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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field USPA_20200189256_A1 in view of Borsinger USPA_20070068642_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 14-16, Field discloses an insulated paper (corresponds to claimed insulated material) comprising a foam layer (Claims 22 and 23) and a cellulose fiber layer (paragraph 0068) that comprise wood pulp (corresponds to claimed pulp of instant Claims 1, 10, and 16) (paragraphs 0063, 0085); wherein said pulp can be untreated (paragraph 0107). Field does disclose adding a wax (corresponds to claimed impregnation) to said wood pulp cellulose fibers (paragraphs 0107, 0122, Claim 45), but does not disclose specifically the use of vegetable wax.
2. Borsinger discloses use of an emulsion of vegetable wax derived from soy (paragraph 0002) that is cationic (paragraph 0017) that can be used to coat fibrous cellulosic papers (corresponds to claimed wax of instant Claims 1, 14, 15, and 16) (Abstract); wherein said wax is more economical and can reduce moisture loss in food (paragraph 0031), which is one of the applications of the insulating material of Field (paragraph 0005).
3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wax, of Field, by trying the vegetable soy cationic wax emulsion, of Borsinger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to reduce moisture loss in insulating and packaging food.
4. Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Field in view of Borsinger suggests a basis weight of 170 gsm (Field: paragraph 0403).
5. Regarding Claim 3, Field in view of Borsinger suggests a basis weight of 10 lbs/1000 ft2 (Borsinger: paragraph 0178) which is approximately 49 gsm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05.
6. Regarding Claims 4-7, given that Field in view of Borsinger discloses substantially the same claimed product, it would be expected for it to inherently possess the same physical properties such as air permeability and water absorption.
7. Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Field in view of Borsinger suggests a thickness of 0.009 inches (0.23 mm) (Field: paragraph 0497).
8. Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Field in view of Borsinger does not disclose the claimed basis weight. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that the amount of wax emulsion applied would largely depend on what exactly is being packaged/insulated; hence, it can be considered as a result-effective variable whereby one of ordinary skill in the art can apply it based on what is being covered and to what extent of moisture is needed.
9. Regarding Claim 13, Field in view of Borsinger suggests a melting point ranging from 57 to 94 C (Borsinger: paragraph 0055).
10. Regarding Claim 18, Field in view of Borsinger suggests forming a packaging material (Field: paragraph 0063).
11. Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Field in view of Borsinger suggests having multiple liners (Field: paragraph 0215) with said cellulose fiber paper layers there-between.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights