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 .
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) 1-9 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAHTI et al. (US 2020/0305637) in view of JANSSEN et al. (EP 2,520,429 B1; citations to translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, LAHTI teaches a method of packaging a product comprising positioning a product 70 on a support 50, positioning a sheet 60 comprising polymer and fiber above the product 70, heating to thermoform the sheet, and extracting air between the support and the sheet to shape the sheet on the product adhere the sheet to the support at a periphery around the product (paras. 31, 34, and 46; figs. 4-6). LAHTI does not teach that the polymer and fiber sheet is a multi-layer sheet. JANSSEN teaches an alternative polymer and fiber film for packaging products, wherein the sheet is a multi-layer sheet comprising a paper (fiber) layer and a thermoplastic polymer layer (para. 1). It would have been obvious to utilize a multilayer sheet of JANSSEN in place of the sheet of LAHTI in order to increase the recyclability of the sheet (JANSSEN; para. 5). JANSSEN teaches a thermoformable polymer thickness of less than or equal to 50 microns and teaches a paper weight between 20 and 350 g/m^2 (paras. 11 and 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize polymer layer thicknesses and paper weights within the claimed ranges because the claimed ranges overlap those disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, in the step of heating the sheet of LAHTI, heating inherently occurs in both layers.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform separate heating steps because duplicating process steps and rearranging steps has been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04), and there would have been a reasonable expectation of producing the same product (MPEP 2141; KSR).
Regarding claim 4, JANSSEN teaches printing on the paper sheet (JENSSEN; para. 18).
Regarding claims 5-6, JANSSEN does not teach producing the sheets by printing in line or cutting individual sheets from a continuous sheet, but it would have been obvious to print in line and cut separate sheets from a continuous sheet as a well known means of continuously producing sheet materials.
Regarding claims 7-8, JANSSEN teaches providing the paper and polymer layers separately and coupling the two with an adhesive interposed therebetween (para. 33).
Regarding claim 9, JANSSEN teaches forming plural empty windows in the paper layer so portions of the multilayer sheet comprise only the thermoplastic layer (JENSSEN; para. 33).
Regarding claim 24, LAHTI teaches the support comprises a paper layer with a basis weight of 80-200 g/m^2 (para. 35-36) and a thermoformable polymeric material having a thickness between 25 and 500 microns (para. 44), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize polymer layer thicknesses and paper weights within the claimed ranges because the claimed ranges overlap those disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 25, LAHTI teaches thermoforming the support (para. 61).
Regarding claim 26, JANSSEN teaches utilizing polyesters as the thermoplastic layer (JENSSEN; para. 23), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that a polyester sheet would comprise above 99% polyester and less than 1% additional materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that LATHI does not teach utilizing a cellulose material In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). JANSSEN is utilized as disclosing cellulose material in the present rejection.
Applicant argues that JANSSEN does not teach vacuum packaging and shaping. Applicant argues that In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). LATHI is utilized as a teaching of the method of vacuum packaging and shaping in the present rejection.
Applicant argues that JANSSEN does not provide a reason to utilize the material of JANSEN as that of LATHI. It would have been obvious to utilize a multilayer sheet of JANSSEN in place of the sheet of LAHTI in order to increase the recyclability of the sheet (JANSSEN; para. 5).
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 Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights