DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2023/0068867, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the Final Rejection dated 04 June 2025 (hereinafter “FOA”). 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under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the FOA has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 8-9 have been canceled, new claim 20 has been added, and claims 1 and 18 have been amended. As such, claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-14, and 16-20 remain pending and are under consideration on the merits.
In view of the amendments to the claims, it is noted that any rejection previously set forth in the FOA and not repeated herein is overcome and hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
[claim 1] – lack of proper punctuation (comma), and improper grammar, as indicated in the sub-bullet below which constitutes an amendment suggested for correction of the issue
“…the adhesive layer being in contact with the inorganic vapor-deposited layer, the sealing layer is a clay-coated layer having a thickness of 10 µm or more and 40 µm or less or a resin layer having a thickness of 10 µm or more and 60 µm or less, wherein the standard deviation of the thickness of the adhesive layer is 0.60 µm or less, and wherein the thickness of the adhesive layer is between 1.5 µm and 5 µm.”
[claim 20] – lack of proper punctuation (comma)
“the adhesive layer being in contact with the inorganic vapor-deposited layer, the sealing layer is a clay-coated layer…”
Appropriate correction is 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 6-7, 10, 13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iura (JP 2017-149023; “Iura”) (newly cited) (original copy and machine translation provided herewith, translation and original figures relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Iura discloses a paper-based multilayer laminate (hereinafter “laminate”) (barrier paper) including the following layers arranged in the order stated: paper (11)/resin (12)/adhesive (13b)/vapor-deposited metal (13a) [0001, 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0026-0027, 0036-0038, 0041-0042, 0045-0046; Fig. 1]. To illustrate the basis of the rejection, and for convenience, the aforecited laminate depicted in Fig. 1 of Iura is reproduced below, captioned as Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Laminate of Iura
The paper layer 11 is not particularly limited, and any paper-based substrate material capable of receiving printed matter may be utilized; the basis weight is not limited and can be selected based on predetermined strength or other properties, but may be from, e.g. 230-500 g/m2 [0018-0019] (paper substrate layer).
The resin layer 12 is suitably formed from a photocurable (meth)acrylate/(meth)acrylic-based resin, e.g. coating, and includes a synthetic or natural wax [0022-0027, 0045]; the thickness of resin layer 12 is not limited, but may range from, e.g. 3-10 µm [0023] (sealing layer, the sealing layer is a resin layer having a thickness of 10 µm or more and 60 µm or less). The upper bound (10 µm) of the thickness range of 3-10 µm is identical to the lower bound of the claimed range, thereby overlapping with, and rendering prima facie obvious, the claimed range of 10-60 µm (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
The adhesive layer 13b is suitably formed from a thermoplastic resin (exhibiting a melt temperature) such as, inter alia an acrylic resin, polyamide resin, polyester resin, or vinyl chloride polymer or copolymer resin [0042]; the thickness of adhesive layer 13b is not limited, but may range from, e.g. 1-10 µm [0042], and is exemplified as 2 µm [0045] (adhesive layer, the adhesive layer being in contact with the inorganic vapor-deposited layer, wherein the thickness of the adhesive layer is between 1.5 µm and 5 µm). The thickness range of 1-10 µm encompasses, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of between 1.5 µm and 5 µm (MPEP 2144.05(I)); alternatively, the exemplified thickness of 2 µm is within the claimed range.
The vapor-deposited metal layer 13a includes a metal such as, inter alia copper, aluminum, silver, gold, or alloys thereof, and suitably exhibits a thickness of 10-300 nm [0041] (inorganic vapor-deposited layer).
In view of the foregoing, with respect to the difference(s) relative to the barrier paper defined by claim 1, Iura is silent regarding the standard deviation of the thickness of the adhesive layer 13b of the laminate being 0.60 µm or less.
However, Applicant’s spec explicitly indicates that in order to easily achieve the standard deviation (as well as coefficient of variance) of the thickness of the adhesive layer, (i) the sealing layer is provided between the paper substrate and the adhesive layer, wherein (ii) the method of forming the sealing layer is not limited but may be applied via coating [0068-0069, 0184-0185, 0193-0194], wherein (iii) the sealing layer preferably exhibits (as claimed) a thickness of 10-60 µm, and (in the case of the sealing layer being a resin layer) is (iv) suitably formed from, inter alia acrylic resin [0193-0194]. Additionally, the spec indicates that (v) the adhesive layer may be an, inter alia acrylic-based, polyolefin-based, polyvinyl chloride-based, polyamide-based, or polyester-based, heat-sensitive adhesive/resin (e.g. hot melt-type, i.e. meltable/heat-sealable) [0040-0042]. Further, the (vi) basis weight of the paper substrate may preferably range from 30-600 g/m2 [0030].
In view of the foregoing, the laminate of Iura is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed barrier paper in terms of at least each of elements (i)-(vi) identified above, and specifically, in terms of at least the following: provision of resin layer 12 on paper layer 11, interposed between paper layer 11 and adhesive layer 13b, and formed as a (cured) coating; thickness of resin layer 12 (e.g. 10 µm); species of resin ((meth)acrylic-based, curable resin) forming the resin layer 12; thickness of adhesive layer 13b (e.g. 2 µm, range of 1-10 µm); type and species of adhesive/resin of adhesive layer 13b (e.g. hot-melt/heat-sensitive; e.g. acrylic, polyamide, polyester, or vinyl chloride-based); and basis weight of paper layer 11.
Given that the laminate of Iura is substantially identical/identical to the claimed and disclosed barrier paper in terms of each of the elements/features set forth above in ¶18 and ¶19 – including the presence of and position of resin layer 12 in the laminate which the spec explicitly attributes to easily achieving the adhesive layer thickness standard deviation (and coefficient of variance) – it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the adhesive layer 13b of the laminate would have necessarily exhibited a thickness standard deviation of 0.60 µm or less, as claimed, at a thickness of, e.g. 2 µm or any thickness within/over the range of 1-10 µm disclosed by Iura, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
The laminate of Iura, set forth/cited above, reads on the barrier paper defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Iura discloses that a, inter alia protective layer may be provided on the vapor-deposited metal layer 13a, on the side/surface thereof which is opposite to adhesive layer 13b [0043] (comprising protective layer on the side of the inorganic vapor-deposited layer opposite to the adhesive layer). The laminate of Iura reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Iura teaches that paper layer 11 is suitable for receiving printed matter thereon [0018], and may optionally include other layers formed on the front and/or back side (inclusive of surface/side not in contact with resin layer 12) [0019].
Further, given (i) the laminates of Iura depicted in [Fig. 1] and [Figs. 3A-3B], (ii) the position of printing layer 14 and position and surface location of metal layer 13a [Fig. 1; 0020-0021], and (iii) the intended use of the laminate (as a blank) for forming into a packaging box/article (hereinafter “packaging”) [Figs. 3A-3B; 0005, 0029], it is clear – and would have been readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention – that the vapor-deposited metal layer 13a and (exposed surface of) resin layer 12 define the outer(most) surface(s) of said blank/packaging formed from the laminate. Therefore, it is also clear/logical, and would have been readily recognized, that paper layer 11 defines the inner(most) surface of said blank/packaging formed from the laminate.
In light of the paper layer 11 defining the inner(most) surface of the laminate (and blank/packaging formed therefrom), and in view of the aforecited teachings of Iura that the paper layer 11 is suitable for/capable of receiving printing thereon and that additional layers may be provided on either side thereof, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the laminate of Iura by printing/forming a printed layer on the surface of paper layer 11 which defines the inner(most) surface of the blank/packaging (i.e. the side of the paper layer 11 opposite the resin 12 and adhesive 13b layers), in order to provide said inner(most) surface with-, or otherwise impart thereto-, an aesthetic design, information, color, and/or decoration/decorative effect(s) commonly associated with (and as explicitly recognized/evidenced by Iura [0020]) printed layers.
In view of the aforesaid modification, the surface of paper layer 11, on the side thereof opposite the resin 12/adhesive 13 layers, would have included a printed layer (hereinafter designated “P”) formed thereon, i.e. would have exhibited the following layers arranged in the order stated: printing (P)/paper (11)/resin (12)/adhesive (13b)/vapor-deposited metal (13a). The laminate of Iura, as modified hereinabove, reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 7, “comprising a printing layer on the side of the paper substrate layer opposite to the adhesive layer”.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 10. That is, it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the adhesive layer 13b of the laminate of Iura (set forth/cited above in the rejection of claim 1) would have necessarily exhibited a thickness variance coefficient of 0.17 or less, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See ¶18-20 above; see MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, and as set forth/cited above in the rejection of claim 7, Iura discloses the intended use of the laminate (as a blank) for forming into the packaging (i.e. packaging box), and packaging resultant therefrom [Figs. 3A-3B; 0005, 0029]. The aforecited packaging, as depicted in Figs. 3A-3B of Iura, reads on “A container” defined by claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 16. That is, it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the adhesive layer 13b of the laminate of Iura (set forth/cited above in the rejection of claim 1) would have necessarily exhibited a thickness standard deviation of 0.55 µm or less, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See ¶18-20 above; see MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity). The laminate of Iura, set forth/cited above and incorporated herein, reads on the barrier paper defined by each and every limitation of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, in view of the rejection of claim 18 above, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated). The laminate of Iura, set forth/cited above and incorporated herein, reads on the barrier paper defined by each and every limitation of claim 20.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 6,218,004; “Shaw”) (newly cited), in view of Nurmi et al. (US 6,545,079; “Nurmi”) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Shaw discloses a paper-based multilayer material (hereinafter “multilayer material”) (barrier paper) suitable for use in packaging applications/articles, said multilayer material comprising the following layers arranged in the order stated: paper-based substrate (12)/clay-based coating (C)/polymer base coating (14)/metal coating (16)/polymer top coating (18), i.e. 12/C/14/16/18 [Abstract; col. 2 ln. 50–col. 3 ln. 42; col. 5 ln. 46–col. 6 ln. 49].
The paper-based substrate 12 is suitably selected from different blends and/or types of paper, cardboard, recycled paper, and the like; the substrate may have a thickness of, e.g. 30-150 µm (not limited thereto) [col. 5 ln. 62-64; col. 6 ln. 7-9] (paper substrate layer).
The clay-based coating C functions as a precoat of the substrate 12, which smoothens the surface of the substrate and increases the ability of the surface to bond (adhesively) with adjacent coatings [col. 6 ln. 9-15] (sealing layer, the sealing layer is a clay-coated layer).
The polymer base coating 14 further smoothens the clay-based coating C and provides a uniform surface for deposition of the metal coating layer 16, thereby enabling the metal coating 16 to exhibit a shiny/bright/glossy metallized finish, wherein the resultant/finished multilayer material is virtually pinhole free [col. 3 ln. 27-42; col. 6 ln. 16-24; col. 7 ln. 20-44; col. 8 ln. 1-6]. The base coating 14, formed as a single layer or as two sub-layers (14a, 14b), suitably exhibits a thickness on the order of, e.g. 3-4 µm, or on the order of 1.5-2.5 µm [col. 6 ln. 35-49] (adhesive layer, the adhesive layer being in contact with the inorganic vapor-deposited layer, the thickness of the adhesive layer is between 1.5 µm and 5 µm). The base coating 14 is formed from radiation-curable acrylate monomer(s)/prepolymer(s) deposited from the vapor phase and subsequently cured, and does not employ the use of solvent and corresponding solvent evaporation techniques which contribute to pinhole/defect formation [col. 7 ln. 20-44; col. 8 ln. 1-6; col. 9 ln. 37–col. 10 ln. 14; col. 14 ln. 37–col. 17 ln. 21].
The metal coating 16 is vapor-deposited on the polymer base coating 14 via vacuum metallization, and suitably exhibits a thickness of about 300 Angstroms (30 nm); the metal is preferably aluminum [col. 3 ln. 7-8, 36-42; col. 4 ln. 53-54; col. 6 ln. 1; col. 11 ln. 60–col. 12 ln. 4] (inorganic vapor-deposited layer).
With respect to the difference(s) relative to the barrier paper defined by claim 1, Shaw is silent regarding the thickness of the clay-based coating C (clay-coated sealing layer) ranging from 10-40 µm, and regarding the standard deviation of the thickness of the polymer base coating 14 (adhesive layer) being 0.60 µm or less.
Nurmi teaches a clay-based (pre)coating for application to paper, board, or other cellulosic-based substrates typically utilized in food packaging applications, to impart a smooth surface thereto prior to deposition of additional coatings [thereon] intended to impart predetermined properties to the substrate, and to increase the barrier properties of the substrate relative to moisture/water vapor and oxygen transmission [Abstract; col. 1 ln. 14-20; col. 2 ln. 48-64; col. 3 ln. 35-57; col. 4 ln. 31-41]. The clay-based coating is formed from a composition including a polymer latex, 30-80% (wt. solids relative to dry coating) pure talc particles having a purity of 90-100%, and may additionally contain other additives [col. 2 ln. 60–col. 3 ln. 15; col. 3 ln. 58–col. 4 ln. 41]. The polymer of the latex (polymer dispersion) is suitably, inter alia styrene butadiene, acrylate, styrene acrylate, or polyvinyl acetate [col. 3 ln. 6-15]
Nurmi teaches that when applied on said substrates at a coat weight of 3-30 g/m2, such as a coating thickness of, e.g. 14 µm, the aforesaid effects (smoothened surface, increased barrier properties) are exhibited [col. 4 ln. 37-40; col. 5 ln. 64–col. 6 ln. 15].
Shaw and Nurmi each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multilayer material of Shaw by (i) having formed the clay-based coating C to a thickness of 14 µm, or by (ii) having utilized the clay-based coating composition of Nurmi to form the clay-based coating C to a thickness of 14 µm, as the aforesaid thickness or clay-based coating composition/corresponding thickness would have been readily recognized as suitable for the intended purpose in the food-packaging art of pre-coating the paper-based substrate 12 to smoothen the surface thereof for subsequently deposited coating(s) and/or impart barrier properties thereto. See MPEP 2144.07, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In accordance with either modification (i) and (ii) above, the clay-based coating C of the multilayer material of Shaw (hereinafter interchangeably “modified Shaw”) would have exhibited a thickness of 14 µm (sealing layer is a clay-coated layer having a thickness of 10 µm or more and 40 µm or less).
In view of the foregoing, and as set forth/cited above, the polymer base coating 14 (adhesive layer) of the multilayer material of modified Shaw exhibits a thickness of, e.g. 3-4 µm, or on the order of 1.5-2.5 µm, wherein the former is within the claimed adhesive layer thickness range and the latter is within the upper bound of, and exhibits an identical lower bound to, the claimed adhesive layer thickness range (1.5-5 µm).
In light thereof, and given:
(a) that the polymer base coating 14 is formed via vapor-deposition of acrylate monomers/prepolymers in the absence of solvent (no evaporation of components resultant from typical heating/drying processes of the polymer coating) and subsequently cured via exposure to radiation (see spec [0040] – adhesive layer is suitably formed from UV-curable acrylic polymers; see spec [0047-0048] – adhesive content remaining in adhesive layer is preferably zero, and formation methods other than solventless and aqueous adhesives may be utilized);
(b) the disclosed absence of pin-holes/defects in the metal coating (16) as a result of the smooth surface provided by the clay-based coating C and the further-smoothened and uniform surface provided by the polymer base coating 14 deposited on said clay-based coating C;
(c) the metal coating (16) being vapor-deposited via vacuum metallization directly on the aforesaid base coating 14 (suitable alternative to release/transfer film), to a thickness of about 300 Angstroms (30 nm), both of which are substantially identical to Applicant’s claimed and disclosed inorganic vapor-deposited layer and suitable method of deposition [spec, 0155-0168];
(d) the clay-coating layer C exhibits a thickness (14 µm) within the claimed range (claim 1, 10-40 µm; claim 17, 10-30 µm), is formed from a polymeric latex inclusive of talc (clay) and e.g. styrene-butadiene, acrylate, or vinyl-acetate as the dispersed polymer component, and is positioned between the paper substrate 12 and polymer base coating 14, wherein the spec indicates talc is the preferred clay, styrene-butadiene, acrylate, and vinyl acetate-based latexes are suitable for use/exemplary, and the presence of the clay-coated sealing layer between the paper substrate and adhesive layer allows for the adhesive layer thickness standard deviation and thickness variance coefficient to be easily attained [spec, 0186-0181]; and
(e) that the thickness range of the polymer base coating 14 (e.g. 3-4 µm) is within the claimed adhesive layer range, wherein Shaw discloses/teaches (f) that layer thicknesses – in contrast to solvent-based coatings – of as small as a few tenths or hundredths of a micrometer are readily achievable [col. 18 ln. 32-35, 50-55], such as (g) thickness ranges (e.g. 0.2-0.5 µm) [col. 18 ln. 63–col. 19 ln. 4] whose breadth (0.3 µm) is within the claimed standard deviation range (± 0.60 µm),
it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the standard deviation of the thickness of the polymer base coating 14 (adhesive layer) would have necessarily been less than or equal to 0.60 µm, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the Applicant and the prior art are the same, the Applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product“ (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the multilayer material of modified Shaw, set forth above, reads on the barrier paper defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on each barrier paper defined by claims 2-4 respectively. That is, in view of the totality of the aforecited disclosure and teachings of modified Shaw, inclusive of the rationale at ¶45 above comprising identified elements (a)-(g) of the multilayer material which are substantially identical or identical to the corresponding elements of the barrier paper as claimed and disclosed – and in view of Applicant’s spec regarding the inorganic vapor-deposited layer [0118-0168], adhesive layer [0037-0070], and clay-coated sealing layer [0184-0192], in particular [0184] – it stands to reason, and there is a reasonable expectation, that the metal coating layer 16, on the side opposite to the paper substrate 12, would have necessarily exhibited an arithmetic average roughness Ra1 of 0.100 µm or less (claim 3), standard deviation σRa1 thereof of 0.030 µm or less (claim 2), and roughness curve kurtosis Rku1 or more than 3.0 (claim 4), as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 6. The multilayer material of modified Shaw includes polymer top coating 18 (protective layer) disposed on the metal coating 16 (inorganic vapor-deposited layer) on the side opposite that of polymer base coating 14 (on the side of the inorganic vapor-deposited layer opposite to the adhesive layer).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 above – further in view of Applicant’s spec regarding the inorganic vapor-deposited layer [0118-0168], adhesive layer [0037-0070], and clay-coated sealing layer [0184-0192], in particular [0184] – reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 10. That is, in view of the rationale at ¶45 above inclusive of identified elements (a)-(g), and in view of the spec [0184] indicating that provision of the clay-coated sealing layer between the paper substrate and adhesive layer allows for the adhesive layer thickness standard deviation and thickness variance coefficient to be easily attained, it stands to reason, and there is a reasonable expectation, that polymer base coating 14 (adhesive layer) of the multilayer material of modified Shaw would have necessarily exhibited a thickness variance coefficient of 0.17 or less, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Shaw discloses that the thickness of the polymer top coating layer 18 may be from 1-2 µm [col. 6 ln. 1-3]. As such, the layers of the multilayer material of modified Shaw set forth above suitably exhibit the following thickness ranges: paper substrate 12, 30-150 µm; clay coating C, 14 µm; polymer base coating 14, 3-4 µm; metal coating 16, 30 nm (0.03 µm); polymer top coating 18, 1-2 µm. Through simple calculation, the thickness of the paper substrate relative to the total thickness of the multilayer material of modified Shaw (thickness proportion of the paper substrate layer in the barrier paper) ranges from about 59.96% (30/50.03*100) to about 89.27% (150/168.03*100), of which is substantially identical to the lower bound of, and within the upper bound of the claimed range of 60% or more and less than 100%, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 12. That is, in view of the totality of the aforecited disclosure and teachings of modified Shaw, inclusive of the rationale at ¶45 above comprising identified elements (a)-(g) of the multilayer material which are substantially identical or identical to the corresponding elements of the barrier paper as claimed and disclosed – and in view of Applicant’s spec regarding the inorganic vapor-deposited layer [0118-0168], adhesive layer [0037-0070], and clay-coated sealing layer [0184-0192] – it stands to reason, and there is a reasonable expectation, that the interlayer adhesion strength between the metal coating layer 16 (inorganic vapor-deposited layer) and polymer base coating (14) (adhesive layer) would have necessarily corresponded to any of classes 0, 1, and 2 in a crosscut test in accordance with JIS K5600-5-6, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Shaw teaches that multilayer metallized papers are commonly utilized for product identification purposes, such as labels for beer and labels for canned foods [col. 1 ln. 20-37], i.e. recognizes that multilayer metallized papers are suitable for the intended use as labels for consumer products including beer and canned foods. Further, Shaw teaches that polymer top coating 18 and thickness thereof may be configured for lamination/sealing or heat-sealing of the multilayer material to another layer/surface and/or to exhibit good heat seal properties [col. 6 ln. 64-67; col. 18 ln. 56–col. 19 ln. 4]. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the multilayer material of modified Shaw, set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, as a metallized paper label laminated or heat-sealed to a corresponding [outer/surface] layer of a food can, beer can or bottle, or otherwise any food container requiring a label and capable of receiving said label by way of lamination or heat-sealing (i.e. to have laminated or heat-sealed the multilayer material of modified Shaw to a container, e.g. food can), as the multilayer material would have been readily recognized as suitable for the intended use as a label on food packaging containers, e.g. food cans and functionally capable of heat-sealing or lamination to other layers/surfaces/articles. See MPEP 2144.07 – the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held prima facie obvious; further, “selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious”.
In accordance with the foregoing modification, the multilayer material of modified Shaw, set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, would have constituted a label and been heat-sealed or laminated to a food packaging container, e.g. canned food label. The aforesaid container reads on claim 13, “A container comprising the barrier paper according to claim 1” .
Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the disclose/teachings of Shaw set forth/cited above at ¶53 are incorporated herein by reference. In short, the multilayer material of modified Shaw may be configured for lamination or heat-sealing via polymer top coating 18, wherein the use of multilayer metallized papers in the food packaging industry is readily recognized. Given that the “lid” defined by claim 14 does not require any structural, physical, or compositional elements or properties/characteristics/functions beyond the elements of the barrier paper as defined in claim 1, wherein the multilayer material of modified Shaw reads on the aforesaid barrier paper defined by claim 1; and given that the multilayer material of modified Shaw may be capable of, or configured to, heat-seal/heat-sealing or otherwise lamination/be laminated to other layers/surfaces/articles, the multilayer material of modified Shaw set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 is reasonably interpreted to read on the “lid comprising the barrier paper according to claim 1” as defined in claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 16. See ¶42-46 above; see MPEP 2112(IV) and (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 17. The clay-based coating layer C of the multilayer material of modified Shaw exhibits a thickness of 14 µm, of which is within the claimed range of 10 µm or more and 30 µm or less.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity). The multilayer material of modified Shaw reads on the barrier paper defined by each and every limitation of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, in view of the rejection of claim 18 above, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference. The multilayer material of modified Shaw reads on the barrier paper defined by each and every limitation of claim 20.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Shaw in view of Nurmi as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Muraki (JP 2019-147606; “Muraki”) (newly cited) (original copy and machine translation provided herewith; translation and original Fig. 1 relied upon).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Shaw (as modified) is silent regarding the multilayer material comprising a printing layer on the side of paper substrate 12 opposite to the polymer base coating 14 (adhesive layer), as defined in claim 7.
Muraki is directed to multilayer metallized paper-based packaging materials exhibiting gas-barrier properties and inclusive of a vapor-deposited metal layer (13) adhered to a paper substrate (11) via an acrylic-based adhesive layer (12) interposed therebetween [Fig. 1; 0008-0009, 0011, 0015-0024]. Muraki teaches that either or both of the outer surface (a2) and inner surface (a1) of the paper substrate (11) may have printed pattern layers (a1, a2) formed thereon [Fig. 1; 0018, 0025, 0027], i.e. based on the intended/predetermined orientation and/or use of the multilayer material to form packaging (e.g. containers), i.e. to provide printed information or patterns on either surface.
Muraki constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multilayer material of modified Shaw by including a printing layer (hereinafter designated “P”) on, e.g. the outer (exposed) surface of paper substrate 12 in order to provide, or achieve the predictable result of, said outer surface with a printed pattern, information, color, or otherwise decorative effect based on the pre-determined/end use of the multilayer material as a packaging material and/or label (see MPEP 2143(I)(A); MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance with the foregoing modification, the multilayer material of modified Shaw would have included printing layer P disposed on the outer surface of the paper substrate 12, and would therefore have exhibited the following layer arrangement in the order stated: P/12/C/14/16/18. The printing layer P and position thereof in the layer sequence of the multilayer material reads on the barrier paper defined by claim 7, “comprising a printing layer on the side of the paper substrate layer opposite to the adhesive layer”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 5-11 of the Remarks filed 04 September 2025, taken in view of the amendments to the claims, have been considered and found persuasive. As such, each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the FOA has been overcome and withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth above, made in view of the amendments to the claims and in light of newly cited prior art identified as a result of the most-recent search and consideration of the instant application completed by the undersigned Examiner.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
US 5,853,860 to Calvert – discloses a multilayer paper-based lid for packaging materials inclusive of a clay-coated layer formed on the paper-based substrate [Abstract; Figure; col. 1 ln. 5-15; col. 2 ln. 15-55]
US 2019/0135484 to Huffer – discloses a multilayer paper-based lid for packaging containers inclusive of paper substrate, metallized film(s), printed ink layer(s), and sealant layer(s) [Abstract; Figs. 1-5D; 0020-0024, 0038, 0040, 0043, 0046, 0052, 0054]
JP 2017-226186 to Nakajima et al. (original copy and machine translation provided herewith) – discloses a laminate comprising the following layers arranged in the order stated: paper, resin-based paper coating, adhesive layer (2-10 µm), vapor-deposited metal layer [0008, 0039-0045, 0047, 0049, 0061]
US 2005/0145138 to Raju et al. – teaches a coating composition comprising calcined clay for coating onto paper-based substrates prior to application of subsequent coatings, the resultant clay-based coating having a thickness of 50-200 µm [Abstract; 0008-0009, 0012-0017, 0023, 0041]
US 2019/0240956 to Takasugi et al. (English language equivalent to JP 2018-016012) – discloses a laminate comprising the following layers arranged in the order stated: paper-based substrate, primer coating (alternatively “undercoat” or “anchor” coating), adhesive layer, inorganic vapor-deposited barrier layer [Abstract; Fig. 1; 0038-0040, 0043, 0047-0069]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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 (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782