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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 15, in the reply filed on November 14, 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 22, 2025 is being considered by the examiner. However, one of the Non Patent Literature references was illegible and has been crossed out. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1 – 15 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.
The phrases “where the device is calibrated to capture the moisture at a predetermined vapor absorption rate” in claim 1, “the matrix thickness and a concentration of the deliquescent are adjusted together in approximate direct proportion for optimizing the predetermined absorption rate operative during a freshness period over which the moisture capturing is intended to occur” in claim 7, and “a 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” in claim 10 are unclear, which render the claims vague and indefinite. The above phrases are indefinite as there are multiple parameters that affect the vapor absorption rate, there by making them indefinite. The rates could vary considerably depending on the type of food in the container, the amount of food in the container, the size of the container, the temperature of the food in the container, and how the food was cooked before being placed in the container.
Claims 2 – 6, 8, 9, and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency on the above rejected claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fontenot et al. (USPN 6,926,862).
Fontenot et al. disclose a vapor absorbing device for capturing moisture released by fresh food 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 fresh food 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 (Figure 2, #14; Figure 3, #24 and 25; Column 4, line 40 to Column 8, line 22), the 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); and where the device is configured to dispose a container side of the matrix against an interior surface of the food container (Figures; Abstract), and where the device is calibrated to capture the moisture at a predetermined vapor absorption rate (Column 9, line 51 to Column 10, line 43) 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).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontenot et al. (USPN 6,926,862) in view of Darnett et al. (WO 99/62790).
Fontenot et al. disclose a vapor absorbing device for capturing moisture released by fresh food 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 fresh food 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 (Figure 2, #14; Figure 3, #24 and 25; Column 4, line 40 to Column 8, line 22), the 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); and where the device is configured to dispose a container side of the matrix against an interior surface of the food container (Figures; Abstract), and where the device is calibrated to capture the moisture at a predetermined vapor absorption rate (Column 9, line 51 to Column 10, line 43). However, Fontenot et al. fail to disclose 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 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 Koyama et al. (USPN 5,274,024).
Fontenot et al. disclose a vapor absorbing device for capturing moisture released by fresh food 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 fresh food 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 (Figure 2, #14; Figure 3, #24 and 25; Column 4, line 40 to Column 8, line 22), the 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); and where the device is configured to dispose a container side of the matrix against an interior surface of the food container (Figures; Abstract), and where the device is calibrated to capture the moisture at a predetermined vapor absorption rate (Column 9, line 51 to Column 10, line 43). However, Fontenot et al. fail to disclose 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 matrix thickness and a concentration of the deliquescent are adjusted together in approximate direct proportion for optimizing the predetermined absorption rate operative during a freshness period over which the moisture capturing is intended to occur, 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 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. 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 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 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 “the matrix thickness and a concentration of the deliquescent are adjusted together in approximate direct proportion for optimizing the predetermined absorption rate operative during a freshness period over which the moisture capturing is intended to occur” and “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.
Claim 11 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).
Fontenot et al. disclose a vapor absorbing device for capturing moisture released by fresh food 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 fresh food 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 (Figure 2, #14; Figure 3, #24 and 25; Column 4, line 40 to Column 8, line 22), the 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); and where the device is configured to dispose a container side of the matrix against an interior surface of the food container (Figures; Abstract), and where the device is calibrated to capture the moisture at a predetermined vapor absorption rate (Column 9, line 51 to Column 10, line 43). However, Fontenot et al. fail to disclose an activation liner disposed on the carrier food-facing side for sealing the absorbent matrix from moisture prior to use.
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) for the purpose of revealing a porous membrane at the time of use (Column 16, lines 4 – 11).
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 liner in Fontenot et al. in order to reveal a porous membrane at the time of use as taught by Paul.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontenot et al. (USPN 6,926,862) in view of Thomas et al. (USPGPub 2006/0110080 A1).
Fontenot et al. disclose a vapor absorbing device for capturing moisture released by fresh food 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 fresh food 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 (Figure 2, #14; Figure 3, #24 and 25; Column 4, line 40 to Column 8, line 22), the 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); and where the device is configured to dispose a container side of the matrix against an interior surface of the food container (Figures; Abstract), and where the device is calibrated to capture the moisture at a predetermined vapor absorption rate (Column 9, line 51 to Column 10, line 43). However, Fontenot et al. fail to disclose an attaching layer disposable on the matrix container side for attaching the device to the interior surface of the food container, and the attaching layer is a pressure sensitive adhesive.
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), 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 a pressure sensitive adhesive in Fontenot et al. in order to keep the article attached to the packaging as taught by Thomas et al.
Claims 14 and are 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontenot et al. (USPN 6,926,862) in view of Wolfinger et al. (WO 94/04435 A1).
Fontenot et al. disclose a vapor absorbing device for capturing moisture released by fresh food 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 fresh food 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 (Figure 2, #14; Figure 3, #24 and 25; Column 4, line 40 to Column 8, line 22), the 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); and where the device is configured to dispose a container side of the matrix against an interior surface of the food container (Figures; Abstract), and where the device is calibrated to capture the moisture at a predetermined vapor absorption rate (Column 9, line 51 to Column 10, line 43). However, Fontenot et al. fail to disclose 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 fresh food, and a fluted, corrugated, or porous ventilation layer mountable between the absorbent matrix and the container interior, the ventilation 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), 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 fresh food (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.
Conclusion
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 December 8, 2025
Prosecution Insights