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 § 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 16, 36 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 16 consists of shapes but the final blank should be comprising those shapes, not consisting. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is confusing. It suggests there could be no cut, but this contradicts claim 1. It is not clear if these limitations are meant to occur or are optional.
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) 1-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Felden (US 2009/0072014 A1) in view of Heiskanen et al. (US 2007/0060986 A1)
As to claim 1, Von Felden teaches a method for preparing coated packaging blanks comprising:
a. providing a paper, wherein said paper comprises a plurality of cellulose fibers (para 0003); b. applying a surface coating said paper on at least one of a planar top surface and a planar bottom surface with at least one layer of a polymer-containing coating (Fig 2, para 0012) ; c. cutting said coated paper, such that a coated packaging blank is created that has a specific geometrical form and size and that has a plurality of side edges; (para 0013, Fig 3-4) . Von Felden does not teach d. applying at least one layer of a side coating on at least one of said plurality of side edges of said packaging blank; and e. wherein each of said plurality of side edges has a smaller surface area as compared to a surface area of said planar top surface or said planar bottom surface.
Heiskanen teaches coating side edges that are bare after coating and smaller than the surface area of the planar top or bottom surface in order to protect the edges from moisture (para 0046-0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Vod Felden to include coating side edges that are bare after coating and smaller than the surface area of the planar top or bottom surface as taught by Heiskanen in order to protect the edges from moisture.
As to claim 2, Von Felden teaches drying, for example, after coating in para 0013, 0026.
As to claim 3, Heiskanen uses materials that would necessitate drying after coating in para 0046-0051.
As to claim 4, Von Felden teaches a paper sheet or roll (para 0003).
As to claims 5-6, the side coating of Heiskanen is dispersion or emulsion in para 0035, 0046-0051.
As to claim 7, Heiskanen teaches spraying, for example, that fits these methods in para 0026, 0053.
As to claims 8-10, Von Felden teaches these types of coatings in para 0003-0006. Heiskanen teaches these coatings in para 0003, 0048, etc.
As to claim 11, the effect of the combination would have all of the sides coated.
As to claim 12, Heiskanen uses materials that would necessitate drying after coating in para 0046-0051.
As to claim 13, Von Felden teaches drying, for example, after coating the planar areas in para 0013, 0026. Heiskanen uses materials that would necessitate drying after coating in para 0046-0051. Polymers necessitate heat generally for cross linking and this is taught in these sections.
As to claims 14-16, Von Felden cuts as claimed (90 deg) as the edges are straight as shown on the blank Fig. 3. The shapes are shown in Fig. 3.
As to claim 17, Von Felden teaches polymers are cured or cross linked after application of drying and heat in para 0026-0027, the same polymers as that of Heiskanen para 0046-0051.
As to claim 18, when they are cut, the sides of Von Felden are exposed and uprotected (Figures).
As to claim 19, the claim does not give a particular polymer nor curing characteristics. As such, this is a result that flows from the broadly claimed method. As the prior art meets this method, thus this result naturally follows.
As to claim 20, as this is in the alternative to other claimed options, this is also taught.
As to claims 21-22 and 24-25, the weight of the coating depends on reaction conditions such as speed and paper quality in Von Felden para 0026 and thus is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed coating weight, since 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 23, Heiskanen includes minerals in its compositions to withstand hot conditions para 0050, 0052-0053, abstract.
As to claim 26, vertical permeation resistance is desired in Heiskanen para 0046-0051, also Von Felden para 0025, claim 18. Also, as the same materials are used in the method broadly claimed, and permeation is a result of this method, it follows that this claimed result will naturally occur.
As to claim 27, Von Felden teaches the claimed temperature in para 0036.
As to claim 28, the dryer in Von Felden is as claimed in para 0036.
As to claim 29-30, Heiskanen includes minerals in its compositions to withstand hot conditions para 0050, 0052-0053, abstract, thus the amount added depends upon the amount of heat the container will eventually be exposed to and is modified by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed mineral weight, since 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 31, 33-35, Von Felden teaches fibers but not the size (para 0003) or the quality of the paper. However, coating compositions are modified based on paper quality that also includes size (para 0026). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed fiber size and paper quality limitations, since 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 32, additives are included in the polymer coating of Von Felden in para 0026, for example.
Claim 36 is taught as broadly discerned (see above 112 rejection) in Von Felden (Figures) and above cited sections of both Von Felden and Heiskanen.
As to claim 37, Von Felden is an industrial process where more than one will be created (abstract, introduction).
As to claim 38, heat sealing occurs in Heiskanen para 0048, for example.
As to claims 39-41, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
As to claims 42-43, Von Felden includes these polymers in coatings in para 0003-0006. Heiskanen teaches these coatings in para 0003, 0048, etc.
As to claim 44-45, Von Felden includes folding in para 0031 and this would inherently reduce side edge exposure to contents.
As to claim 46, Von Felden includes liquids as food in para 0024 with coated containers touching the wet areas.
As to claims 47-48 and 50, these limitations refer to paper quality and are result effective in Van Felden (para 0026). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed fiber size and paper quality limitations, since 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 49, these methods are in the alternative to other methods taught. Further, the conditions of a known method are optimizable by one of ordinary skill in the art. 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 14-16, 18, 20-22, 26, 31-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Felden (US 20090072014 A1) in view of Wang (CN 213733700 U)
As to claim 1, Von Felden teaches a method for preparing coated packaging blanks comprising:
a. providing a paper, wherein said paper comprises a plurality of cellulose fibers (para 0003); b. applying a surface coating said paper on at least one of a planar top surface and a planar bottom surface with at least one layer of a polymer-containing coating (Fig 2, para 0012) ; c. cutting said coated paper, such that a coated packaging blank is created that has a specific geometrical form and size and that has a plurality of side edges; (para 0013, Fig 3-4) . Von Felden does not teach d. applying at least one layer of a side coating on at least one of said plurality of side edges of said packaging blank; and e. wherein each of said plurality of side edges has a smaller surface area as compared to a surface area of said planar top surface or said planar bottom surface.
Wang teaches coating side edges that are bare after coating and smaller than the surface area of the planar top or bottom surface in order to protect the edges from moisture (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Vod Felden to include coating side edges that are bare after coating and smaller than the surface area of the planar top or bottom surface as taught by Wang in order to protect the edges from moisture.
As to claim 2, Von Felden teaches drying, for example, after coating in para 0013, 0026.
As to claim 4, Von Felden teaches a paper sheet or roll (para 0003).
As to claims 8-9, Von Felden teaches these types of coatings in para 0003-0006.
As to claim 11, the effect of the combination would have all of the sides coated.
As to claims 14-16, Von Felden cuts as claimed (90 deg) as the edges are straight as shown on the blank Fig. 3. The shapes are shown in Fig. 3.
As to claim 18, when they are cut, the sides of Von Felden are exposed and uprotected (Figures).
As to claim 20, as this is in the alternative to other claimed options, this is also taught.
As to claims 21-22, the weight of the coating depends on reaction conditions such as speed and paper quality in Von Felden para 0026 and thus is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed coating weight, since 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 26, vertical permeation resistance is desired Von Felden para 0025, claim 18. Also, as the same materials are used in the method broadly claimed, and permeation is a result of this method, it follows that this claimed result will naturally occur.
As to claims 31, 33-35, Von Felden teaches fibers but not the size (para 0003) or the quality of the paper. However, coating compositions are modified based on paper quality that also includes size (para 0026). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed fiber size and paper quality limitations, since 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 32, additives are included in the polymer coating of Von Felden in para 0026, for example.
Claim 36 is taught as broadly discerned (see above 112 rejection) in Von Felden (Figures) and above cited sections of both Von Felden and Heiskanen.
As to claim 37, Von Felden is an industrial process where more than one will be created (abstract, introduction).
As to claim 38, heat sealing occurs in Wang (abstract), for example.
As to claims 39-40, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights