DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 5, 12, 16, 20, 22-26, 28-29, 31, 34, 41, 45, 48, 50-54 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 20 and 48 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 20 and 48 recite “prior to draping the sheet of protective coating”. The original specification does not describe draping a sheet of protecting coating. The term “draping” is not even mentioned in the original specification. Para 0079 describes placing a thin film of CNF/CMC (i.e. coating) on the inner side of the tray. “Placing” has different scope/meaning as compared to “draping”. As such, the original specification does not support “draping a sheet of protective coating”.
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 20 and 48 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.
Claim 20 and 48 recites the limitation “prior to draping the sheet of protective coating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner is interpreting the claim as “prior to spreading the sheet of protective coating”
Regarding claims 20 and 48, the limitation “prior to draping the sheet of protective coating” is vague and unclear because the original specification does not describe draping a sheet of protective coating Therefore, the scope and the meets and bounds of this limitation cannot be determined.
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, 28-29, 31, 34, 45, 48 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).
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);
removing the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon from the mold after a predetermined amount of time (para 0046).
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).
Regarding claim 2, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Backfolk and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 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
removing the molded object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon from the mold after a predetermined amount of time (para 0046).
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).
Regarding claim 29, as shown in claim 28, the combination of Backfolk and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 draping the sheet of protective coating (Backfolk: para 0019, first layer = primer and subsequent layers = spreading the layer of mixture of CNF/CMC)
Claims 12 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Backfolk and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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 and Husband 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.
Claims 22-26 and 50-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Backfolk and Husband in view of USPGP# 20130068768 of Paolili et al. (henceforth Paolili).
Regarding claim 22, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Backfolk and Husband teaches
placing an item of interest in the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon (Backfolk: para 0004, 0049, 0051-0052);
The combination of Backfolk and Husband does not teach lidding the item of interest with a pliable wrap.
Paolili 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”).
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 Paolili in order to safely store the item (i.e. food) for extended periods of time (Paolili: para 0019). This produces the predictable result of reducing the chance of contamination of the item such as food.
Regarding claim 23, as shown in claim 22, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolili teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paolili: para 0019), polypropylene (Paolili: para 0019), polylactic acid (PLA) (Paolili: para 0019),and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 24, as shown in claim 22, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolili teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Paolili: para 0031).
Regarding claim 25, as shown in claim 24, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolili teaches
wherein LDPE includes linear low-density polyethylene as an additive (Paolili: para 0031).
Regarding claim 26, as shown in claim 22, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolili teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is made from a bio-degradable material (Paolili: para 0019, i.e. “polylactic acid”).
Regarding claim 50, as shown in claim 28, the combination of Backfolk and Husband teaches
placing an item of interest in the object of interest with the protective coating formed thereon (Backfolk: para 0004, 0049, 0051-0052);
The combination of Backfolk and Husband does not teach lidding the item of interest with a pliable wrap.
Paolili 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”).
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 Paolili in order to safely store the item (i.e. food) for extended periods of time (Paolili: para 0019). This produces the predictable result of reducing the chance of contamination of the item such as food.
Regarding claim 51, as shown in claim 50, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolili teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paolili: para 0019), polypropylene (Paolili: para 0019), polylactic acid (PLA) (Paolili: para 0019),and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 52, as shown in claim 50, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolili teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Paolili: para 0031).
Regarding claim 53, as shown in claim 52, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolili teaches
wherein LDPE includes linear low-density polyethylene as an additive (Paolili: para 0031).
Regarding claim 54, as shown in claim 50, the combination of the combination of Backfolk, Husband and Paolili teaches
wherein the pliable wrap is made from a bio-degradable material (Paolili: para 0019, i.e. “polylactic acid”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/17/2026 have been fully considered:
Amended claims have NOT overcome all previous 112 rejections. Claim 20 and 48 continue to recite “draping the sheet of protective coating” which is not supported by the original specification. See 112 section above for additional details.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the additional reference of Husband being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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