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 Objections
Claim 24 objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, “wherein it is used a support constituted of a multi-layer material” should be changed to “wherein the support comprises a multi-layer material”, or similar, for clarification. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/13/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that the previous restriction indicated that claims 27 and 28 were part of Group I, but the claims depend from withdrawn claim 10, so elected group I comprises claims 1-9 and 25-26.
Claims 10-11, 14, 16-20, 23, and 27-35 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/13/2026.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 24-26 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 "the support" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, heating to thermoform the sheet, and extracting air between the support and the sheet to adhere the sheet to the support at a periphery around the product (paras. 31, 34, 46. 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, JENSSEN teaches printing on the paper sheet (JENSSEN; para. 18).
Regarding claims 5-6, JENSSEN 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, JENSSEN teaches providing the paper and polymer layers separately and coupling the two with an adhesive interposed therebetween (para. 33).
Regarding claim 9, JENSSEN 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, JENSSEN 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.
Conclusion
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