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 2023/0021895, 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 24 July 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under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the FOA has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 15 October 2025 has been entered. Claim 10 has been amended; new claims 12-16 have been added. As such, claims 1-16 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
The amendments to claim 10 have overcome the objection thereto previously set forth in the FOA [id., ¶8]. The objection has been withdrawn, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issue.
Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the FOA and not repeated herein is overcome and/or hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2013-203436; “Ito”) (previously cited), in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2017/0283142; “Takahashi”) (newly cited) and Sakai et al. (JP 2003-155307; “Sakai”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a multilayer film and packaging bag formed therefrom, suitable for packaging of synthetic resin, e.g. powders or granules, which is sensitive to degradation by oxygen [0001-0002, 0006, 0008, 0010-0012, 0039-0040]. The multilayer film includes (at least) a heat seal layer, an oxygen adsorption layer, and a gas barrier layer (ordered as stated, from inside of bag to external environment) [0010, 0012], and exhibits an oxygen permeability (OTR) of 10 cm3/m2·day·atm or less (25° C, 90% RH) and a water vapor permeability (WVTR) of 50 g/m2·day or less (25° C, 90% RH) [0010]. The gas barrier layer is suitably formed from, inter alia aluminum foil or vapor-deposited aluminum [0032-0033], e.g. an aluminum foil layer exhibiting a thickness of 9 µm [0054].
Ito is silent regarding the synthetic resin which may be packaged in the bag being an oxyalkylene group-containing polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) resin.
Takahashi teaches that it was recognized in the art to package melt-processable PVOH resins inclusive of modified groups such as carboxylic acids or carboxylic acid esters, and/or inclusive of oxyalkylene (linking) groups – in particulate/powder/granule form – in bags formed from multilayer films having low WVTR, e.g. 10 g/m2·day or less (40° C, 90% RH) and comprising aluminum foil (gas barrier) layers [Abstract; 0001-0002, 0006-0010, 0016-0018, 0020, 0022, 0037, 0041, 0047, 0049, 0051, 0063].
Sakai discloses a melt-processed/processable oxyalkylene group-containing PVOH resin [0001, 0006-0007, 0010, 0012], the oxyalkylene group exhibiting an average chain length (n) of preferably 5-60 and introduced into the PVOH via copolymerization of vinyl ester (e.g. vinyl acetate) with, inter alia (meth)allyl alcohol monomer containing an oxyalkylene chain [0010; Formula (4) – p. 3 of original document] (R, i.e. Y is hydrogen or methyl group; R1 and R2 are each independently a hydrogen atom or alkyl group; R3 is hydrogen; X is binding chain such as an ether group (-–O–); n is 5-60), such as/preferably, e.g. polyoxyethylene (meth)allyl ether [0010-0012, 0017, 0020-0021, 0046]. The oxyalkylene group structural unit (relative to total PVOH copolymer) is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 mol% [0021]; the degree of saponification of the copolymer is 80 mol% or greater, such as 98 mol% or greater [0029, 0032]. The PVOH copolymer resin may take the industrial form of a powder, suitable for use in melt-molding of articles [0033-0037]. The PVOH copolymer may also include carboxylic acid-containing or carboxylic acid ester-containing groups, in an amount of up to 50 mol% [0013-0014].
Ito, Takahashi, and Sakai each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – multilayer packaging bags exhibiting low OTR and low WVTR, and the packaging of PVOH copolymers in said packaging bags to protect the copolymers from degradation resultant from exposure to moisture/oxygen.
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 packaging bag of Ito above – explicitly disclosed as suitable for packaging of synthetic resins and exhibiting low WVTR and low OTR – by packaging the oxyalkylene group-containing PVOH resin of Sakai therein, in order to protect the PVOH resin from degradation caused by exposure to water vapor and/or oxygen (see MPEP 2144.06; MPEP 2144.07). The multilayer packaging bag of Ito would have been readily-recognized as suitable for the intended use.
Per the aforesaid modification, the oxyalkylene group-containing PVOH resin of Sakai would have been packaged and sealed in, i.e. packed into and subsequently sealed within the multilayer packaging bag of Ito – the combination, i.e. “package” hereinafter referred to interchangeably as “modified Ito”. The PVOH resin reads on the claimed oxyalkylene group-containing polyvinyl alcohol-based resin packed in the bag; the film which forms the bag, inclusive of an aluminum foil layer (e.g. thickness 9 µm) exhibits an OTR of 10 cm3/m2·day·atm or less (25° C, 90% RH), of which is within the claimed range (see MPEP 2131.03; MPEP 2144.05(I)), where it logically flows (and there is a strong expectation) that the film would have necessarily exhibited said OTR at the lower RH of 65% as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2144; and MPEP 2145(I)).
The package of modified Ito reads on the package defined by claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the package defined by claim 2 – the oxyalkylene group-containing monomer is within the bounds specified by claim 3 and Chemical Formula (3). Additionally, it is noted that the spec indicates that polyoxyethylene allyl ether [0026-0027, 0079] was utilized as the oxyethylene group-containing monomer, identical to and/or within the bounds of the corresponding monomer disclosed by Sakai as set forth/cited above.
Regarding claim 3, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the package defined by claim 3 – the film exhibits a WVTR of 50 g/m2·day or less (25° C, 90% RH), wherein it is expected that the film would also exhibit the aforesaid WVTR at the increased temperature of 40° C as claimed given (i) that Ito discloses the film being exposed to a temperature of 40° C for 4 days after the individual layers are laminated to one another prior to bag formation [0054] (i.e., the film/layers are not degraded/damaged at the increased temp.), and/or given (ii) the presence of the aluminum foil as the gas barrier layer, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 4, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the package defined by claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 4 above, the package of modified Ito set forth in the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above reads on the package defined by claim 5 – Ito discloses that the barrier layer, e.g. aluminum foil of the multilayer film exhibits a thickness of 5-100 µm, wherein the barrier layer (at/within the aforesaid thickness range which encompasses the claimed 25 µm) exhibits the OTR of 10 cm3/m2·day·atm or less (25° C, 90% RH). See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2144.05(I); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 5 above, the package of modified Ito set forth in the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above reads on the package defined by claim 6 – the barrier layer is, inter alia an aluminum foil or aluminum layer formed via vapor-deposition.
Regarding claims 7-8, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 and claim 2 above, respectively, read on each method of manufacturing a package defined by claims 7 and 8, respectively. The grounds of rejection of claims 1 and 2 above are incorporated herein by reference entirely (not repeated for sake of brevity).
Regarding claim 9, the grounds of rejection of claim 7 above which incorporate therein the grounds of rejection of claim 1 and claim 2, are incorporated herein by reference.
First, it is noted that the limitation “…packed in the bag immediately after being produced”, while not indefinite, is broad such that under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof (MPEP 2111) encompasses packing the resin in the bag at essentially any temperature, in essentially any form, and at essentially any time interval after “being produced”, such as 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, or 1 day (non-limiting examples), absent limitation(s) from the claims which define the specific interval, which further define the prior step of “being produced”, and/or which define the form of the resin which is packed into the bag.
In view of the foregoing, Takahashi teaches that the melt-processable PVOH resin, in the form of particles, is fed into the packaging bag through the opening thereof and hermetically sealed therein via heat-sealing of the bag opening, wherein a dry inert carrier gas may be utilized at the time of packaging [0063] [0070-0074. As such, Takahashi reasonably teaches packaging the resin in the bag “immediately” or “promptly” after being produced.
As set forth/cited above in the grounds of rejection of claim 1, the melt-processable oxyalkylene group-containing PVOH resin of Sakai is in the form of particles after production, of which can be obtained “industrially” in said particle form to produce articles by melt-molding processes [Sakai, 0033-0042].
In view of the totality of the foregoing, and in view of the rationale for modification as set forth above in grounds of rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have packaged the melt-processable oxyalkylene group-containing resin of Sakai, in particle (i.e. powder) form, in the bag of Ito promptly or immediately after being produced as taught by Takahashi, in order to reduce the duration of time which the resin is exposed to the ambient environment to reduce degradation caused by oxygen and humidity.
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the method of packaging the oxyalkylene group-containing PVOH resin of Sakai in the packaging bag of Ito (in view of the teachings of Takahashi) as set forth above (hereinafter “modified Ito”) reads on the method defined by claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the grounds of rejection of claim 7 above which incorporate therein the grounds of rejection of claim 1 and claim 2, are incorporated herein by reference. Further, the grounds of rejection of claim 9 above are incorporated herein by reference. Taken in totality (i.e. in combination), the grounds of rejection of claim 7 and claim 9 above read on the method defined by claim 10.
That is, the method of packaging the oxyalkylene group-containing PVOH resin of “modified Ito” would have necessarily resulted in the resin – upon removal from the bag in order to produce one or more article(s) via one or more melt-molding processes – not exhibiting an increase in viscosity during said one or more melt-molding processes, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(II), MPEP 2112(V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2112.02(I), MPEP 2113, and MPEP 2145 and 2145(I).
Regarding claim 11, the grounds of rejection of claim 7 above which incorporate therein the grounds of rejection of claim 1 and claim 2, the grounds of rejection of claim 9 above, and the grounds of rejection of claim 10 above are all incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity). The aforesaid incorporated grounds of rejection, in totality, read on the method of suppressing an increase in viscosity of an oxyalkylene group-containing PVOH resin taken out from a bag defined by each and every limitation of claim 11.
Regarding claims 12-13, the grounds of rejection of claims 1-6 above are incorporated herein by reference and in totality read on the package defined by claims 12-13.
Regarding claim 14, the grounds of rejection of claims 1-6 above are incorporated herein by reference and in totality read on the package defined by claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the grounds of rejection of claims 12-13 above which incorporate therein the grounds of rejection of claims 1-6 read on the package defined by claim 15 – the X moiety (binding chain) disclosed by Sakai is suitably an ether group (–O–), and n is 5-60 (see ¶12 above) which overlaps with and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed 1-50 (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 16, the grounds of rejection of claim 14 above which incorporate therein the grounds of rejection of claims 1-6 read on the package defined by claim 16 – the X moiety (binding chain) disclosed by Sakai is suitably an ether group (–O–), and n is 5-60 (see ¶12 above) which overlaps with and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed 1-50 (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 7-14 of the Remarks filed 15 October 2025 and the Declaration of Norihito Sakai under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 15 October 2025 have been fully considered by the Examiner but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth herein, of which are based in-part on the teachings of Takahashi rather than Yamauchi.
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