DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on August 27, 2026, the objections to claims, drawings, specifications and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 06/17/2026), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 have been amended,
Claims 3, 5, 8-9, 12, 14, 17, 19 and 20 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 is/are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on August 27, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, ln. 8, the phrase, “…the biodegradable fiber material comprises at least one…” could read “…the biodegradable fiber material further comprises at least one…”
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jobe (US 10625925 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Jobe) in view of Chung et al. (US 9856608 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Chung).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 17, Jobe teaches a packaging container embodiment (100; as shown in Figs. 1-6 – made from a biodegradable fiber material) comprising:
a shell-shaped base body (i.e. in the form of a double-layered tub (110, 120 and 130)) with a bottom wall (122 and 132), a surrounding side wall (124 and 134), and a peripheral rim (126 and 136); and
a lid (140, 150 and 160) with a top wall (152) and a lid rim (i.e. the combination of upper rim (156) and lower rim (166)) that extends complementary to the peripheral rim of the shell-shaped base body;
wherein the shell-shaped base body and the lid are made from sheets of compressed organic fiber pulp or plant fiber pulp (see Jobe Col. 3 ln. 45-54); and
wherein the shell-shaped base body and the lid have a wall thickness of at least 3 mm (Jobe Col. 3 ln. 45 – Col. 9 ln. 11).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation(s) of claim 1, “…wherein the shell-shaped base body and the lid are produced by means of a mold from a pulp containing a mixture of water and fresh fiber; wherein the shell-shaped base body and the lid are dried and pressed after drying…” are directed to product-by-process limitation(s) to which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner for the following reason(s): Applicant is reminded of the following with regards to product-by-process limitation(s): Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (See MPEP §2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Thus, Jobe fails to teach the biodegradable material comprises at least one alkyl ketene dimer (AKD hereinafter) additive.
Chung is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Jobe, which is a packaging container (specifically a biodegradable packaging container). Chung teaches a packaging embodiment (300; as shown in Fig. 3 – made of biodegradable fiber material) comprising:
a shell-shaped base body with a bottom wall, a surrounding side wall, and a peripheral rim (i.e. rolled edge (302));
wherein the biodegradable fiber material comprises at least one AKD additive (see Chung Col. 6 ln. 66 – Col. 7 ln. 13); and
wherein the shell-shaped base body are produced by a fiber base mixture of pulp and water (see Chung Col. 6 ln. 37-44).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a similar AKD additive (as taught by Chung) into the biodegradable fiber material (of Jobe) to provide a moisture or water barrier (see Chung Col. 7 ln. 5-7) for the overall packaging container (of Jobe). Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 2, modified Jobe as above further teaches wherein the peripheral rim of the shell-shaped body has a portion extending outward parallel to the bottom wall and an adjoining portion extending downward toward the bottom wall, wherein the lid rim has an outwardly extending portion and an adjoining portion extending downward towards the bottom wall (see annotated Jobe Fig. 2b below).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Jobe as above further teaches wherein the top wall of the lid is connected to the outwardly extending portion of the lid rim via an upwardly extending junction section (see annotated Jobe Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jobe as above further teaches wherein the adjoining portion of the lid rim extending downward toward the bottom wall ends above the adjoining portion of the peripheral rim of the shell-shaped body extending downward toward the bottom wall (see annotated Jobe Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jobe as above further teaches wherein the adjoining portion of the lid rim extending downwards toward the bottom wall has at least one recess (see annotated Jobe Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, modified Jobe as above further teaches wherein the surrounding side wall of the shell-shaped base body includes several bulges (see annotated Jobe Fig. 1a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
565
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Jobe as above further teaches wherein the bulges extend transverse to the surrounding side wall of the shell-shaped base body; however, fails to teach wherein the extension of the bulges is equal to or less than five times the surrounding wall thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the extension [i.e. width] of the rib-like bulges (of Jobe) is equal to or less than five times the surrounding wall thickness to adjust the structural reinforcement of the overall packaging container.
Since, such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art OR would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, modified Jobe as above further teaches a moisture barrier layer (182) applied to an inner surface of the shell-shaped body; and
wherein the moisture barrier layer can be a biodegradable or compostable layer (i.e. wax, bioplastics and others - which is what the examiner equates to the claimed biodegradable coating; Jobe Col. 6 ln. 66 – Col. 7 ln. 57 and Figs. 3-4).
Claims 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jobe (US 10625925 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Jobe) and further in view of McLoughlin (US 20220411154 A1 – art of record; hereinafter McLoughlin) and Chung et al. (US 9856608 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Chung).
Regarding claims 11-12, Jobe teaches a packaging container embodiment (100; as shown in Figs. 1-6 – made from a biodegradable fiber material) comprising:
a shell-shaped base body (i.e. in the form of a double-layered tub (110, 120 and 130)) with a bottom wall (122 and 132), a surrounding side wall (124 and 134), and a peripheral rim (126 and 136); and
a lid (140, 150 and 160) with a top wall (152) and a lid rim (i.e. the combination of upper rim (156) and lower rim (166)) that extends complementary to the peripheral rim of the shell-shaped base body;
wherein the shell-shaped base body and the lid are made from sheets of compressed organic fiber pulp or plant fiber pulp (see Jobe Col. 3 ln. 45-54).
Thus, Jobe fails to teach the biodegradable material containing hemp fibers, specifically a mixture of hemp fibers and ground hemp shives.
McLoughlin is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Jobe, which is a packaging container (specifically a biodegradable packaging container). McLoughlin teaches a packaging container (i.e. in the form of a box (100) that is made from a biodegradable fiber material) comprising a base body with a bottom wall, a surrounding side wall, and a peripheral rim; and
wherein the biodegradable fiber material (202) contains hemp fibers (i.e. in the form of hemp strands (204)), specifically a mixture of hemp fibers and ground hemp shives (or hurds (206); McLoughlin [0023-0032] and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the overall plastic packaging container (of Jobe) out of a similar biodegradable material that contains a mixture of hemp fibers and ground hemp shives or hurds (as taught by McLoughlin) to make the overall plastic packaging container (of Jobe) more sustainable and versatile and still make it fully compostable or recyclable. Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Lastly, Jobe fails to teach the biodegradable material comprises at least one alkyl ketene dimer (AKD hereinafter) additive.
Chung is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Jobe, which is a packaging container (specifically a biodegradable packaging container). Chung teaches a packaging embodiment (300; as shown in Fig. 3 – made of biodegradable fiber material) comprising:
a shell-shaped base body with a bottom wall, a surrounding side wall, and a peripheral rim (i.e. rolled edge (302));
wherein the biodegradable fiber material comprises at least one AKD additive (see Chung Col. 6 ln. 66 – Col. 7 ln. 13); and
wherein the shell-shaped base body are produced by a fiber base mixture of pulp and water (see Chung Col. 6 ln. 37-44).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a similar AKD additive (as taught by Chung) into the biodegradable fiber material (of Jobe) to provide a moisture or water barrier (see Chung Col. 7 ln. 5-7) for the overall packaging container (of Jobe).
Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 13, modified Jobe as above further teaches wherein the surrounding side wall of the shell-shaped base body includes several bulges (see annotated Jobe Fig. 1a above).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jobe as above further teaches a moisture barrier layer (182) applied to an inner surface of the shell-shaped body; and
wherein the moisture barrier layer can be a biodegradable or compostable layer (i.e. wax, bioplastics and others - which is what the examiner equates to the claimed biodegradable coating; Jobe Col. 6 ln. 66 – Col. 7 ln. 57 and Figs. 3-4).
Claims 8-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claims 1 and 16 above) and further in view of Constantine (US 3759416 A – art of record; hereinafter Constantine).
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 19, Jobe as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 16 (respectively), except for wherein the lid includes four corners, wherein each corner of the four corners includes a recess, wherein each recess includes a retaining projection which protrudes from one side of the recess towards a center of the recess.
Constantine is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Jobe, which is a packaging container. Constantine teaches a packaging container (12) comprising:
a shell-shaped base body (14) with a bottom wall (16, 18 and 20), a surrounding side wall (i.e. side walls (28 and 30) AND walls (32 and 34)), and a peripheral rim (36);
a lid (15) with a top wall (46, 48 and 50) and a lid rim (44) that extends complementary to the peripheral rim of the shell-shaped base body; and
wherein the lid includes four corners, wherein each corner of the four corners includes a recess (50), wherein each recess includes a retaining projection (i.e. the corner protrusions or projections within the respective recesses (50); as shown in Constantine Figs. 1 and 8 - is what examiner equates to the claimed retaining projection) which protrudes from one side of the recess towards a center of the recess (Constantine Col. 2 ln. 30 – Col. 4 ln. 34 and Figs. 1-10).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the four corners of the lid (of Jobe) to have recesses with a retaining projection (as taught by Constantine) to allow the user to vertically stack a similar or identical container on top the overall packaging container (of Jobe).
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 11 above) and further in view of Constantine (US 3759416 A – art of record; hereinafter Constantine).
Regarding claim 14, Jobe as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 11, except for wherein the lid includes four corners, wherein each corner of the four corners includes a recess, wherein each recess includes a retaining projection which protrudes from one side of the recess towards a center of the recess.
Constantine is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Jobe, which is a packaging container. Constantine teaches a packaging container (12) comprising:
a shell-shaped base body (14) with a bottom wall (16, 18 and 20), a surrounding side wall (i.e. side walls (28 and 30) AND walls (32 and 34)), and a peripheral rim (36);
a lid (15) with a top wall (46, 48 and 50) and a lid rim (44) that extends complementary to the peripheral rim of the shell-shaped base body; and
wherein the lid includes four corners, wherein each corner of the four corners includes a recess (50), wherein each recess includes a retaining projection (i.e. the corner protrusions or projections within the respective recesses (50); as shown in Constantine Figs. 1 and 8 - is what examiner equates to the claimed retaining projection) which protrudes from one side of the recess towards a center of the recess (Constantine Col. 2 ln. 30 – Col. 4 ln. 34 and Figs. 1-10).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the four corners of the lid (of Jobe) to have recesses with a retaining projection (as taught by Constantine) to allow the user to vertically stack a similar or identical container on top the overall packaging container (of Jobe).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights