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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 13 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tau et al. (US 2014/0124405).
Regarding claim 1, Tau discloses a packaging material to be formed and sealed into a packaging container for a food product ([0015]), the packaging material capable of comprising a core layer ([0056] - Tau discloses using a laminate with multiple layers), an outermost layer ([0056]) on a first side of the core layer and arranged to face the exterior of a packaging container made of the packaging material, and an innermost layer ([0056]) on a second side of the core layer that is opposite the first side and arranged to face the interior of the packaging container, said outermost layer and said innermost layer being laminated to the core layer, the laminated packaging material further comprising a heat sealable material portion (14, 16; or 24, 26) arranged on less than an entirety of the innermost layer ([0005], [0068] - the heat sealable material can be a separate component from the other layers), the heat sealable material portion that is arranged on less than the entirety of the innermost layer being located exclusively on the second side of the core layer (Figs. 1A-1C), the packaging material including the core layer, the outermost and innermost layers and the heat sealable material portion before the packaging material is formed and sealed into the packaging container. See Abstract; and Figs. 1A-1C.
Regarding claim 2, the heat sealable material portion can be arranged at sealing areas corresponding to the position of transversal seals of the resulting packaging container. See Figs. 1A-3C.
Regarding claim 8, the heat sealable material portion can be arranged along an entire extension of transversal sealing areas. See Figs. 1A-3C.
Regarding claim 13, the heat sealable material portion is made of a thermoplastic poly selected from the group consisting of polyolefins and polyesters. See [0005].
Regarding claim 20, Tau discloses a packaging material according to claim 1, comprising a core layer and a thereto laminated outermost layer and an innermost layer, wherein a heat sealable material portion is locally arranged on the innermost layer. See Figs. 1A-1C.
Regarding claim 21, the heat sealable material portion can be locally arranged at a position of one or more transversal seals of the packaging container. See Figs. 1A-3C
Regarding claim 22, Tau discloses a packaging material having longitudinal side edges to be attached to each other continuously in an overlapping manner to form a longitudinal seal and also having portions to be brought together to form spaced apart transversal seals to thereby produce a packaging container an interior, the packaging material comprising: a core layer ([0056]) having opposite sides; an outermost layer ([0056]) arranged to face away from the interior of packaging container; an innermost layer ([0056]) arranged to face the interior of the packaging container; the outermost layer and the innermost layer being laminated to the core layer; a heat sealable material (14, 16; or 24, 26) portion on the innermost layer before the transversal seals are formed, the heat sealable material portion being located on less than an entirety of the innermost layer and on only one of the sides of the core layer; and the heat sealable material portion being arranged at sealing areas corresponding to positions of the transversal seals of the packaging container. See Figs. 1A-1C; and above.
Regarding claim 23, Tau discloses a packaging material to be formed and sealed at one or more seal areas to produce a packaging container for a food product, the packaging material comprising a core layer, an outermost layer, and an innermost layer, the core layer having opposite sides, the outermost layer being arranged on one of the sides of the core layer to face the exterior of a packaging container made of the packaging material, the innermost layer being arranged on the opposite side of the core layer to face the interior of the packaging container, said outermost layer and said innermost layer being laminated to the core layer, the laminated packaging material further comprising a heat sealable material portion arranged on only one of the sides of the core layer and being arranged on less than an entirety of the innermost layer, the heat sealable material portion: i) being arranged on the one side of the core layer before the packaging material is formed and sealed into the packaging container and ii) being configured to form the one or more seal areas when the packaging material is formed and sealed into the packaging container. See Figs. 1A-3C; and above.
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(s) 3, 6, 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tau as applied above in further view of Cederstrom et al. (WO 2014072007).
Regarding claim 3, Tau does not disclose the heating process as claimed. Cederstrom, which is drawn to package, discloses a heat sealable material portion that is adhered to the innermost layer by way of a heat application process, being an injection moulding process, a sintering process, a welding process, a spraying process, an ink-jet type of polymer printing process, a compression moulding process or a 3D printing process. See pg. 3, ll. 28. Thus, it 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 to have the sealing process of Tau be as disclosed by Cederstrom in order to seal the package.
Regarding claim 6, Tau does not disclose the shape as claimed. Cederstrom discloses a heat sealable material portion has a cross-section having the shape of a triangle, or a truncated triangle. See Figs. 1-3C. Thus, it 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 to have the heat-sealable material of Tau be as shaped as disclosed by Cederstrom in order to apply the desired sealing at specific locations. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the heat-sealable material be shaped as claimed since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claims 9-11, Tau, as modified above, with its shape, sufficiently discloses the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Tau does not disclose the material as claimed. Cederstrom discloses a core layer that is a cellulose based material, such as paper or paperboard. See pg. 3, ll. 9. Thus, it 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 to have the core layer of Tau be the material as disclosed by Cederstrom in order to add the sturdiness and weight of paper to the package. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use paper, 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 In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tau as applied above in further view of Takahiro (JP 2019038593).
Regarding claim 4, Tau does not disclose the material as claimed. Takahiro, which is drawn to a package, discloses a heat sealable material portion (14) that has a cross-section having a width which increases towards an innermost layer. See Fig. 4. Thus, it 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 to have the heat sealable layer of Tau have a cross-section with a width which increases towards an innermost layer, as disclosed by Takahiro, in order to seal specific areas that require a certain shape in order to seal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tau as applied above.
Regarding claim 5, Tau discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thickness of the heat sealable material portion be 2-50 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tau as applied above.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the heat sealable material portion have a cross-section having an asymmetric shape, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tau as applied above in further view of Tau et al. (US 2014/0124405).
Regarding claim 12, Tau does not disclose the seal initiation temperature as claimed. Tau, which is drawn to a package, discloses a thermoplastic polymer of a locally applied heat sealable material portion possessing a seal initiation temperature and a melting temperature, and wherein the seal initiation temperature and/or the melting temperature of the thermoplastic polymer of the of the locally applied heat sealable material portion is lower than a seal initiation temperature of the thermoplastic polymer of the innermost layer. See [0011]. Thus, it 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 to have the seal initiation temperature and/or the melting temperature of the thermoplastic polymer of the of the locally applied heat sealable material portion of Tau be lower than a seal initiation temperature of the thermoplastic polymer of the innermost layer, as disclosed by Tau, in order to only seal desired portions of the package without sealing or destroying other portions.
Claim(s) 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tau as applied above in further view of Hakansson et al. (US 2018/0215521).
Regarding claim 14, Hakansson disclose a packaging material further comprising a barrier layer arranged between the core layer and the innermost layer. See [0045], [0111] and [0114]. Thus, it 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 to use a barrier layer, as disclosed by Hakansson between the layers of Tau in order to protect certain layers and provide for stronger package.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Tau does not disclose a heat sealable material portion arranged on less than the entirety of the innermost layer. The Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office’s position that the heat sealable material is capable of being arranged as claimed. Tau specifically discloses that “the heat seal can be any heat seal configuration [...]. The container heat seal can a be permanent heat seal or a releasable heat seal (i.e., a peel seal).” See [0077]. Peel seals are well known in the art as being capable of being less than an entirety of an innermost layer. See Rasko et al. (US 5425825), Uesugi et al. (US 2016/0046426). Moreover, Tau discloses “in an embodiment, the heat seal is a partial heat seal to form an open container.” (Emphasis added). See [0078]. Additionally, Tau discloses other embodiments wherein a heat seal can be “less than the entirety of the innermost layer.” See [0080]-[0081].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights