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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 7, line 3, the term “on the at a” between “coating” and “portion” is ambiguous. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilke et al. (US 2020/0354602 A1).
Claim 18: Wilke teaches a layer composite for a food packaging (abstract) comprising a paper carrier layer [0078] and a coating composition (abstract and [0019]) on the paper carrier layer, wherein the coating composition comprises a carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol ([0020] and [0080]), a polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin resin as a crosslinker [0052] and bentonite pigment, kaolin pigment and/or boehmite pigment ([0023] and [0029]). The layer composite meets the claimed article, a layer formed of the coating composition meets the claimed coating layer, and the bentonite pigment, kaolin and the boehmite pigment meet the claimed clay particles. Wilke teaches the carrier layer is covered wholly with an enhancement layer [0077] formed from the coating composition [0076].
Claim 19: Wilke teaches the coating composition comprises the carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol ([0020] and [0080]), the polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin resin as the crosslinker [0052] and bentonite pigment, kaolin pigment and/or boehmite pigment ([0023] and [0029]). It is well established that a reaction between the carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol and the polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin would result in ether functional groups and ester functional groups.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilke et al. (US 2020/0354602 A1) and Chung et al. (US 2020/0277738 A1).
Claim 1: Wilke teaches a layer composite for a food packaging (abstract) comprising a paper carrier layer [0078] and a coating composition (abstract and [0019]) on the paper carrier layer, wherein the coating composition comprises a carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol ([0020] and [0080]) and a polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin as a crosslinker [0052]. The layer composite meets the claimed article, and a layer formed of the coating composition meets the claimed coating layer. It is well established that a reaction between the carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol and the polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin would result in ether functional groups and ester functional groups. Wilke does not teach the paper carrier layer is molded. However, Chung teaches a paper based molded fiber food container for use in microwave, convection, and conventional ovens ([0107] and [0114]). Wilke and Chung are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the food container art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the molded fiber container of Chung with the invention Wilke, and the motivation for combining would be, as Chung suggested to provide a food container that can be used in microwave, convection, and conventional ovens [0107].
Claim 2: Wilke teaches the coating composition further comprises bentonite pigment, kaolin pigment and/or boehmite pigment ([0023] and [0029]). The bentonite pigment, kaolin and the boehmite pigment meet the claimed clay particles.
Claim 3: Wilke teaches the coating composition for producing the layer composite is able to achieve improved surface quality such water resistance [0018] and it can be achieved by a coating composition comprising the polyvinyl alcohol, an alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer, the crosslinker and the pigment ([0019]-[0023]). Wilke also teaches the mixture of the polyvinyl alcohol and the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer shows a synergistic effect, and the properties of the resultant layer composite cannot be obtained with the individual substances alone in this form [0025]. It is interpreted that use of individual substances alone, i.e., (use of either the polyvinyl alcohol or the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer) would result in reduced water resistance property. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a coating layer formed of a coating composition without the presence of the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer with the knowledge of consequence loss of the coating layer’s benefits. If an ordinary artisan desires a coating layer having a reduced water resistance property with less need for a layer composite with an improved water resistance property, a coating layer formed of a coating composition without the presence of the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer would be selected with a predictable result.
Claim 4: With respect to the claimed moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR), the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the MVTR value of the layer composite, and the motivation would be to control the moisture barrier property of the layer composite. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 5: Wilke teaches the coating composition comprises a carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol ([0020] and [0080]) and a polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin as a crosslinker [0052]. It is well established that a reaction between the carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol and the polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin would result in ether functional groups and ester functional group.
Claim 6: With respect to the claimed coating weight of the coating layer, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the coating weight, and the motivation would be to control the thickness of the coating layer and moisture barrier property. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilke et al. (US 2020/0354602 A1) and Chung et al. (US 2020/0277738 A1).
Claim 7: Wilke teaches a layer composite for a food packaging (abstract) comprising a paper carrier layer [0078] and a coating composition (abstract and [0019]) on the paper carrier layer, wherein the coating composition comprises a carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol ([0020] and [0080]), a polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin resin as a crosslinker [0052] and bentonite pigment, kaolin pigment and/or boehmite pigment ([0023] and [0029]). The layer composite meets the claimed article, a layer formed of the coating composition meets the claimed coating layer, and the bentonite pigment, kaolin and the boehmite pigment meet the claimed clay particles. Wilke does not teach the paper carrier layer is molded. However, Chung teaches a paper based molded fiber food container for use in microwave, convection, and conventional ovens ([0107] and [0114]). Wilke and Chung are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the food container art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the molded fiber container of Chung with the invention Wilke, and the motivation for combining would be, as Chung suggested to provide a food container that can be used in microwave, convection, and conventional ovens [0107].
Claim 8: Wilke teaches the coating composition comprises the carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol ([0020] and [0080]), the polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin resin as the crosslinker [0052] and bentonite pigment, kaolin pigment and/or boehmite pigment ([0023] and [0029]). It is well established that a reaction between the carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol and the polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin would result in ether functional groups and ester functional groups.
Claim 9: Wilke teaches the coating composition comprises the carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol ([0020] and [0080]), the polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin resin as the crosslinker [0052] and bentonite pigment, kaolin pigment and/or boehmite pigment ([0023] and [0029]). It is well established that a reaction between the carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol and the polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin would result in ether functional groups and ester functional groups.
Claim 10: Wilke teaches the coating composition for producing the layer composite is able to achieve improved surface quality such water resistance [0018] and it can be achieved by a coating composition comprising the polyvinyl alcohol, an alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer, the crosslinker and the pigment ([0019]-[0023]). Wilke also teaches the mixture of the polyvinyl alcohol and the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer shows a synergistic effect, and the properties of the resultant layer composite cannot be obtained with the individual substances alone in this form [0025]. It is interpreted that use of individual substances alone, i.e., (use of either the polyvinyl alcohol or the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer) would result in reduced water resistance property. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a coating layer formed of a coating composition without the presence of the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer with the knowledge of consequence loss of the coating layer’s benefits. If an ordinary artisan desires a coating layer having a reduced water resistance property with less need for a layer composite with an improved water resistance property, a coating layer formed of a coating composition without the presence of the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer would be selected with a predictable result.
Claim 11: The polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin resin as the crosslinker [0052] meets the claimed epichlorohydrin based resin.
Claim 12: The polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin resin as the crosslinker [0052] meets the claimed azetidinium functionalized resin.
Claim 13: The polyamidoamide/epichlorohydrin resin as the crosslinker [0052] meets the claimed azetidinium functionalized epichlorohydrin based resin.
Claim 14: With respect to the claimed coating thickness of the coating layer, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the coating thickness, and the motivation would be to control the moisture barrier property. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 15: Wilke teaches the carrier layer may be wholly covered with the coating layer [0077].
Claim 16: A combination of the references of Wilke and Chung teaches the claimed molded article. See the rejection of current claim 7 above.
Claim 17: A combination of the references of Wilke and Chung teaches the claimed molded fiber article. See the rejection of current claim 7 above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilke et al. (US 2020/0354602 A1) as applied to claim 18.
Wilkes teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 20: Wilke teaches the coating composition for producing the layer composite is able to achieve improved surface quality such water resistance [0018] and it can be achieved by a coating composition comprising the polyvinyl alcohol, an alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer, the crosslinker and the pigment ([0019]-[0023]). Wilke also teaches the mixture of the polyvinyl alcohol and the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer shows a synergistic effect, and the properties of the resultant layer composite cannot be obtained with the individual substances alone in this form [0025]. It is interpreted that use of individual substances alone, i.e., (use of either the polyvinyl alcohol or the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer) would result in reduced water resistance property. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a coating layer formed of a coating composition without the presence of the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer with the knowledge of consequence loss of the coating layer’s benefits. If an ordinary artisan desires a coating layer having a reduced water resistance property with less need for a layer composite with an improved water resistance property, a coating layer formed of a coating composition without the presence of the alkylene/(meth)acrylic acid copolymer would be selected with a predictable result.
Pertinent Prior Art
Bayer et al. (US 2019/0040242 A1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
August 17, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights