DETAILED 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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toles et al. (US 2021/0122545, hereinafter ‘Toles’) in view of Yamaguchi (JP 2020-044713).
Toles discloses a barrier laminate comprising, in following order: a paper substrate (12); an anchor coat layer (14); a vapor-deposited layer (16, product-by-process limitation); and an overcoat layer including a polyolefin (18); wherein the overcoat layer is an outermost layer of the laminate having an exposed surface (Fig. 1), and the overcoat layer is in direct contact with the vapor-deposited layer (Fig. 1); except does not expressly disclose the particular materials of the anchor coat layer and overcoat layer including polyolefins having polar groups.
However, Yamaguchi teaches using polyolefins having polar groups as material layers in a similar laminate structure (para 0020-0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the materials specified by Yamaguchi for the anchor coat and overcoat layers taught by Toles, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Toles as modified above further discloses the first polyolefin having a polar group has at least one selected from a carboxyl group, a salt of a carboxyl group, a carboxylic acid anhydride group, and a carboxylic acid ester (Yamaguchi para 0023); the second polyolefin having a polar group has at least one selected from a carboxyl group, a salt of a carboxyl group, a carboxylic acid anhydride group, and a carboxylic acid ester (Yamaguchi para 0023, 0026); a thickness of the anchor coat layer is 1 pm or more (Yamaguchi para 0024); a weight of paper is 50% by mass or more based on the entire gas barrier laminate (Yamaguchi para 0042).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toles et al. (US 2021/0122545, hereinafter ‘Toles’) in view of Yamaguchi (JP 2020-044713) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Takasugi et al. (JP 2016-124565, hereinafter ‘Takasugi’).
Toles as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the first polyolefin material being a copolymer of acrylic acid and maleic anhydride as claimed.
However, Takasugi teaches a similar laminate wherein a polyolefin copolymer resin is constructed of acrylic acid and maleic anhydride as claimed (para 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Toles as modified above laminate out of acrylic acid and maleic anhydride as taught by Takasugi, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toles et al. (US 2021/0122545, hereinafter ‘Toles’) in view of Yamaguchi (JP 2020-044713) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Frisk et al. (JP 2000-168770, hereinafter ‘Frisk’).
Toles as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the first polyolefin material being an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as claimed.
However, Frisk teaches a similar laminate wherein a polyolefin copolymer resin is constructed of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as claimed (para 0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Toles as modified above laminate out of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as taught by Frisk, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toles et al. (US 2021/0122545, hereinafter ‘Toles’) in view of Yamaguchi (JP 2020-044713) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Lorenzetti et al. (JP 2018-533506, hereinafter ‘Lorenzetti’).
Toles as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the first polyolefin material being an ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate copolymer as claimed.
However, Lorenzetti teaches a similar laminate wherein a polyolefin copolymer resin is constructed of an ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate copolymer as claimed (para 0062).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Ishida as modified above laminate out of an ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate copolymer as taught by Lorenzetti, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toles et al. (US 2021/0122545, hereinafter ‘Toles’) in view of Yamaguchi (JP 2020-044713) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Huffer (US 2021/0114773).
Toles as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the packaging bag with folding part as claimed.
However, Huffer teaches using a similar laminate for construction of a packaging bag comprising a gas barrier laminate with a folding part (Figs. 1B, 2).
Because Toles as modified above and Huffer both teach multi-layer laminate films, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the core laminate taught by Ishida as modified above for the laminate taught by Huffer as modified above to achieve the predictable result of providing a barrier film for packaging making as taught by Huffer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 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.
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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
February 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights