the opening diameter of container 104),
said closure element and cup adapted to form a container (100; see Figure 1B and para. [0077]) when combined, said container extending along said axis A (a vertical axis of symmetry is not shown, but is inherently present) and configured to hold a beverage or granular substance (see para. [0077] describing the container being for the storage and transport of “water, beverages, and the like”),
said closure element comprising:
a sealing portion (unlabeled; read as the surface where 102 points in Figure 1A) with a second area A2 in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to said axis A (defined by the container diameter), wherein the second area A2 is essentially equal to said first area A1 (the areas are essentially the same in that they comprise substantially the same diameter as seen in Figure 1A);
an annular sealing wall (108) extending around said sealing portion (see 108 depending from a periphery of 102 in Figure 1A), wherein said annular sealing wall is tilted with an angle alpha (a) in relation to said axis A and intended to be in contact with an inside surface of an annular inner wall of said cup to seal said container (not taught); and
said closure element further comprises a spout (112) configured to deliver said beverage or granular substance to a user (connected to the opening at 120 in Figure 1A);
wherein said closure element is configured to be pressed into said cup so that said annular sealing wall engages said inside surface of said annular inner wall of said cup to form a tight seal between said closure element and said cup (108 taught to be inserted into the container 104 to mate with a similar feature 110; para. [0077] teaches the connection could comprise a friction fit),
wherein said angle alpha is between 2-8 degrees (not taught),
wherein said closure element is made of cellulose-based paper material or fiber-based paper material (102 taught to be formed of paper pulp in para. [0077]).
Dayton as applied above fails to teach that the annular sealing wall is tilted with an angle alpha (a) in relation to said axis A and intended to be in contact with an inside surface of an annular inner wall of said cup to seal said container; … wherein said angle alpha is between 2-8 degrees.
Examiner notes Dayton teaches in para. [0077] that the lower section “may be conical” in an embodiment.
Pierce, analogous to paper containers, teaches it is known to form a container in a conical shape (noting the draft angle of the wall in para. [0008]) and forming the annular sealing wall of the lid with a matching angle resulting in a larger sealing area (para. [0008]; Figures 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton, forming it in a conical shape as taught therein, and modifying the closure element annular sealing wall, forming it to have a matching conical angle as taught by Pierce, motivated by the benefit of increasing the sealing surface area, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
It would have been further obvious to form the size of the angle of the of the sealing wall and container wall to matching angles between 2-8 degrees, motivated by design choice, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, a change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A):
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a removable and attachable lid element (Dayton 114) arranged to cover said spout (see Dayton para. [0077]), and said lid element and spout are adapted to seal the container when the lid element is arranged to cover said spout, such that spilling from the container is essentially prevented (see fully sealed container in Dayton Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 3, said spout comprises a first set of threads extending around said spout (112 is taught to be threaded in Dayton para. [0077] and shown as such in Figure 1A), and wherein said lid element comprises a second set of threads and wherein said lid element is configured to be screwed onto said spout (114 is taught to be a “screw cap assembly” and has mating threads in Dayton para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 7, Dayton teaches a container (Dayton 104) configured to hold a beverage or granular substance (see Dayton para. [0077] describing the container being for the storage and transport of “water, beverages, and the like”) and extending along an axis A (unlabeled but inherently present vertical axis of symmetry), the container comprising:
a first cup (104) made of cellulose-based paper material or fiber-based paper material (102 taught to be formed of paper pulp Dayton in para. [0077]), said cup comprising an opening with a first area A1 in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to an axis A (see unlabeled opening defined by the container rim in Figure 1A), wherein said cup comprises an inner annular wall tilted at said an angle alpha (a) in relation to said axis A (Dayton teaches the container can be conical in para. [0077]), and a closure element according to any previous claim (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 21, at least an inside surface of a closure device and/or said cup, when included, comprises an impermeable coating layer (see “waterproof and biodegradable coating” in Dayton para. [0010]).
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0084361 (Dayton) in view of US 2007/0181591 (Pierce) as applied above to claim 2, and further in view of US 4,948,003 (Munoz).
Regarding claim 4, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said spout comprises a first protruding rim extending around said spout and wherein said lid element comprises a first receiving recess configured to receive said protruding rim, and wherein said lid element is configured to be pressed onto said spout.
Munoz, analogous to closures with spouts sealed by a cap, teaches a protruding rim (72) which is received in a cap recess (112) which provides a “releasable snaplock engagement” resulting in a seal (col. 5, lines 45-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cap of Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above, replacing the threaded connection with a protruding rim on the spout and a recess in the cap as taught by Munoz, motivated by the use of an analogous releasable sealing structure, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
8. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0084361 (Dayton) in view of US 2007/0181591 (Pierce) as applied above to claims 1 and 2, and further in view of US 5,797,506 (Lehmkuhl).
Regarding claim 5, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said spout comprises a permeable surface configured to be pierced.
Lehmkuhl, analogous to spouts sealed by a cap, teaches it is known to provide a foil seal (90) to be pierced in order to dispense the container contents (col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spout of Dayton in view of Pierce, providing a pierceable foil seal as taught by Lehmkuhl, motivated by the benefit of sealing the contents before first use, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 6, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said lid element comprises a spike configured to be used to pierce a permeable surface of said spout in order to allow a user to reach said beverage or granular substance.
Lehmkuhl, analogous to spouts sealed by a cap, teaches it is known to provide a foil seal (90) to be pierced by a spike in order to dispense the container contents (col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above, providing a rupturable seal on the spout, and a spike on the cap as taught by Lehmkuhl, motivated by the benefit of sealing the contents before first use, and providing a user with a means to break the seal for dispensing, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0084361 (Dayton) in view of US 2007/0181591 (Pierce) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of US 6,367,652 (Toida).
Regarding claim 8, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach a container further comprising a second cup configured to at least partially enclose said first cup.
Toida, analogous to containers, teaches a second cup (30) configured to at least partially enclose a first cup (10) in order to insulate the first cup (col. 1, lines 4-6; col. 3, lines 5-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above, providing a second cup to partially enclose the first cup as taught by Toida, motivated by the benefit of insulating the cup of Dayton in view of Pierce, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0084361 (Dayton) in view of US 2007/0181591 (Pierce) as applied above to claim 7, and further in view of US 5,820,016 (Stropkay).
Regarding claim 9, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said closure element comprises a second protruding rim extending around an annular sealing wall, and wherein said first cup comprises a said second protruding rim adapted to interact with a second receiving recess of said cup extending around said inner annular wall and configured to receive said second protruding rim when said closure element is pressed into said cup.
Stropkay, analogous to liquid containers, teaches providing a protruding rim (40) on an annular sealing wall (32), which is configured to interact with a receiving recess (24) on a cup inner annular wall (12) when the lid is pressed into the cup, to provide a liquid seal (col. 5, line 40 through col. 6, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, providing a protruding rim on the lid annular sealing wall and a recess on the container inner sealing wall as taught by Stropkay, motivated by the benefit of an internal sealing interlock, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
11. Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0084361 (Dayton) in view of US 2007/0181591 (Pierce) as applied above to claims 1 and 7, and further in view of US 2022/0136174 (Chung).
Regarding claim 10, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said paper material is formed from a fiber-based slurry comprising:
a fiber base comprising at least 50% by weight of old corrugated container (OCC).
Chung, analogous to paper molded containers, teaches it is known to form molded paper containers of a slurry comprising at least 50% OCC (paras. [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising at least 50% OCC as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a suitable paper molding material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 11, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said paper material is formed from a fiber-based slurry comprising;
a fiber base comprising at least 10% softwood (SW).
Chung, analogous to molded paper containers, teaches forming the container of a slurry including at least 10% softwood (see paras. [0050] and [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising at least 10% SW as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a suitable paper molding material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 12, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said fiber-based slurry further comprising a moisture barrier; and/or an oil barrier, wherein said moisture barrier and said oil barrier are in a range of about 1%-4% by weight respectively.
Examiner notes Dayton suggests use of waterproof coatings (see para. [0010] therein).
Chung, analogous to molded paper containers, teaches forming the container of a slurry comprising a moisture barrier (AKD; para. [0065]); and/or an oil barrier (UNIDYNE; para. [0065]), wherein said moisture barrier and said oil barrier are in a range of about 1%-4% by weight respectively (AKD range 1.5%-4%; UNIDYNE range 0.5%-10%; [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising a moisture barrier and oil barrier within the ranges of 1%-4% as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a suitable paper molding material with liquid barrier properties, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 13, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said fiber-based slurry further comprises a strength additive in a range of 1.5%-4% by weight.
Chung, analogous to molded paper containers, teaches forming the container of a slurry comprising a strength additive (inorganic salt; para. [0065]) in the range of 1.5%-4% (preferably 1.5%-5%, most preferably about 4%; see para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising a strength additive in the range of 1.5%-4% as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a sufficiently strong paper molding material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 14, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above teaches that at least an inside surface of a closure device and/or said cup, when included, comprises an impermeable coating layer (see waterproof coating on the inner surface in Dayton para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said paper material is formed from a fiber-based slurry comprising:
a fiber base comprising at least 50% by weight of old corrugated container (OCC).
Chung, analogous to paper molded containers, teaches it is known to form molded paper containers of a slurry comprising at least 50% OCC (paras. [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising at least 50% OCC as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a suitable paper molding material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 16, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said fiber-based slurry further comprising a moisture barrier and/or an oil barrier, wherein said moisture barrier and said oil barrier are in a range of about 1%-4% by weight respectively.
Examiner notes Dayton suggests use of waterproof coatings (see para. [0010] therein).
Chung, analogous to molded paper containers, teaches forming the container of a slurry comprising a moisture barrier (AKD; para. [0065]); and/or an oil barrier (UNIDYNE; para. [0065]), wherein said moisture barrier and said oil barrier are in a range of about 1%-4% by weight respectively (AKD range 1.5%-4%; UNIDYNE range 0.5%-10%; [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising a moisture barrier and oil barrier within the ranges of 1%-4% as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a suitable paper molding material with liquid barrier properties, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 17, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said fiber-based slurry further comprises a strength additive in a range of 1.5%-4% by weight.
Chung, analogous to molded paper containers, teaches forming the container of a slurry comprising a strength additive (inorganic salt; para. [0065]) in the range of 1.5%-4% (preferably 1.5%-5%, most preferably about 4%; see para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising a strength additive in the range of 1.5%-4% as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a sufficiently strong paper molding material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 18, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said paper material is formed from a fiber-based slurry comprising:a fiber base comprising at least 10% softwood (SW).
Chung, analogous to molded paper containers, teaches forming the container of a slurry including at least 10% softwood (see paras. [0050] and [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising at least 10% SW as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a suitable paper molding material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 19, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said fiber-based slurry further comprising a moisture barrier and/or an oil barrier, wherein said moisture barrier and said oil barrier are in a range of about 1%-4% by weight respectively.
Examiner notes Dayton suggests use of waterproof coatings (see para. [0010] therein).
Chung, analogous to molded paper containers, teaches forming the container of a slurry comprising a moisture barrier (AKD; para. [0065]); and/or an oil barrier (UNIDYNE; para. [0065]), wherein said moisture barrier and said oil barrier are in a range of about 1%-4% by weight respectively (AKD range 1.5%-4%; UNIDYNE range 0.5%-10%; [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising a moisture barrier and oil barrier within the ranges of 1%-4% as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a suitable paper molding material with liquid barrier properties, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 20, Dayton in view of Pierce as applied above fails to teach that said fiber-based slurry further comprises a strength additive in a range of 1.5%-4% by weight.
Chung, analogous to molded paper containers, teaches forming the container of a slurry comprising a strength additive (inorganic salt; para. [0065]) in the range of 1.5%-4% (preferably 1.5%-5%, most preferably about 4%; see para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Dayton in view of Pierce, forming the container of paper pulp slurry comprising a strength additive in the range of 1.5%-4% as taught by Chung, motivated by the use of a sufficiently strong paper molding material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733