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 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2022/0227546) which in figures 2C, 2D, 20B, 22A, 22E and 22F discloses the following claimed invention:
In re claim 1: A lid 1 formed so as to be in contact with a container 21 having an edge 22, and is formed of a blank material ([0217]), wherein the blank material includes a fiber sheet including fibers formed of a paper-based material ([0051}), and a resin material ([0052]) is attached to at least some of the fibers forming an inside of the fiber sheet ([0053]) and at least a part of the resin material is filled between a part of the fiber inherently, the paper is made from a plurality of cellulose fiber which include a un smooth surface which is filled with the resin coating filling the uneven fibers to produce a smooth surface..
In re claim 2: a joining region corresponding part 11 that corresponds to a region (region with 22) joined to the container along the edge 22 of the container 21; and a lid region corresponding part 36 that is configured by a portion inside the joining region corresponding part 11, wherein the resin material ([0052]) is attached to at least some of the fibers forming an inside of the fiber sheet ([0051}) at least in a portion corresponding to the joining region corresponding part 11 (see figures 22E and 22F).
In re claim 3: a penetrating part 5/24 that is cut 5/24 from one surface to the other of the blank material ([0217]), wherein a cross section of the fiber sheet is exposed on a peripheral surface part of the penetrating part, and the resin material is exposed on at least a part of the cross section (once the blade cuts the sheet the resin coating and the filers of the paper are inherently exposed).
In re claim 4: an inclined part (the part of 2 which is between the top surface of 2 and the bottom surface of 2 where the cut exposed the inner area of 2which created a surface perpendicular to the top surface of 2) that has the peripheral surface part of the penetrating part 5/24 as an end part and inclined upward (90˚ incline) in a direction away from the end part (bottom surface of 2).
In re claim 22: the resin material ([0052]) is attached (coated) to at least part of a surface of at least some of the fibers (all the exposed surface fibers of the paper), the paper is made from a plurality of cellulose fiber which include a un smooth surface which is filled with the resin coating filling the uneven fibers to produce a smooth surface.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2022/0227546). Yamada discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation:
In re claim 5: a density of the fibers comprising the fiber sheet in the inclined part is higher at a position closer to the end part of the inclined part.
Yamada further discloses the provision of an increased density of the sheet adjacent the cut (inclined part) at a position closer to the end part of the cut (inclined part) than an area away from the cut (see [0197]) in order to reinforce the region around the cut (straw opening). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to increase the density of the fiber sheet at a location directly adjacent the cut for the reason discussed above.
Furthermore, "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). It is proper to take account of the "inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." (Id.) See also, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 1727, 1742 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2022/0227546) in view of Triclot (US 2020/0131708). Yamada discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Triclot:
In re claim 23: Triclot teaches the provision of the resin material is impregnated inside the fibers (see [0066] of Triclot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the resin coating of Yamada with the fiber penetrating resin coating as taught by Triclot in order to easily and cost-effectively be used for moist and/or greasy foods making contact with the material (see [0066] of Triclot).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the Applicant’s understanding of resin coating to paper. The Examiner disagrees, the outer surface of uncoated paper is not smooth and has fibers extending in all directions to create the paper sheet. With this in mind, once the resin coating is applied to the top surface of the random fibers that make up the paper, the resin fills in the top layer of fibers to create the smooth water-resistant surface. The top layer of all the combined fiber has to be coated for the product to have the intended protection. Furthermore, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
