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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23, line 2, “layer (II)” should read “layer (I)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites that the gas barrier layer and substrate are laminated to each other by passing through a “conveying roll”. As support for this phrase, applicant points to paragraph 0118 of the present specification. However, while there is support in the specification to recite that the gas barrier layer and substrate are laminated when the substrate is “conveyed by a roller winding machine” and coated with the gas barrier layer, there appears to be no support to recite a “conveying roll”.
Claim 25 recites that the laminate is wound into roll form. As support for this phrase, applicant points to paragraph 0082 of the present specification. However, while there is support to recite that the laminate is wound into roll form “by a winding machine”, there is no support to broadly recite that the laminate is wound into a roll form.
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.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnes et al. (US 2006/0260973 A1) in view of Ota (JP 2019/006900 A using US 2020/0339785 A).
Regarding Claim 1, 7, 17-19, and 23, Macinnes discloses a blister package (i.e. laminate) comprising a paper backing sheet (substrate, para 0012) adhered to a blister which is made from a water soluble polymer composition (Abstract). The water soluble polymer composition may comprise modified starch blended with water soluble polymers (para 0016). The starch is preferably a high amylose maize starch (para 0026). Macinnes does not require any other thermoplastic resins in the water soluble polymer composition.
Macinnes further discloses the blister layer may be moistened with water to enable it to adhere (i.e. coat) directly to the backing layer (para 0056).
Macinnes does not disclose the average amylose content as claimed.
Ota discloses a resin composition comprising a modified starch and a polyvinyl alcohol (Abstract, para 0014). Ota discloses that when the content of amylose in the modified starch is 50% by mass or more, there is a tendency that increase in the viscosity is suppressed (para 0021).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Macinnes to incorporate the teachings of Ota and produce the blister package wherein the high amylose maize starch has an amylose content of 50% by mass or more. Doing so would suppress increase in viscosity.
While Macinnes in view of Ota does not disclose the blister is a gas barrier layer as claimed, since the blister comprises materials as claimed, it would necessarily be a gas barrier as claimed.
Macinnes discloses the packaging is biodegradable (para 0024). While Macinnes in view of Ota does not disclose the degree of biodegradation as claimed, since Macinnes in view of Ota discloses packaging as claimed, including components as claimed, the packaging would necessarily have degree of biodegradation as claimed.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Macinnes further discloses the water soluble polymer may be polyvinyl alcohol (paras 0012, 0020).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11-14, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Macinnes further discloses the water soluble polymer composition may comprise 8-95% modified starch and 0.5-20% water soluble polymer (paras 0017-0020).
Regarding Claim 4, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Macinnes further discloses a layer thickness of the blister of 10-800 microns (para 0037).
Regarding Claim 6, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Macinnes further discloses the package may also comprise a waterproof coating (para 0057).
Regarding Claim 8, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Macinnes further discloses the polymer composition of the blister layer comprises the modified starch and the water-soluble polymer; while other components are optionally disclosed, they are not required (paras 0016-0023). Therefore it would have been obvious to form the blister layer using polymer composition consisting of the modified starch and the water-soluble polymer).
Regarding Claim 21, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above, including that the backing sheet comprises cardboard (i.e. wood-containing paper) or paper (Abstract, para 0012). The paper would have to necessarily be either wood-containing paper or wood-free paper. Further, the cardboard and paper would each be considered a liner.
Regarding Claim 22, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. While Macinnes in view of Ota does not disclose the adhesive strength between the substrate and the blister layer, since Macinnes in view of Ota discloses packaging as claimed, including substrate and blister layers comprising materials as claimed, the packaging would necessarily have adhesive strength as claimed.
Further, Macinnes discloses the blister layer comprises an extruded sheet (para 0024).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnes in view of Ota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wysong (US 4,156,047 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Macinnes further discloses the water soluble polymer may be polyvinyl alcohol (paras 0012, 0020).
Macinnes does not disclose the water soluble polymer comprises polyoxyalkylene.
Wysong discloses water-soluble films for packaging (col.1, lines 14-15 and 29-30). The water-soluble film is made from polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene glycol (i.e. polyoxyethylene) plasticizer (col.3, line 61 – col.4, line 8). The combination of polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene glycol plasticizer produces film that is easily melt extrudable, imparts rapid cold-water solubility, and increases strength (col.5, lines 27-34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Macinnes in view of Ota to incorporate the teachings of Wysong and use a combination of polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene glycol plasticizer. Doing so would produce film that is easily melt extrudable, imparts rapid cold-water solubility, and increases strength.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnes in view of Ota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2003/0102247).
Regarding Claim 15, Macinnes in view of Ota disclose all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Macinnes further discloses the backing sheet (substrate) may be paper (Abstract, para 0012).
Macinnes in view of Ota does not disclose the basis weight of the substrate.
Inoue discloses a blister package (para 0007) comprising paper substrate having a basis weight of 100-500 g/m2 so that the package has appropriate rigidity (para 0212).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Macinnes in view of Ota to incorporate the teachings of Inoue and produce the blister package wherein the paper substrate has a basis weight of 100-500 g/m2. Doing so would produce appropriate rigidity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that Macinnes merely discloses a blister layer that is only partly adhered to a paper backing, and would necessarily also contain a cavity between a portion of the blister and the backing. Applicant argues that the gas barrier layer would therefore not be considered directly laminated on the surface of the substrate.
However, since at least a portion of the blister layer is in direct contact with the paper backing, Examiner maintains that the prior art does read on the present claims.
Regarding Claim 23, Applicant argues that Macinnes only discloses the blister layer is “applied” to the paper backing, but does not disclose it is “coated” as claimed.
However, given there is no specific definition of “coated” (or “coat” or “coating”) in the present disclosure, Examiner maintains that the blister layer applied to the paper backing reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
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 BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights