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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in this application. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 5, 8-9, 13-16 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed with regard to rejections of present claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 2002/0094922, of record) in view of Frisk (JP2004224343) have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant contents that Edwards in view of Frisk does not teach a package as instantly claimed in claim 1, because per applicant, both Edwards and Frisk fails to teach a package that requires “"wherein the sealant layer is made of a first material and the deposits of adhesive are made of a second material that is different from the first material, and wherein the second material that makes up the adhesive is more flowable than the first material that underlies the second material and makes up the sealant layer”, as recited in instant claim 1. In this regard, per applicant, Edwards teaches its plastic bag and the strip (or patch) are both made of polyethylene (see applicant’s Remark’s at page 7, last paragraph, page 8, first para). Further per applicant, Frisk teaches a package where the base material and the strip may be made of varying grades of polyethylene, with the grade of polyethylene used to make the strip having a higher flow rate, this does not change the fact that Frisk teaches that the base material and the strip are both made of polyethylene, not of chemically different polymers (see applicant’s Remark’s, page 8, second and third para).
In response to applicant’s contention, Applicant's arguments have been carefully studied and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
As an initial matter, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., not of chemically different polymers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant claim 1 merely recites “…a second material that is different from the first material…”, but does not recite or require “a second material that is chemically different from the first material”.
Further, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s characteristic of Frisk. Applicant’s generalization that all polyethylene resins taught by Frisk are considered same material is misplaced.
It is known in the art that polyethylene resins such as LDPE, LLDPE, mLLDPE are not the same materials because they having different melt flow rate and different density, and different material characteristic. Also, the instant specification at para [0044] (reproduced below) also describes LDPE, LLDPE, mLLDPE as being separate and suitable material for the sealant material.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this case, Frisk teaches a package where the base material and the strip may be made of varying grades of, with the grade of polyethylene used to make the strip having a higher flow rate. In particular, Frisk teaches as in one of its embodiments, a strip tape for packaging containers having a base polyethylene that is a high density polyethylene/HDPE having a melt flow of about 8 g/10 mins and a density of 0.94 to 0.97 g/cm3, and a seal layer that is of mLLDPE having density of about 0.9 to 0.92 g/cm3 (i.e., a different material than that of HDPE) having a melt flow of about 15 g/10 mins (i.e., which is more flowable that the base material HDPE) (para [0001], see page 2, middle section, of the English translation of Frisk). Frisk teaches that the strip tape base polyethylene is a high density polyethylene/HDPE and the sealing layer material is of mLLDPE, of which those two materials have material characteristic differences in the characteristic parameters of melt flow rate and density. That is, Frisk teaches a sealing layer material that is different from, and more flowable than, the underlying base material, and is considered meeting the claimed limitations of instant claim 1.
Frisk further teaches because the strip tape base material and the sealing layer have characteristic differences in the characteristic parameters of melt flow rate and density, the difference means that the strip tape is resistant to heat and easily softened and sealed by heat, mLLDPE brings good heat sealability in a low temperature range and excellent heat seal strength and good surface sealing properties ([0001], see page 2, middle section, of the English translation of Frisk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the package of Edwards in view the teachings of Frisk, to have provided the adhesive strips of Edwards with adhesive strips as taught by Frisk having a sealing layer material (that is of mLLDPE) that is different from, and more flowable than, the underlying base material, for the benefits of good heat sealability in a low temperature range and excellent heat seal strength and good surface sealing properties as taught by Frisk ([0001], see page 2, middle section, of the English translation of Frisk), which would have predicably arrived at a satisfactory package and packaging material that is the same as instantly claimed.
The rejection below is updated to address the present claims.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1, as amended, recites “wherein the sealant layer is made of a first material and the deposits of adhesive are made of a second material that is different from the first material….” In this connection, Applicant points to paragraph [0044] of the originally filed specification for support of the amendment (see remarks, page 7, second para).
However, the para [0044] (reproduced below) only describes what materials can be used for the localized sealant material, and does not describe that “wherein the sealant layer is made of a first material and the deposits of adhesive are made of a second material that is different from the first material”, contrary to applicant’s assertion.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
83
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The remainder of the originally filed specification have been carefully reviewed by the examiner. However, there is no support in Applicants' originally filed specification that the sealant layer is made of a first material and the deposits of adhesive are made of a second material that is different from the first material. Claims 2-4, 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected due to their dependency of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1-4, 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “wherein the sealant layer is made of a first material and the deposits of adhesive are made of a second material that is different from the first material….” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite. The term “… second material …is different from the first material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear as to in what aspect and to what level and degree of difference in the materials is considered as being “different”. For example, would LDPE be considered as being different material from HDPE, and/or mLLDPE material? For purpose of examination, the examiner considers the any materials of prior art that having any difference in its chemical structure, and/or in its properties including different density, as being different materials meeting the claimed limitations. Claims 2-4, 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected due to their dependency of claim 1. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 2002/0094922, of record) in view of Frisk (JP2004224343).
Regarding claim 1, Edwards et al. teach a package (e.g., standup bag 120) formed from a packaging material having at least a base layer (e.g., outer layer 168) and a sealant layer (e.g., inner layer 166 made of material that can be heat-sealed) (Abstract; Fig. 3A, 3B; [0004-0005, 0146, 0166, 0174]), the material having discrete and spaced apart deposits of adhesive disposed on the sealant layer 166 in a plurality of discrete locations (e.g., strips or patches of sealing material along each of the lower V-shaped seals 150, 144 on opposite side walls 126, 128 of the standup bag 120) (Fig. 3A, 6, 7; [0146, 0148, 0150]), the package having one or more end seal regions (lower V-shaped seals 144) having folds (defining lower heat seals 646, 646’) with the discrete and spaced apart deposits of the adhesive being adjacent to the folds such that the discrete and spaced apart deposits of the adhesive at least partially fill voids adjacent the folds (Fig. 80, 80A; [0150, 0174-0175]).
Note: In light of the instant specification, it does not appear that a clear distinction can be identified between “sealant” and “adhesive” as these terms have been used in the claims to refer to the additional material disposed on the sealant layer. The specification does not define or differentiate between these terms; overwhelmingly uses the term “sealant” for this material; and, in the pair of passages where “adhesive” is used for this material, clearly indicates that the term is intended to be taken synonymously with the immediately juxtaposed “sealant.” For instance, in the instant abstract: “A package is provided that is formed from a packaging material, such as film, having increased adhesive in critical locations, such as adjacent folds in the end seal and other areas so that that the increased adhesive can at least partially fill voids adjacent such folds. The additional, localized sealant material is applied in a plurality of discrete locations….” Closely matching language is also used in instant paragraph [0005].
Further, the instant specification notes that this material may comprise polyethylene, and indeed suggests that mLLDPE is among the suitable material (see para [0044] of the instant specification). Likewise, Edwards et al. teach that their strips or patches of sealing material can be polyethylene, among other polymer materials, and teach that the strips or patches can be welded to the packaging material [0176].
Edwards et al. do not specifically teach that the sealant layer is made of a first material and the deposits of adhesive are made of a second material that is different from the first material, and wherein the second material that makes up the adhesive being is more flowable than the first material that underlies the second material and makes up the sealant layer, as instantly claimed in claim 1.
Frisk teaches as in one of its embodiments, a strip tape for packaging containers having a base polyethylene that is a high density polyethylene/HDPE having a melt flow of about 8 g/10 mins and a density of 0.94 to 0.97 g/cm3, and a seal layer that is of mLLDPE having density of about 0.9 to 0.92 g/cm3 (i.e., a different material than that of HDPE) having a melt flow of about 15 g/10 mins (i.e., which is more flowable that the base material HDPE) (para [0001], see page 2, middle section, of the English translation of Frisk). Frisk teaches that the strip tape base polyethylene is a high density polyethylene/HDPE and the sealing layer material is of mLLDPE, of which those two materials have material characteristic differences in the characteristic parameters of melt flow rate and density. That is, Frisk teaches a sealing layer material that is different from, and more flowable than, the underlying base material, and is considered meeting the claimed limitations of instant claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 made of record in this Office Action.
Frisk further teaches because the strip tape base material and the sealing layer have characteristic differences in the characteristic parameters of melt flow rate and density, the difference means that the strip tape is resistant to heat and easily softened and sealed by heat, mLLDPE brings good heat sealability in a low temperature range and excellent heat seal strength and good surface sealing properties ([0001], see page 2, middle section, of the English translation of Frisk).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the package of Edwards in view the teachings of Frisk, to have provided the adhesive strips of Edwards with adhesive strips as taught by Frisk having a sealing layer material (that is of mLLDPE) that is different from, and more flowable than, the underlying base material, for the benefits of good heat sealability in a low temperature range and excellent heat seal strength and good surface sealing properties as taught by Frisk ([0001], see page 2, middle section, of the English translation of Frisk), which would have predicably arrived at a satisfactory package and packaging material that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Edwards et al. teach the package 120 may include a first end seal region having folds at lateral edges thereof (e.g., folds at the top end of the package of Fig. 81B), the discrete and spaced apart deposits of the adhesive including a first pair of discrete locations (reinforcement patches 284’) adjacent the folds of the first end seal region (Fig. 81A-B; [0176-0177]).
Regarding claim 3, Edwards et al. teach the package 120 may comprise a first end seal region and a second end seal region, each of the first and second end seal regions having folds at lateral edges thereof (e.g., folds at the top and bottom end of the package of Fig. 81B), the discrete and spaced apart deposits of the adhesive including a first pair of discrete deposits of the adhesive (reinforcement patches 284’) adjacent the folds of the first end seal region and a second pair of discrete deposits of the adhesive (reinforcement patches 284’) adjacent the folds of the second end seal region (Fig. 81A-B; [0176-0177]).
Regarding claim 4, Edwards et al. teach the package 120 may comprise a fin seal (fin seal between the front and back walls 600, 602) extending between the first and second end seal regions (of the side walls 604, 606) and having a first portion disposed in the first end seal region with a first pair of fin seal folds (e.g., the folds in the front and back walls 600, 602 to the left of the fitment 133) and a second portion disposed in the second end seal region with a second pair of fin seal folds (e.g., the folds in the front and back walls 600, 602 to the right of the fitment 133), the discrete and spaced apart deposits of adhesive including a third pair of discrete and spaced apart deposits of adhesive adjacent the first pair of fin seal folds and a fourth pair of discrete and spaced apart deposits of adhesive adjacent the second pair of fin seal folds (i.e., those forming heat seals 608 of the side walls 604, 606) (Fig. 70, 70A; [0157, 0161]).
Regarding claim 6, Edwards et al. teach the package 120 the package is a stand-up package, with a gusseted bottom end opposite a top end having the first end seal region (Fig. 81A-B; [0176-0177]).
Regarding claim 7, Edwards et al. teach the gusseted bottom end comprises a gusset end seal region with a plurality of gusset folds (e.g., folds at the bottom end of the package of Fig. 81B), and a plurality of discrete and spaced apart deposits of adhesive (reinforcement patches 284’) adjacent the gusset folds of the gusset end seal region (Fig. 81A-B; [0176-0177]).
Regarding claim 11, Edwards et al. teach the base layer may comprise a plurality of different layers (e.g., center layer 174 and outer layer 172) (Fig. 13C; [0166, 0189]).
Regarding claim 12, Edwards et al. teach the packaging material may be a film [0009].
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. in view of Frisk (JP2004224343) as applied above, and further in view of Trejo et al. (WO 2018/038709, of record). (Subsequent citations to Trejo et al. refer to US 2019/0184649, which is the U.S. Patent Application Publication corresponding to WO 2018/038709.)
Regarding claim 10, Edwards et al. teach that the sealant layer 166 is a heat sealant layer [0174]. While, Edwards et al. do not specifically teach the relative melting point of the discrete and spaced apart deposits of adhesive, Trejo et al. also teach a package 100 (Fig. 1; [0001, 0033]) formed from a packaging material 711 having at least a base layer (e.g., permeable woven layer 711b) and a sealant layer (e.g., solid film layer 711a, which Trejo et al. teach may be a heat-sealable thermoplastic polymer such as polypropylene, polyethylene, or PET) (Fig. 7; [0021, 0032, 0040-0041]), the material 711 an additional deposit of adhesive 712 disposed on the sealant layer 711a at indents 120/722. Trejo et al. also teach that the sealant layer 711a is a heat sealant layer (i.e., a thermoplastic polymer such as polypropylene or PET), and the adhesive 712 may have a lower melt point (e.g., may be a lower-melting thermoplastic polymer such as polyethylene) as compared to a melt point of the heat sealant layer 711a ([0020, 0040-0041, 0049]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to likewise form the discrete and spaced apart deposits of adhesive of Edwards et al. to have a lower melt point as compared to melt point of the heat sealant layer, in order to form the seal from the discrete and spaced apart deposits of adhesive while leaving the inner layer of the package intact as desired by Edwards et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782