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 § 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) 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALLACE (WO 2015081348-of record).
Regarding claim 1, discloses a method for making a food packaging article
comprising the steps of:
a. providing a compressed fiber web of unwoven fiber material (wicking material, [0054]), the compressed fiber web having a first surface and a second surface (Figs. 6a and 6b);
b. applying an upper film (upper thermoformable polymer sheet) to the first surface of the compressed fiber web (fibrous wicking material sheet), the upper film being a multi-layer film (claim 30) wherein the upper film comprises thermoformable polymeric materials for use as substrates [0067] and is used in conjunction with barrier sheets [0070];
c. applying a lower film (lower thermoformable polymer sheet) to the second surface of the compressed fiber web (fibrous wicking material sheet) (claim 30);
d. thermoforming the compressed fiber web, upper film and lower film into a three-dimensional thermoformed food packaging article (claim 30).
WALLACE is silent to wherein the total film content of the thermoformed food packaging article is less than 15 wt% as compared to the total weight of thermoformed food packaging article. However, WALLACE discloses the fibrous wicking material sheet is non-woven material and has a thickness at least three times the thickness of the upper polymer sheet (claim 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the total film content of the thermoformed food packaging article would be less than the total weight of thermoformed food packaging article and it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum thickness or total weight of the film content through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, WALLACE discloses one lower sheet.
Regarding claim 8, WALLACE discloses placing food in the article [0084]-[0086].
Regarding claim 9, WALLACE is silent to overwrapping the tray with a polymeric film and then shrinking the polymeric film. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art such method is common in the plastic food tray industry where they shrink wrap plastic trays for further packaging.
Regarding claim 11, WALLACE discloses the article is a tray (Claim 1).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIJIMA et al. (JP 2015140497).
Regarding claims 1-3, IIJIMA et al. discloses a method for making a food
packaging article comprising the steps of:
a. providing a compressed fiber web of unwoven fiber material, the compressed fiber web having a first surface and a second surface;
b. applying an outer layer to the first surface of the compressed fiber web, the outer layer being a multi-layer film (abstract), IIJIMA et al. discloses the multilayer nonwoven fabric is a multilayer nonwoven fabric of three or more layers composed of two outer layers and an inner layer sandwiched between them. Furthermore, IIJIMA et al. discloses the outer layer comprises a layer of polyvinyl alcohol-based resin adhesive layer which makes the outer layer a multi-layer as claimed;
c. applying a lower film to the second surface of the compressed fiber web (a multilayer nonwoven fabric of three or more layers composed of two outer layers and an inner layer sandwiched between them) (abstract);
d. thermoforming the compressed fiber web, upper film and lower film into a three-dimensional thermoformed food packaging article (thermocompression – Example 1).
IIJIMA et al. is silent to wherein the total film content of the thermoformed food packaging article is less than 15 wt% as compared to the total weight of thermoformed food packaging article. However, IIJIMA et al. discloses the basis weight of the multilayer nonwoven fabric is preferably 10 to 200 g/m2 and that an excellent elastic recovery rate is desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum total film content of the article as claimed through routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 4-5, IIJIMA et al. discloses compressing the multilayer through embossing rollers at temperatures of at least 115ºC.
Regarding claim 7, IIJIMA et al. discloses airlaid nonwoven fabric.
Regarding claim 8, IIJIMA et al. discloses placing food in the article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Wallace fails to disclose an upper film being a multi-layer film
having a barrier layer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, Wallace discloses applying
an upper film (upper thermoformable polymer sheet) to the first surface of the compressed fiber web (fibrous wicking material sheet), the upper film being a multi-layer film (claim 30) wherein the upper film comprises thermoformable polymeric materials for use as substrates [0067] and is used in conjunction with barrier sheets [0070]. Therefore, Wallace teaches an upper film being a multi-layer film having a barrier layer as claimed.
Applicant argues Iijima fails to disclose an upper film being a multi-layer film.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, Iijima discloses applying an outer layer to the first surface of the compressed fiber web, the outer layer being a multi-layer film (abstract), IIJIMA et al. discloses the multilayer nonwoven fabric is a multilayer nonwoven fabric of three or more layers composed of two outer layers and an inner layer sandwiched between them. Furthermore, IIJIMA et al. discloses the outer layer comprises a layer of polyvinyl alcohol-based resin adhesive layer which makes the outer layer a multi-layer as claimed. Therefore, Iijima teaches an upper film being a multi-layer film.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA KIM YI whose telephone number is (571)270-5123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
STELLA YI
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/STELLA K YI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights