DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 30 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2026 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 206733754 U) in view of Gu (CN 103171195 A), taken in view of evidence by Tang (US 2009/0097781 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Li and Gu are based on a machine translation of the references which are included in this action.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 10, Li et al. disclose a packaging material (multi-layer structure) comprising a surface layer 1 (first layer) made of biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) having a thickness of 0.01 to 0.03 mm, i.e. 10 to 30 microns and a heat-sealing layer 6 (third layer) made of cast polypropylene having a thickness of 0.03 to 0.10 mm, i.e. 30 to 100 microns (see paragraphs 0002, 0026, 0027, 0029, 0030). The surface layer (first layer) and the heat-sealing layer (third layer) are not metallized, i.e. substantially free of metallization (see paragraphs 0029, 0030). The packaging material can be used as an infusion bag containing amino acids and fat emulsions (see paragraph 0016). Therefore, the packaging material necessarily comprises a wall and a cavity, wherein the wall comprises the surface layer (first layer) and the heat-sealing layer (third layer), and the cavity is at least partially surrounded by the wall.
Li et al. do not disclose a second layer between the first layer (surface layer) and the heat-sealing layer (third layer) as presently claimed.
Gu discloses a composite film comprising a biaxially oriented polypropylene layer and a vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer (metallized cast polypropylene), wherein the composite is used as packaging material (see Abstract). The composite film is environmentally friendly, pressure resistant, has strong composite adhesion, does not bubble, does not crack, has high peel strength, has high moisture resistance, and has stable quality (see Abstract and paragraph 0011).
The thickness of biaxially oriented polypropylene layer is 0.01 to 0.05 mm, i.e. 10 to 50 microns and the thickness of vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer (metallized cast polypropylene) is 0.01 to 0.05 mm, i.e. 10 to 50 microns (see paragraph 0009). The vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer disclosed by Gu is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0037 of the present specification). Accordingly, vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer of Gu would necessarily inherently have a moisture vapor transmission rate as presently claimed.
In light of motivation for using composite film comprising a biaxially oriented polypropylene layer and a vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer disclosed by Gu et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the composite film comprising a biaxially oriented polypropylene layer and a vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer of Gu instead of the biaxially oriented polypropylene layer in Li et al. in order to produce a packaging material that is environmentally friendly, pressure resistant, has strong composite adhesion, does not bubble, does not crack, has high peel strength, has high moisture resistance, and has stable quality, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Li et al. in view of Gu disclose the packaging material (multi-layer structure) comprising a biaxially oriented polypropylene film (first layer or surface layer), a metallized polypropylene layer (second layer or vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer) and a cast polypropylene layer (third layer or heat-sealing layer).
Li et al. in view of Gu do not explicitly disclose a sealing temperature of the third layer is lower than a sealing temperature of the first layer. As evidenced by Tang, CPP material (cast polypropylene) can be heat sealed at 130 °C or more and OPP material (oriented polypropylene) can be heat sealed with temperature 180 °C or more (see paragraph 0180). Therefore, the third layer comprising cast polypropylene necessarily has a sealing temperature lower than a sealing temperature of the first layer comprising biaxially oriented polypropylene.
While Li et al. in view of Gu do not disclose the packaging (multi-layer structure) is recyclable, given that the packaging of Li et al. in view of Gu is made of layers identical to those utilized in the present invention, it is clear that the packaging of Li et al. in view of Gu is inherently recyclable. Accordingly, Li et al. in view of Gu disclose a recyclable packaging. Further, given that any packaging will necessarily have an exposed outermost surface, Li et al. in view of Gu disclose a recyclable packaging having an exposed outermost surface.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 8, Li et al. in view of Gu disclose the recyclable packaging as set forth above. Li et al. in view of Gu disclose outer layer as a first layer (surface layer 1) and inner layer as a third layer (heat-sealing layer 6) (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0029 of Li et al.). Therefore, the outer surface of the wall is formed of the first layer and the inner surface of the wall is made of the third layer. Accordingly, the inner surface of the wall faces the cavity and the outer surface of the wall forms the exposed outermost surface of the recyclable packaging.
Regarding claim 30, Li et al. in view of Gu disclose the packaging material (multi-layer structure) comprising a biaxially oriented polypropylene film (first layer or surface layer), a metallized polypropylene layer (second layer or vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer) and a cast polypropylene layer (third layer or heat-sealing layer). As noted above, the thickness of biaxially oriented polypropylene layer (first layer) is 0.01 to 0.05 mm, i.e. 10 to 50 microns and the thickness of metallized cast polypropylene (second layer) is 0.01 to 0.05 mm, i.e. 10 to 50 microns and thickness of cast polypropylene layer (third layer) is 0.03 to 0.10 mm, i.e. 30 to 100 microns. Based on these thicknesses, the third layer has relatively greater thickness than the first layer. For instance, the thickness of the third layer can be 50 microns and thickness of the first layer can be 15 microns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Applicants argue that first, the proposed modification by the Examiner would result in a cumbersome seven layer structure, wherein a single BOPP layer is to be replaced with a pre-bonded composite from Gu. Said modified structure would fundamentally alter the mechanical and barrier properties of Li's intended design, particularly its transparency and non-absorptive nature. Li emphasizes the need for a "transparent" and "non-absorptive" packaging to allow for the inspection of contents like amino acids and fat emulsions. Gu utilizes an aluminum-coated cast PP layers. Applicant respectfully submits that incorporating Gu's metallized layer into Li's structure would render the Li packaging opaque, thereby destroying the primary "transparent" utility and "visual contents" benefit taught by Li. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Gu with Li, as it would defeat Li's stated purpose. Thus, Li teaches away from the proposed modification and said modification is therefore not permissible.
It is agreed that Li emphasizes the need for a "transparent" and "non-absorptive" packaging to allow for the inspection of contents like amino acids and fat emulsions (see Abstract and paragraph 0016). As evidenced by Li, alumina-coated film is transparent material (see paragraph 0004). Further, as evidenced by Tian et al. (CN101302383A), aluminum coated polypropylene film has good transparency and barrier properties, wherein aluminum coated polypropylene film is used in pharmaceutical packaging (see paragraphs 0002, 0004 and 0013). It is noted that the disclosures of Tian et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Based on these evidence references, an aluminum-coated cast PP layer of Gu would also have transparency. Therefore, when the aluminum-coated cast PP layer of Gu is incorporated into Li’s structure, the transparency in Li would not be destroyed. Given that both Li and Gu are drawn to pharmaceutical packaging, and given that Gu provides proper motivation for using vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer (metallized cast polypropylene), Li and Gu are properly combined.
Additionally, Li ,Gu and Tang, considered alone or in any combination, fail to teach or suggest "the second layer positioned between the first layer and the third layer and having a moisture vapor transmission rate less than 0.5 g/m²/day," as recited in claim 1. Claim 1 requires the second layer to have an MVTR less than 0.5 g/m²/day. Neither Li nor Gu provides data suggesting that their individual layers, when separated from their respective composites, meet these specific performance metrics. Furthermore, there is no teaching or suggestion in any of the prior art references that the second layer of the proposed modified structure could have the claimed MVTR.
However, the vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer (second layer) disclosed by Gu is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0037 of the present specification). Accordingly, vacuum aluminizing casting polypropylene layer of Gu would necessarily inherently have a moisture vapor transmission rate as presently claimed.
In light of amendments, claim objections are withdrawn.
In light of amendments, 112(a) paragraph rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights