DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 7/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 5, 12, 16, 20, 24-26, 28-29, 31, 34, 41, 45, 48, 52-54 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 12, 16, 20, 24-26, 28-29, 31, 34, 41, 45, 48, 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 28 recite “removing the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon with the item of interest therein from the mold after a predetermined amount of time”. The original specification does not describe removing the object of interest with the item of interest from the mold after a predetermined amount of time. Para 0008 and 0035 describe removing the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon (i.e. without item of interest) from the mold after a predetermined amount of time. Nowhere in the original specification, is there any mention of the item of interest being removed with the object of interest from the mold after a predetermined amount of time.. As such, the original specification does not support “removing the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon with the item of interest therein from the mold after a predetermined amount of time”.
Any remaining claims are rejected for depending on one of the above rejected claims.
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 1-2, 5, 12, 16, 20, 24-26, 28-29, 31, 34, 41, 45, 48, 52-54 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 28, the limitation “removing the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon with the item of interest therein from the mold after a predetermined amount of time” is vague and unclear because the original specification does not describe removing the object of interest with the item of interest from the mold. As such, it is unclear how the method with perform with this additional limitation. Therefore, the scope and the meets and bounds of this limitation cannot be determined. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner assumes this step is optional.
Any remaining claims are rejected for depending on one of the above rejected claims.
Any claims that are rejected under this section are as best understood for application of prior art.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 16, 20, 24-26, 28-29, 31, 34, 45, 48, 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGP# 20200056333 of Backfolk et al. (henceforth Backfolk) in view of USPGP# 20110259537 Husband et al. (henceforth Husband) and in further view of USPGP# 20130068768 of Paolilli et al. (henceforth Paolilli).
Regarding claim 1, Backfolk teaches
A method of overmolding an object of interest (moulded article) with a protective coating (para 0015), comprising:
receiving a mold (“male part and female part” in para 0045) having a top half (male part) and a bottom half (female part) dimensioned for an object of interest (para 0045);
placing the object of interest into the bottom half of the mold (para 0045);
spraying a protective coating (CNF, CMC para 0023, 0037, 0042-0045) on to the object of interest
spreading a sheet of protective coating on the object of interest (para 0019) wherein the protective coating consists of
i) unmodified cellulose nanofibril (para 0042),
ii) unmodified carboxymethyl cellulose (para 0023), and
placing the top half of the mold onto protective coating (para 0045);
applying a predetermined pressure between the top and bottom halves of the mold (para 0029 and 0046);
applying a predetermined amount of heat to the mold, to thereby molding the protective coating onto the object of interest (para 0028 and 0046);
placing an item of interest (i.e. grease, water or oil) in the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon (para 0004, 0049, 0051-0052); and
removing the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon with the item of interest therein from the mold after a predetermined amount of time (para 0046, i.e. after drying).
Backfolk teaches additives can be added to the protective coating to improve functionality (para 0043). However, Backfolk does not specifically teach the protective coating having an additive selected from the group consisting of polyvinylalcohol, polyacrylamides, polyaziridine, polyamidoamine- epichlorohydrins, polycarbodiimides, ammonium zirconium carbonate, silanes, and a combination thereof
Husband teaches
A method of preparing a protective coating (para 0110); wherein the protective coating has an additive selected from the group consisting of polyvinylalcohol (para 0110b, 0110d), polyacrylamides (para 0110d), polyaziridine, polyamidoamine-epichlorohydrins, polycarbodiimides, ammonium zirconium carbonate (para 0110b), silanes, and a combination thereof.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the protective coating of Backfolk with addition of an additive as taught by Husband in order to improve binding and/or water retention properties (with the addition of polyvinylalcohol) or to improve water retention (with the addition of polyacrylamides) and/or to improve crosslinking/rigidity/durability (with the addition of ammonium zirconium carbonate) (Husband: see para 0110b-d).
The combination of Backfolk and Husband does not teach lidding the item of interest with a pliable wrap; wherein the pliable wrap is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene, polylactic acid (PLA), and a combination thereof.
Paolilli teaches
a method of placing an item of interest (para 0019, “ products such as foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals”) in an object of interest (para 0019, “containers of diverse polymer compositions ”) and lidding the item of interest with a pliable wrap (para 0019, “film”); wherein the pliable wrap is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paolilli: para 0019), polypropylene (Paolilli: para 0019), polylactic acid (PLA) (Paolilli: para 0019),and a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combination of Backfolk and Husband by adding the step of lidding the item of interest with a pliable film as taught by Paolilli in order to safely store the item (i.e. food) for extended periods of time (Paolilli: para 0008, 0019). This produces the predictable result of reducing the chance of contamination of the item such as food.
Regarding claim 2, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the object of interest is a molded pulp (Backfolk para 0020) including at least one of a food carton (Backfolk: para 0012)
Regarding claim 5, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the protective coating has a CMC to CNF weight ratio range of at least one of between about 0.03:1 to about 0.3:1 between about 0.03:1 to about 0.2:1, between about 0.03:1 to about 0.1:1, between about 0.05:1 to about 0.2:1, between about 0.05:1 to about 0.15:1, between about 0.1:1 to about 0.2:1, or between about 0.1:1 to about 0.15:1 (Backfolk: para 0021-0023).
Regarding claim 16, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein at least one of the top half or the bottom half of the mold includes a plurality of through-holes (Backfolk: para 0020, “The formation moulds contain a stainless steel mesh”).
Regarding claim 20, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
further comprising applying a layer of a primer (Backfolk: para 0019, first layer = primer and subsequent layers = spreading the layer of mixture of CNF/CMC ) or bonding agent (first layer of coating as described in para 0019) to the object of interest, wherein the bonding agent includes at least one of chitosan (Backfolk: para 0023), cationic starch, and starch (Backfolk para 0023), prior to draping the sheet of protective coating (Backfolk: para 0019, first layer = primer and subsequent layers = spreading the layer of mixture of CNF/CMC).
Regarding claim 24, as shown in claim 1, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Paolilli: para 0031).
Regarding claim 25, as shown in claim 24, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein LDPE includes linear low-density polyethylene as an additive (Paolilli: para 0031).
Regarding claim 26, as shown in claim 1, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is made from a bio-degradable material (Paolilli: para 0019, i.e. “polylactic acid”).
Regarding claim 28, Backfolk teaches
A method of co-molding an object of interest (moulded article) with a protective coating (para 0015), comprising:
receiving a mold (“male part” and “female part” in para 0045) having a top half (male part) and a bottom half (female part) dimensioned for an object of interest (para 0045);
placing a moldable material constituting raw material for the object of interest into the bottom half of the mold (para 0020-“ As used herein, the term moulded article encompasses a wet, semidry, dry moulded article as well as an interim product” and para 0045-“the coating dispersion is sprayed onto the mould, such as on the male part or female part or both and then applied to the moulded article when said moulding takes place in the mould”);
spreading a layer/sheet of protective coating (CNF, CMC para 0023, 0037, 0042-0045) on to the object of interest; wherein the protective coating consists of
i) unmodified cellulose nanofibril (CNF, para 0042),
ii) unmodified carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC, para 0023), and
iii) an additive selected from the group consisting of
placing the top half of the mold onto the CNF/CMC layer (para 0023, 0037, 0042-0045);
applying a predetermined pressure between the top and bottom halves of the mold (para 0029 and 0046, pressing=pressure applied);
applying a predetermined amount of heat to the mold, to thereby simultaneously molding both the object of interest and the protective coating thereon (para 0028 and 0046); and
placing an item of interest (i.e. grease, water or oil) in the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon (para 0004, 0049, 0051-0052); and
removing the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon with the item of interest therein from the mold after a predetermined amount of time (para 0046, i.e. after drying).
Backfolk teaches additives can be added to the protective coating to improve functionality (para 0043). However, Backfolk does not specifically teach the protective coating having an additive selected from the group consisting of polyvinylalcohol, polyacrylamides, polyaziridine, polyamidoamine- epichlorohydrins, polycarbodiimides, ammonium zirconium carbonate, silanes, and a combination thereof
Husband teaches
A method of preparing a protective coating (para 0110); wherein the protective coating has an additive selected from the group consisting of polyvinylalcohol (para 0110b, 0110d), polyacrylamides (para 0110d), polyaziridine, polyamidoamine-epichlorohydrins, polycarbodiimides, ammonium zirconium carbonate (para 0110b), silanes, and a combination thereof.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the protective coating of Backfolk with addition of an additive as taught by Husband in order to improve binding and/or water retention properties (with the addition polyvinylalcohol) or to improve water retention (with the addition of polyacrylamides) and/or to improve crosslinking/rigidity/durability (with the addition of ammonium zirconium carbonate) (Husband: see para 0110b-d).
The combination of Backfolk and Husband does not teach lidding the item of interest with a pliable wrap; wherein the pliable wrap is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene, polylactic acid (PLA), and a combination thereof.
Paolilli teaches
a method of placing an item of interest (para 0019, “ products such as foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals”) in an object of interest (para 0019, “containers of diverse polymer compositions ”) and lidding the item of interest with a pliable wrap (para 0019, “film”); wherein the pliable wrap is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paolilli: para 0019), polypropylene (Paolilli: para 0008, 0019), polylactic acid (PLA) (Paolilli: para 0019),and a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combination of Backfolk and Husband by adding the step of lidding the item of interest with a pliable film as taught by Paolilli in order to safely store the item (i.e. food) for extended periods of time (Paolilli: para 0019). This produces the predictable result of reducing the chance of contamination of the item such as food.
Regarding claim 29, as shown in claim 28, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the moldable material for the object of interest is a slurry of a fibrous pulp (Backfolk: para 0020).
Regarding claim 31, as shown in claim 28, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the object of interest is a molded pulp (Backfolk: para 0020) including at least one of a food carton (para 0012)
Regarding claim 34, as shown in claim 28, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the protective coating has a CMC to CNF weight ratio range at least one of between about 0.03:1 to about 0.3: between about 0.03:1 to about 0.2:1, between about 0.03:1 to about 0.1:1, between about 0.05:1 to about 0.2:1, between about 0.05:1 to about 0.15:1, between about 0.1:1 to about 0.2:1, or between about 0.1:1 to about 0.15:1 (Backfolk: para 0021-0023).
Regarding claim 45, as shown in claim 28, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the top half of the mold includes a plurality of through-holes (Backfolk: para 0020 “The formation moulds contain a stainless steel mesh”).
Regarding claim 48, as shown in claim 28, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
further comprising applying a layer of a primer (Backfolk: para 0019, first layer = primer and subsequent layers = spreading the layer of mixture of CNF/CMC) or bonding agent (Backfolk: first layer of coating as described in para 0019) to the object of interest, wherein the bonding agent includes at least one of chitosan (Backfolk: para 0023), cationic starch, and starch (Backfolk: para 0023) prior to spreading the sheet of protective coating (Backfolk: para 0019, first layer = primer and subsequent layers = spreading the layer of mixture of CNF/CMC)
Regarding claim 52, as shown in claim 28, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Paolilli: para 0031).
Regarding claim 53, as shown in claim 52, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein LDPE includes linear low-density polyethylene as an additive (Paolilli: para 0031).
Regarding claim 54, as shown in claim 28, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is made from a bio-degradable material (Paolilli: para 0019, i.e. “polylactic acid”).
Claims 12 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli in view of NPL document (submitted on IDS filed 11/5/2024) entitled “Effect of coating binder on fold cracking of coated paper” by Oh et al. (henceforth Oh).
Regarding claim 12, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the protective coated object of interest can withstand at least one of about 3X or about 1.6X higher stress as compared to an uncoated object of interest prior to onset of plastic deformation (inherent mechanical property since the claimed elements are taught by Backfolk).
In the alternative, should the Applicant contend that the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli does not explicitly teach the CNF/CMC coated object of interest can withstand at least one of about 3X or about 1.6X higher stress as compared to an uncoated object of interest prior to onset of plastic deformation.
Oh teaches
a method of coating a paper with a starch 4pph (“the object of interest”) that has a tensile strength of 4.5MPa before plastic deformation as compared to uncoated paper having a tensile strength of 1MPa before plastic deformation (see fig. 10 on pg. 365).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli by adding/adjusting the starch content such that it produces a coated object of interest that can withstand at least one of about 3X or about 1.6X higher stress as compared to an uncoated object of interest prior to onset of plastic deformation, as taught by Oh in order to obtain a coated object with superior mechanical properties (such as fold cracking). This produces the predictable result of making the object of interest more resilient to breakage.
Regarding claim 41, as shown in claim 28, the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli teaches
wherein the protective coated object of interest can withstand at least one of about 3X or about 1.6X higher stress as compared to an uncoated object of interest prior to onset of plastic deformation (inherent mechanical property since the claimed elements are taught by Backfolk).
Should the Applicant contend that the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli does not teach the CNF/CMC coated object of interest can withstand at least one of about 3X or about 1.6X higher stress as compared to an uncoated object of interest prior to onset of plastic deformation.
Oh teaches
a starch 4pph coated paper (“the object of interest”) has a tensile strength of 4.5MPa before plastic deformation as compared to uncoated paper having a tensile strength of 1MPa before plastic deformation (see fig. 10 on pg. 365).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolilli by adding/adjusting the starch content such that it produces a coated object of interest that can withstand at least one of about 3X or about 1.6X higher stress as compared to an uncoated object of interest prior to onset of plastic deformation, as taught by Oh in order to obtain a coated object with superior mechanical properties (such as fold cracking). This produces the predictable result of making the object of interest more resilient to breakage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/27/2026 have been fully considered:
Amended claims have overcome all previous 112 (a) and (b) or first and second paragraph rejection/s. However, new rejections are made in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 28, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 28, Applicant states “there is no suggestion or motivation to combine Backfolk as the primary reference with Paolilli.
In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Paolilli provides a specific motivation in para 0008 and 0019 of providing effective moisture and gas barrier (i.e. to extend shelf life of food items). The method of Backfolk would benefit from adding a lid (with the properties of Paolilli’s lid) in order to extend the shelf life of items that are susceptible to spoilage or degradation due to moisture and/or gas ingress. Additionally, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the modification of Backfolk with the teachings of Paolilli involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights