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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated May 27, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 contains the limitations “a container volume” and “a carrier fabric property”, which are also not supported by the originally filed specifications. Claim 7 contains the limitation “the absorbent matrix has a matrix thickness within a range of about 1 mm to about 20 mm”, which are also not supported by the originally filed specifications. Claim 11 contains the limitation “wherein the activation liner comprises a removable moisture barrier sheet covering the food side of the carrier fabric before use”, which are also not supported by the originally filed specifications.
Claims 2 – 6, 8 – 10, and 12 – 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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, 2, 4, and 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontenot et al. (USPN 6,926,862) in view of Paul (USPN 5,611,486) and Thomas et al. (USPGPub 2006/0110080 A1).
Fontenot et al. disclose a vapor absorbing device for capturing vapor moisture released by food item stored in an unvented container (Figures; Abstract; Column 4, lines 9 – 13), the device comprising: a vapor-permeable carrier fabric having a food side for facing the food item and a container side opposite the food side (Figure 2, #12; Figure 3, #22; Column 9, lines 50 to Column 10, line 42); an absorbent matrix having a matrix thickness and layering across the container side of the carrier fabric (Figure 2, #14; Figure 3, #24 and 25; Column 4, line 40 to Column 8, line 22), the absorbent matrix comprising:1) a fibrous substrate (Column 4, line 40 to Column 8, line 22); and 2) a food-safe hydrogel infusing the substrate (Column 5, lines 11 – 53) and including a water soluble polymer (Column 5, lines 18 – 53), wherein the absorbent matrix is configured to capture moisture vapor at a vapor absorption rate selected based on at least one of a hydrogel concentration (Column 5, lines 11 – 53), wherein, upon removal of the activation liner and attachment of the device to the interior surface of the unvented container, the carrier fabric is positioned between the absorbent matrix and the food item such that the absorbent matrix is isolated from direct contact with the food item while moisture vapor released by the food item passes through the carrier fabric to the absorbent matrix (A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Fontenot et al. disclose a vapor absorbing device for capturing vapor moisture released by food item stored in an unvented container (Figures; Abstract; Column 4, lines 9 – 13). in claim 1. With respect to claim 2, the fibrous substrate is formed of a non-woven fabric (Column 9, line 51 to Column 10, line 43). Regarding claim 4, the water soluble polymer is polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) or a salt thereof (Column 5, lines 18 – 53). However, Fontenot et al. fail to disclose an activation liner removably disposed on the food side of the carrier fabric and configured to seal the absorbent matrix from moisture prior to use, wherein the activation liner comprises a removable moisture barrier sheet covering the food side of the carrier fabric before use; an attaching layer disposed on a container side of the absorbent matrix and configured to attach the device to an interior surface of the unvented container; an activation liner disposed on the carrier food-facing side for sealing the absorbent matrix from moisture prior to use, an attaching layer disposable on the matrix container side for attaching the device to the interior surface of the food container, wherein the attaching layer is disposed on the container side of the absorbent matrix for attaching the device to the interior surface of the unvented container, and the attaching layer is a pressure sensitive adhesive.
Paul teaches a device (Figures; Abstract) having an activation liner disposed on the carrier food-facing side for sealing the absorbent matrix from moisture prior to use (Figure 5, #51; Column 15, line 49 to Column 16, line 11); an activation liner removably disposed on the food side of the carrier fabric and configured to seal the absorbent matrix from moisture prior to use (Figure 5, #51; Column 15, line 49 to Column 16, line 11), wherein the activation liner comprises a removable moisture barrier sheet covering the food side of the carrier fabric before use (Column 10, lines 29 – 41)for the purpose of revealing a porous membrane at the time of use (Column 16, lines 4 – 11).
Thomas et al. teach an article for extending the freshness of food (Figures; Abstract) having an attaching layer disposable on the matrix container side for attaching the device to the interior surface of the food container (Paragraph 0182), an attaching layer disposable on the matrix container side for attaching the device to the interior surface of the food container, wherein the attaching layer is disposed on the container side of the absorbent matrix for attaching the device to the interior surface of the unvented container (Paragraph 0182), and the attaching layer is a pressure sensitive adhesive (Paragraph 0182) for the purpose of keeping the article attached to the packaging (Paragraph 0182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an activation layer and a pressure sensitive adhesive in Fontenot et al. in order to reveal a porous membrane at the time of use as taught by Paul and to keep the article attached to the packaging as taught by Thomas et al.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontenot et al. (USPN 6,926,862) in view of Paul (USPN 5,611,486) and Thomas et al. (USPGPub 2006/0110080 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Darnett et al. (WO 99/62790).
Fontenot et al., as modified with Paul and Thomas et al., discloses the claimed invention except for the fibrous substrate is formed of viscose polyester (polyviscose).
Darnett et al. teach a vapor absorbing device for food (Abstract; Figures) having a fibrous substrate is formed of viscose polyester (Page 5, lines 20 – 24) for the purpose of absorbing all the liquid release by the food product (Page 6, lines 1 – 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fibrous substrate is formed of viscose polyester in the modified Fontenot et al. in order to absorb all the liquid release by the food product as taught by Darnett et al.
Claims 5 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontenot et al. (USPN 6,926,862) in view of Paul (USPN 5,611,486) and Thomas et al. (USPGPub 2006/0110080 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koyama et al. (USPN 5,274,024).
Fontenot et al., as modified with Paul and Thomas et al., discloses the claimed invention except for an upper limit on the PVOH concentration is around 2% by weight, a deliquescent embedded in the hydrogel for enhancing the predetermined vapor absorption rate of the device, the absorbent matrix has a matrix thickness within a range of about 1 mm to about 20 mm, the deliquescent is calcium chloride (CaCl2), the concentration of the CaCl2 is less than around 20% by weight, and matrix mass of the absorbent matrix in an amount is between approximately 30 and approximately 150 grams per quart of a container volume.
Koyama et al. teach an absorbent polymer material (Abstract) having an upper limit on the PVOH concentration is around 2% by weight (Column 5, lines 33 – 40; Column 6, lines 12 – 26), a deliquescent embedded in the hydrogel for enhancing the predetermined vapor absorption rate of the device (Column 5, lines 6 – 27), the absorbent matrix has a matrix thickness within a range of about 1 mm to about 20 mm (Column 6, line 51 – 57), the deliquescent is calcium chloride (CaCl2) (Column 5, lines 6 – 27), and the concentration of the CaCl2 is less than around 20% by weight (Column 5, lines 6 – 27) for the purpose of having an oxygen absorbing composition with the desired properties (Column 1, lines 13 – 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a deliquescent of calcium chloride in the modified Fontenot et al. in order have an oxygen absorbing composition with the desired properties as taught by Koyama et al.
With regard to the limitations of “matrix mass of the absorbent matrix for establishing the predetermined vapor absorption rate is between approximately 30 and approximately 150 grams per quart of a container volume, depending on a food exudation”, Koyama et al. clearly teaches that the PVOH concentration is around 2% by weight (Column 5, lines 33 – 40; Column 6, lines 12 – 26) and the deliquescent is calcium chloride with a concentration less than around 20% by weight (Column 5, lines 6 – 27). Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (Calcium chloride, polyvinyl alcohol) and in the similar production steps used to produce the resin oxygen absorbing material. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontenot et al. (USPN 6,926,862) in view of Paul (USPN 5,611,486) and Thomas et al. (USPGPub 2006/0110080 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolfinger et al. (WO 94/04435 A1).
Fontenot et al., as modified with Paul and Thomas et al., discloses the claimed invention except for a barrier cloth layering across an opposite side of the hydrogel matrix and edge-sealed to the carrier fabric along their respective perimeters to form a sachet isolating the absorbent matrix from the food item, wherein the attaching layer is disposed on a container-facing side of the barrier cloth, and a fluted, corrugated, or porous ventilation layer mountable between the absorbent matrix and the container interior, the ventilation layer being configured to space at least a portion of the absorbent matrix from the container interior and for increasing a surface area of the matrix.
Wolfinger et al. teach a moisture absorbing device for reducing moisture inside of a food container during use (Figures; Abstract) with a ventilation layer comprises a fluted structure having a first plurality of open channels extending along the second surface of the absorbent layer (Figure 3, #22), the ventilation layer comprises a fluted structure having a first plurality of open channels extending along the second surface of the absorbent layer and a second plurality of open channels extending along the seventh surface of the attaching layer (Figure 3, #22), the ventilation layer being configured to space at least a portion of the absorbent matrix from the container interior and for increasing a surface area of the matrix (A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The structure of Wolfinger is designed to absorb moisture. Figures; Abstract), and a barrier cloth layering across an opposite side of the hydrogel matrix and edge-sealed to the carrier fabric along their respective perimeters to form a sachet isolating the absorbent matrix from the food item, wherein the attaching layer is disposed on a container-facing side of the barrier cloth (Figures 4 and 10, #26) for the purpose of absorbing moisture of a food product (Page 6, lines 254 – 264).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ventilation layer is comprised of corrugated paper with a fluted structure in Fontenot et al. in order to absorb moisture of a food product as taught by Wolfinger et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Fontenot fails to disclose three limitations of the amended claim 1, please see the newly presented 103 rejections made above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights