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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 14, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aittamaa (US 2020/0369429 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Aittamaa discloses a disposable cup and the blank for making formed from at least one first paperboard substrate (10; see Par. 0023) having a first side facing an inside of the container and a second side facing an outside of the container, wherein the at least one first paperboard substrate comprises a first paperboard core layer, and a barrier coating layer (see Par. 0026) applied on the first side, which wherein the barrier coating layer comprises a natural polymer, a natural ester, a rosin, or combinations thereof, in an amount of 70 — 100 wt% as calculated on a total dry weight of said barrier coating layer (Examiner considers the barrier coating layer to be 100% barrier coating material), wherein the compostable container is formed at least by a first region of the first side overlapping with a second region of the second side (at seam 52), wherein the at least one first paperboard substrate further comprises an adhesive layer applied on at least one of the first and second regions (see Par. 0032), wherein said adhesive layer is applied on 0.1 — 10 % of a total area of the first and second sides of said first paperboard substrate (see Figures 1-2; Examiner considers the overlapping seam to be within a range of 0.1 to 10% of a total area), and wherein the first region and the second region are sealed to one another.
Regarding claims 2 and 18-21, Aittamaa discloses a cup wherein the natural polymer is a chemically unmodified natural polymer (see Par. 0026).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 22, Aittamaa discloses a cup wherein the adhesive layer is applied on the first and the second region (see Par. 0067 and Figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 9-11, Aittamaa discloses a cup wherein the compostable container is compostable according to EM13432 (see Par. 0026-0027).
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aittamaa in view of Mohan et al. (US 2005/0133183 A1; hereinafter Mohan).
Regarding claims 5-8, Aittamaa discloses the claimed invention except for a sealed cup bottom attached to the cup sleeve, or body. Mohan teaches a disposable paperboard cup comprising a cup bottom (22) attached to and inwardly folded surface of a cup sidewall sleeve, or body, (30; see Fig. 4; and Par. 0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Aittamaa’s cup construction to use the bottom construction taught by Mohan in order to ensure that the cup is properly sealed and liquids held within will not soak into the substrate material at the bottom (Mohan; see Par. 0072).
Claim(s) 12 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aittamaa in view of Spender et al. (US 2020/0095731 A1; hereinafter Spender).
Regarding claims 12 and 23-25, Aittamaa discloses the claimed invention except for the natural polymer being cold-water soluble and the paperboard substrate being formed from bleached pulp. Spender teaches biobased barrier coatings for paperboard substrates wherein said barrier coating comprises polyol/saccharide fatty acid ester blends that are cold-water soluble (see Par. 0081-0086 and 0215); and the paperboard substrate being formed from bleached pulp (see Par. 0171). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Aittamaa’s disposable cup to further comprise the natural polymer barrier coating composition taught by Spender in order to further ensure the biodegradability of the cup (Spender; see Par. 0007-0009).
Claim(s) 13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aittamaa in view of Yan (US 2011/0168771 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 15-16, Aittamaa discloses the claimed invention except for the barrier layer being applied in a range between 0.1 and 20 gsm and comprising pigments. Yan teaches a hermetically sealed paperboard container with enhanced barrier performance wherein a barrier coating has dry coat weight in an amount in a range between 0.1 and 20 gsm (see Par. 0063) and further comprising 1 through 30 wt% pigments (see Par. 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to apply Aittamaa’s barrier coat in a dry coat weight between 0.1 and 20 gsm in order to ensure optimal barrier performance (Yan; see Par. 0012).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aittamaa in view of Babinsky et al. (WO 2010/129629 A1; hereinafter Babinsky).
Regarding claim 17, Aittamaa discloses the claimed invention except for a humectant. Babinsky teaches packaging materials with enhanced thermal-insulating performance wherein a barrier coating layer comprises a humectant (see Par. 0028-0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Aittamaa’s composite cup to include a humectant in the barrier layer in order to enhance thermal-insulative characteristics of the cup, as taught by Babinsky.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aittamaa in view of Hansson et al. (SE 2050753 A1; hereinafter Hansson).
Regarding claim 26, Aittamaa discloses the claimed invention except for the paperboard core comprising a top ply, back ply, a foamed middle ply. Hansson teaches a water-resistant paperboard comprising a paperboard core layer comprising a top ply, a back ply, and at least one middle ply, wherein said at least one middle ply is foam formed (see Claims 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Aittamaa’s cup paperboard substrate to comprise a top ply, back ply, and foamed middle ply, as taught by Hansson, in order to further ensure that the disposable cup is water resistant without reducing repulpability of the material (Hansson; Page 3 lines 8-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734