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Claim 9 remains withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (2021/0234218).
Kwon discloses a container that meets most of the features of claims 1-9 and 10. So, for example, the container of Kwon can store any one of the items now added to the preamble of claim 1, as required by the phrase “for storing” in claim 1 line 1.
In other examples of the Kwon disclosure as it relates to the claimed invention see, for example, Kwon at paragraphs [0081], [0082], [0084], [0089] and Figs. 1-3 and 6-7, as set forth last time. Thus, Kwon discloses a container (refer again to Figs 1-3) comprising an inner layer and an outer layer as claimed. With reference to Fig. 7, the claimed inner layer can be sealant layer 250 and the claimed outer layer can be second adhesive layer 240 and graphene oxide layer 230. Thus, as also claimed, the outer layer comprises graphene oxide (the graphene oxide layer 230) applied to a first side of the adhesive and a second side of the adhesive is adhered to the inner layer. As should be evident from Kwon (refer again to Figs 1-3), the container is sealable and the outer layer reduces water vapor transmission into the container, as also required in claim 1.
Therefore, what Kwon is missing relative to claim 1 is that the adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive. On the other hand, pressure sensitive adhesives are conventional in the prior art as shown by the prior art of record including Jang (2021/0339916), Barr (2022/0039619), Galiotis et al. (2022/0081301) and Kato et al. (2025/0215283). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art in view of Kwon to provide for the adhesive to be a pressure sensitive adhesive to make it easier or more cost effective to construct the Kwon container.
Moreover, the features of the dependent claims not disclosed in Kwon are found to be either conventional or well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art to provide. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of Kwon to provide the Kwon container with the missing features, for the purpose of better adapting the container to suit particular applications.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is that Kwon does not meet the functional language now added to the claim 1 preamble, since Kwon does not disclose that the Kwon container can store any of the items functionally recited in the claim preamble. The examiner disagrees that Kwon must mention any one of the noted articles to meet the claimed function. As applicant is no doubt aware, all that is needed to meet the statement of intended use now added to the claim 1 preamble is for Kwon to be capable of the claimed function. The examiner has found herein that the container of Kwon is capable of the claimed function in that the Kwon container can store the claimed items. Kwon does not even have to mention any of the detergent powder, etc. The argument for patentability based on the noted amendment to claim 1 is considered to be clearly unconvincing for the reasons indicated above.
Applicant’s second argument is that Kwon is non-analogous art. The examiner disagrees, since Kwon meets either or both tests under the law cited by the applicant at the bottom of page numbered page 5 through the top of numbered page 6 of the latest Remarks. The problem to be solved by the applicant is how to construct packaging to decrease water vapor transmission into the package, as acknowledged by the applicant in the argument. Thus, the applicant employs graphene oxide in the packaging. However, packaging utilizing graphene oxide to decrease water vapor transmission into the packaging is exactly what Kwon is also doing. Moreover, applicant’s latest argument even acknowledges the same. So why exactly is Kwon non-analogous? This argument is also clearly unconvincing.
Applicant’s third argument is that Kwon does not disclose the specific outer layer recited in claim 1 comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive and graphene oxide. The applicant is correct in that Kwon does not disclose the specific outer layer recited in claim 1, since although Kwon has an outer layer comprising the graphene oxide layer 230 on a first side of an adhesive layer 240 (exactly as claimed in claim 1 for applicant’s outer layer), the adhesive layer 240 is not described by Kwon as being a pressure sensitive adhesive layer. Thus, Kwon is modified under section 103 of the Statute such that its outer layer comprised the graphene oxide layer 230 disclosed in Kwon and its adhesive layer 240 is, after the modification, is a pressure sensitive adhesive layer which is a conventional layer in the prior art. Thus, applicant’s argument appears to be that claim 1 is not obvious over Kwon because Kwon does not anticipate claim 1. This third argument is also clearly unconvincing for the reasons indicated above.
Applicant’s fourth argument is that Kwon does not even disclose graphene oxide since Kwon discloses reduced graphene oxide. This argument is also not just unconvincing but clearly so. Reduced graphene oxide is a form of graphene oxide that has undergone a reduction process to remove some of its oxygen containing groups.
Thus, graphene oxide as claimed, includes reduced graphene oxide. The rejection is not an indication that graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide are exactly the same.
Applicant’s fifth argument is that the office action does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the adhesive of Kwon such that it was a pressure sensitive adhesive. This is also clearly unconvincing since the motivation for the noted modification to Kwon is clearly set forth in the rejection. Thus, as indicated in the last line of the rejection, the modification to Kwon makes it easier or more cost effective to construct the Kwon container. Applicant may disagree with the indicated motivation, but the argument that no explanation for the modification to Kwon was provided is clearly unconvincing.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Every reference cited in this Office action discusses pressure sensitive adhesive and the shear elastic modulus thereof. The examiner notes that, as indicated in the rejection itself, other references of record at least make clear that pressure sensitive adhesive is prior art to the claimed invention. Moreover, this fact, that pressure sensitive adhesive is notorious, is not believed to be in dispute in the subject application, since the applicant has not made such an argument. However, the new citations indicate the knowledge in the art regarding the finding of the obviousness of claim 10 and its claimed shear elastic modulus. For example only, see newly cited Chung (2021/0206900) at paragraph [0139].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights