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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
Figure does not show “fiber structure 902” as mentioned on ¶-[0016] of the specification.
Figure 2 does show: “MAP Container 1300 and Fiber structure 902” as mentioned on ¶-[0021] of the specification.
Figure 7 does not show: “fiber structure 902” as mentioned on ¶-[0039]. Note that “fiber structure 902” is not shown on any of the previous figures, i.e., figures 1-6.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is vague and indefinite, because there is no sufficient antecedent basis for the control and the claimed variables. There is nothing in claim 1, the independent claim, that recites that the system/container is heated and/or that a vacuum is used. Also it is unclear to what stage and where the recited heating and vacuum is/are carried out.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0272666 A1.
With regard to claims 1-7 and 11, Wallace teaches a process of making a modified atmospheric packaging (MAP) in which a removable/peeling layer is added to a molded biodegradable fibrous product to form a MAP container; see ¶-[0054], [0070]. Wallace teaches that the fibrous product can be made using a paper slurry and molded to form a container and then a peelable layer, i.e., a liner, is added to the container; see ¶-[0070]. Wallace also teaches that the peelable layer is made by co-extruding layers of different synthetic polymers, including layers of polyamide(s), the nylon layer, (¶-[0047]-[0049] and [0084]), and a gas barrier which is preferred made of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) (¶-[0051]), sandwiched between layers of polyolefins layers, preferred polyethylene (¶-[0042], [0046]). Wallace teaches the same/similar sequence of the layers on ¶-[0020] and on ¶-[0029]-[0039] teaches a liner with 9 layers, (reading on claim 3) and teaches that liner is made by co-extruding the different layers; see ¶-[0064]. Therefore, it seems that the reference teaches all the limitations of the claims or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding to claims 8-10, while Wallace does not explicitly teach the thickness and weight of layer in the liner, optimizing the amounts and thickness of each layer of the liner sheet is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. Note that the thickness and weight of each layer is implicitly considered result effective properties, since the layers have different function and thus the optimization of properties of each layer to produce a liner with optimal properties is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 18, Wallace teaches any portion of the liner sheet that overhangs an edge of the carton can be trimmed away, and a portion of such overhang can be retained for use as a tab to initiate peeling of the liner from the carton after use; see ¶-[0070].
Regarding to claim 19, Wallace teaches the lidding of the MAP container when a food product is present; see ¶-[0010], [0013], [0054], etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest the movable jig on the first surface placed on a lamination mold assembly in a grid configuration of claim 12, nor the heating elements and suction/vacuum of claims 13-17, nor controlling the variables as recited on claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Method of Manufacturing a Modified Atmosphere Packaging Container.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
Prosecution Insights