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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 5/8/2025. Claims 1-2, 11, 14-15, 33-38, 43-51 are currently pending. The cancelation of claims 3-10, 12-13, 16-32, 39-42, and 52 in a preliminary amendment is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 43-51 are 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.
Regarding claim 43, the limitation “comprising one or more blades cross-cut the conditioned paper web” in lines 8-9 is indefinite due to the poor grammar. Cross-cut as written appears to be a verb but it is not clear how a cutting apparatus can comprise an action. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “comprising one or more blades configured to cross-cut the conditioned paper web.” Claims 44-51 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 43.
Regarding claim 45, the limitation “the one or more sensors” in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “one or more sensors.”
Regarding claim 46, the limitation “the one or more actuator devices” in line one lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “one or more actuator devices.”
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “the parameter” in line 7 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “a parameter.”
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “the one or both of the fluid dispensing operation and the heating operation” in the last two lines lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “one or both of a fluid dispensing operation and a heating operation.”
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann (US 2024/0417928 A1) in view of Retzsch (US 2425828 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hausmann discloses a method of manufacturing a paper-based packaging product, comprising: conditioning a paper web (200 – Fig. 1) to optimize moisture content of the paper web (paras. 0050-0054) and to treat the paper web with at least one additive to form a conditioned paper web (para. 0049); and dry molding the conditioned paper web under heat and pressure to product a plurality of finished paper-based packaging products (para. 0047).
However, Hausmann does not disclose the additive comprises a stearate additive.
Retzsch discloses an additive for conditioning for conditioning a paper product with an additive, wherein the additive comprises a stearate additive (col. 2, lines 36-42) in order to increase the gloss and brightness of the paper product (col. 1, lines 44-48), thereby improving the aesthetic appeal for a consumer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Hausmann to include conditioning the paper web with an additive comprising a stearate additive as taught by Retzsch in order to improve the aesthetic appeal for a consumer.
Hausmann, as modified by Retzsch, further discloses (citations are to Retzsch unless otherwise noted):
Claim 11, optimizing the moisture content includes applying wet steam or dry steam to the paper web prior to forming the conditioned paper web (para. 0029).
Claim 14, the moisture content of the conditioned paper web, prior to the dry molding, is at most 20% (para. 0029; this paragraph discloses that the water content of the conditioned paper web is less than 30%, less than 30% includes the range less than 20%).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann (US 2024/0417928 A1) in view of Retzsch (US 2425828 A), Ehrmann (US 2015/0203223 A1) and D’Aponte (WO 2025/008658 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hausmann and Retzsch disclose essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1 with Hausmann further disclosing pressing a first region of the conditioned paper web to from a pressed web region (para. 0047).
However, Hausmann does not disclose how the finished paper-based products are individually obtained and thus does not disclose cutting the pressed web region.
Ehrmann discloses a similar method comprising cutting a pressed web region to form cut product regions, thereby producing a plurality of finished packaging products (paras. 0036-0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Hausmann to include the step of cutting the pressed web regions as taught by Ehrmann since Hausmann is silent with regard to how the finished paper-based products are individually obtained and Ehrmann provides a known solution.
However, Hausmann also does not disclose perforating the first region.
D’Aponte teaches a similar method comprising the step of perforating a first region of a conditioned paper web to from a plurality of cavities in the first region (pg. 10, lines 26-34) in order to provide increased breathability for specific applications (pg. 11, lines 11-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Hausmann to include the step of perforating a first region as taught by D’Aponte in order to provide breathability for specific applications.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann (US 2024/0417928 A1) in view of Retzsch (US 2425828 A) and Chung (US 2019/0218711 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hausmann, as modified by Retzsch, discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1 and further discloses that conditioning the paper web with at least one additive includes applying a plurality of chemical compounds to augment the paper web for at least one property (para. 0017, Hausmann; discloses that the web is mixed with “additives.” Since there is more than one additive, a plurality of chemical compounds is being applied).
However, Hausmann, as modified by Retzsch, does not disclose the properties being augmented.
Chung discloses a similar method comprising the step of conditioning paper with a plurality of chemical compounds to augment the paper for at least one property, wherein the at least one augments property includes an increased strength, an increased rigidity, a reduced permeability to oil, water, or vapor (paras. 0067, 0068, and 0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the additives of Hausmann and Retzsch to include the additives as taught by Chung since Hausmann and Retzsch are silent and Chung teaches known additives for improving a paper-based container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37-38 are allowed.
Claims 43-51 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 33-36 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 37 and 43, the primary reason for allowance is the inclusion of a dry forming apparatus comprising at least one slitting tool, at least one pressing tool, and at least one cutting tool. There is no known reference that discloses a dry forming apparatus having all three of those tools. Regarding claim 33, there is no known reference that disclose conditioning a paper web with sodium stearoyl lactylate or stearoyl lactylate. The closest reference is Sun (CN 108973232 A) which discloses creating a paper product from a mix of chemicals that include stearoyl lactylate (pg. 3, S1 and pg. 4, lines 17-18 counting only text; this citation refers to the attached translation). However, the stearoyl lactylate is not used after the product is formed as required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
2/3/2026