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Claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a no-elected invention.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 finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (2021/0234218). See, for example, paragraphs [0081], [0082], [0084], [0089] and Figs. 1-3 and 6-7. 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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The base reference was changed because claim 1 was amended to recite only graphene oxide, thus rendering moot applicant’s argument that Mogna failed to disclose graphene oxide. However, as indicated previously, adhesive that is pressure sensitive adhesive is conventional in the relevant art and it would have been obvious to substitute this type of adhesive for other adhesive in the prior art or to use this type of adhesive when adhesive is called for in the prior art.
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 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