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 2024/0017896, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05 September 2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 12 June 2025 (hereinafter “NFOA”) has been entered. Claims 1, 6, and 9-10 have been amended. As such, claims 1-11 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth [NFOA, ¶7-15]. As such, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issues in accordance with the suggested amendments.
The amendments to the claims have also overcome the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kamai in view of Naito [NFOA, ¶20-41], and the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the foregoing further in view of Tamura [NFOA, ¶42-47]. As such, the 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth herein, necessitated by the amendments to the claims and made in view of newly cited prior art identified as a result of additional search/consideration completed by the undersigned Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to improve upon the readability and clarity of the claim, and given that claim 1 does not introduce/recite an outermost layer, the following amendment is respectfully suggested in order to overcome the objection
“…the coating layer is the outermost layer of the laminate and contains”
Appropriate correction is respectfully suggested.
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 – see [NFOA, ¶17-19].
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riva et al. (US 2023/0044099; “Riva”) (newly cited), in view of Naito et al. (US 2017/0321061; “Naito”) (previously cited) and Haruta et al. (US 2016/0108171; “Haruta”) (newly cited).
Pockat et al. (US 2006/0233985; “Pockat”) (newly cited) is relied upon as evidence in support of the grounds of rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 1, Riva discloses a multilayer flexible package (packaging material) comprising a substrate layer (1) and a polymeric coating layer (2), said package exhibiting antioxidant properties and suitable for use in packaging of foods and perishables [Abstract; Fig. 1; 0001-0002, 0011, 0013, 0019, 0025, 0032-0033, 0035]. The polymeric coating layer (2) includes core-shell particles (3) dispersed therein – the shell (5) is formed from one or more polymeric materials [0021-0023, 0026-0027], and the core (4) includes an antioxidant species that is, inter alia tannic acid [0018, 0038].
The polymeric coating layer (2), i.e. polymeric matrix thereof is suitably formed from, inter alia acrylic polymer or copolymers (acrylic resin); urethane-acrylics, aliphatic urethanes, or poly(urethanes) (urethane resin); polyesters (polyester resin); or polyethylene (olefin resin) [0026]. The substrate (1) is suitably formed from polymeric and/or paper-based material, such as one or more of, inter alia polypropylene, polyethylene, polyamide, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), paper, and laminated-paper, etc. [0033, 0046].
The polymeric coating layer (2) defines the outermost surface of the multilayer packaging material.
In view of the foregoing disclosure set forth/cited above, Riva reasonably discloses the packaging material including the polymeric coating layer (2) – formed from a species of the polymeric materials set forth above – inclusive of the core-shell particles (3) and coated on the substrate layer (1) formed from PET or polyamide.
With respect to the differences relative to the claimed invention, Riva is silent regarding the tannic acid antioxidant species of the core (4) being the claimed tannic acid derivative of Formula (1) in which at least one hydroxyl group is substituted with a linear C1-C18 hydrocarbon group, and regarding the packaging material including a sealing layer disposed on the surface of the substrate opposite to the coating layer (2).
Naito discloses a tannic acid derivative in which at least one hydroxyl group of the plurality of hydroxyl groups is substituted with a C3-C18 hydrocarbon chain [Abstract; 0031-0034, Formula (1)]. The tannic acid derivative may be mixed in matrix resins, and is suitable as an antioxidant, bactericide/sterilizer, and antibacterial agent [0037-0038]; the tannic acid derivative may be dispersed in water or organic solvent solution to form an (aqueous) dispersion, and/or may take other forms such as a paste, gel, or spray [0037-0040, 0042].
Haruta is directed to a polyester film suitable for use as a heat-sealable layer in multilayer laminate packaging materials for foods, e.g. bags and lids, said polyester film exhibiting high heat-seal strength and hygienic properties, and being heat-sealable to itself and other biaxially stretched or unstretched crystalline polyesters [Abstract; 0001-0002, 0007, 0019-0020, 0034, 0036, 0048]. Haruta teaches that the polyester film defines the innermost, heat-sealable layer of the multilayer laminate [0002, 0007, 0009, 0016-0017], and that the laminate includes an additional layer(s) formed from a crystalline polyester, a polyolefin, or a polyamide laminated or heat-bonded to said heat-sealable layer in order to form bags for packaging [0016-0018, 0020, 0084; claims 2-3]; the heat-sealable polyester film may be provided in one or multiple layers. Additionally or alternatively, Haruta reasonably teaches/evidences, as is readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, that the innermost layer of packaging materials is typically formed from polymeric material which exhibits the capability to be, e.g. heat-sealed to itself or to other articles (i.e. containers/trays) to form or close an enclosure for receiving the product to be packaged therein via said heat sealing.
Riva, Naito, and Haruta each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – multilayer packaging materials for foodstuffs which are sensitive to 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 material of Riva by (i) utilizing the tannic acid derivative of Naito as the tannic acid antioxidant species of the core (4) of the core-shell particles (3) of the coating layer (2), and by (ii) including/utilizing the heat-sealable polyester film as the innermost layer of the packaging material – disposed on the surface of the substrate opposite the coating layer – in order to impart heat-sealability thereto (and in particular to itself or other polyester films) and thereby allow for package formation of foodstuffs thereby. The tannic acid derivative would have been recognized as suitable for the intended use as an antioxidant in the foregoing capacity (in accordance with the cited disclosure of Riva), and/or as a functional equivalent antioxidant species to tannic acid capable of providing antioxidant properties (see MPEP 2144.07 and MPEP 2144.06(II)). The heat-sealable polyester film would have been recognized as suitable for the intended use as the innermost heat-sealable layer of multilayer packaging laminates intended for use with foodstuffs, as well as capable of bonding via lamination or heat-bonding to the substrate layer formed from PET or polyamide (see MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the multilayer packaging material (laminate) of Riva would have included the coating layer (2), the substrate layer (1), and the heat-sealable polyester layer in the aforesaid order, with the coating layer constituting the outermost layer of the laminate and the heat-sealable polyester layer constituting the innermost layer of the laminate (the substrate layer interposed between said coating layer and heat-sealable layer), wherein the antioxidant species of the core of the core-shell particles (3) would have been formed from or included the tannic acid derivative as taught by Naito (at least one hydroxyl group of the plurality thereof being substituted with a C3-C18 hydrocarbon chain).
The multilayer packaging material (laminate) of Riva, as modified above (hereinafter “modified Riva”) reads on the laminate defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the laminate defined by claim 2 – the coating layer (2) of modified Riva is formed from the (matrix) polymer (resin) and the core-shell particles (3) inclusive of the tannic acid derivative. The combination thereof reads on the claimed organic binder.
Regarding claim 3, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the laminate defined by claim 3 – the coating layer (2) of modified Riva reads on the claimed decorative layer, given that the claimed “decorative” layer does not require any material/compound, structure, and/or feature which constitutes or defines a decoration or decorative property. In other words, “decorative” is interpreted as merely nominal, in the absence of further limitation(s) thereof, of which constitutes the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the spec (see MPEP 2111). Additionally/alternatively, Riva discloses that other materials, e.g. fillers may be added to the coating layer (2) such as, inter alia hydrotalcites (i.e. clay), cellulose, graphene oxide, and two-dimensional crystals [0030]. The aforesaid embodiment, i.e. the coating layer (2) including one or more of the aforesaid filler materials, also/alternatively reads on the claimed decorative layer.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the coating layer is a layer coated with a sealing coating agent”, wherein claim 1 (now) recites “the coating layer is the outermost layer”. In view thereof, it is noted that Applicant’s spec indicates that “coated with a sealing coating agent” is such that the resin, with the tannic acid derivative, which is coated on the substrate layer to form the coating layer is a resin capable of sealing, e.g. acrylic resin of “Sealing Agent D” [0214-0215, 0221-0223, 0226; Table 1B – Sealing Coating Agent 1]. As such, claim 5 is interpreted where the resin of the coating layer is a sealing agent, i.e. capable of sealing, and therefore not interpreted as an additional layer provided on the coating layer as defined by claim 1.
In view thereof, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the laminate defined by claim 5 – the polymeric resin forming the coating layer (2) of modified Riva is suitably, inter alia an acrylic polymer or copolymer, of which may be a waterborne or water reducible latex [0026]. Given that Applicant’s spec indicates that acrylic (co)polymers constitute, i.e. are suitable for use as, the sealing coating agent, the aforesaid acrylic polymer or copolymer (reads on resin defined by claim 1) of the coating layer (2) of modified Riva reads on the claimed sealing coating agent
Regarding claim 6, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above, Riva, as modified, is silent regarding the heat-sealable polyester layer of the laminate including a tannic acid derivative. However, Haruta teaches that the heat-sealable polyester layer suitably includes antioxidants as necessary [0030], wherein said heat-sealable layer – which is typically in contact with foodstuffs received in the bags/packages formed from the laminate – preferably exhibits hygienic properties [0007, 0009]. Further, it is known, and one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes, that anti-oxidants are suitably included in food-contacting layers of multilayer food packaging materials, as evidenced by Pockat [0011-0012, 0040, 0044, 0084, 0097-0099, 0119, 0126].
In view of the aforesaid teachings of Haruta and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art evidenced by Pockat – and given that Riva teaches that the tannic acid-containing core-shell particles, which provide antioxidant properties to the packaging material laminate, may suitably dispersed in, inter alia polyester resins – wherein Naito teaches the use of the tannic acid derivative as a suitable antioxidant species (as set forth/cited above), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the laminate of Riva (as modified above) by including the tannic acid derivative of Naito, or the core-shell particles inclusive of the tannic acid derivative of Naito, in the heat-sealable polyester layer of the multilayer laminate of modified Riva, as the aforesaid would have been recognized as suitable antioxidants for use in polyester-based layers, and/or suitable for (the intended) use in food packaging materials (including the food-contacting layer/surface thereof) requiring antioxidant properties wherein the foodstuffs are sensitive to, i.e. degrade in the presence of oxygen (see MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the heat-sealable polyester layer of the laminate of modified Riva would have included the tannic acid derivative of Naito, or the core-shell particles inclusive of said tannic acid derivative, as the antioxidant material/additive mixed/dispersed therein, thereby reading on the sealing layer of the laminate defined by claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 1 and claim 6 above, the grounds of rejection of claim 2 above are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated). The combination of the grounds of rejection of claim 6 and claim 2 read on the laminate defined by claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the packaging body or container defined by claim 11 – Riva, as modified by the teachings of Haruta, discloses and/or reasonably teaches forming a bag from the multilayer laminate, wherein a pair of the laminates are superimposed with the respective heat-sealable polyester layers facing one another and subsequently heat-sealed to one another, e.g. at (three) peripheral edges thereof to form the bag including an opening and corresponding internal cavity/compartment/volume for receiving/storing a product therein [Haruta, Title; 0001-0002, 0018-0019, 0060].
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riva in view of Haruta and Naito as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pockat and Barreneche et al. (US 2019/0232625; “Barreneche”) (newly cited).
Regarding claims 3-4, as set forth above in the grounds of rejection of claim 1, the coating layer (2) of the laminate of modified Riva defines the outermost layer thereof. The grounds of rejection of claim 3 above are incorporated herein by reference – as indicated, the coating layer (2) reads on the claimed coating layer which “constitutes a decorative layer”. However, modified Riva is silent regarding the coating layer (2) containing a printing ink.
Pockat teaches that the exterior surface layer of the food packaging film and bags formed therefrom is commonly subject to printing to provide the (final) package with graphics, indicia, or other information [0012, 0107, 0133, 0158]; and/or teaches that the exterior surface layer of the film (and resultant bags) may include colorants, dyes, and pigments [0119, 0126].
Barreneche is directed to multilayer, heat-sealable films suitable for use in food packaging, such as pouches [Abstract; 0003, 0005, 0020, 0034, 0037]; Barreneche teaches that the multilayer film can include a toner or ink image printed on the exterior layer, said layer printed by, e.g. corona printing, a digital press, and liquid toner/ink [0044-0045]. Barreneche constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – multilayer laminate suitable for use in packaging applications.
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 laminate of Riva (as modified above) by printing [on] the coating layer (2) with, e.g. (printing) toner/ink in order to form a graphic, indicia, or other information on/at the outer surface of the laminate (packaging material) and package, e.g. bag resultant therefrom, or additionally/alternatively to have included a dye, pigment, or colorant in the coating layer (2) in order to alter the color/appearance/aesthetic of the laminate/package.
Given that claim 1 (now) recites that the coating layer is the outermost layer, which constitutes a decorative layer (claim 3) which (is “formed of a printing layer” and) contains a printing ink; and in view of Applicant’s spec [0145-0147] and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “printing ink” being any colorant, including any dye and/or pigment, the laminate of modified Riva resultant from the aforesaid modification(s) read(s) on the laminate defined by claims 3 and 4. That is, the printing on the coating layer (2), or the inclusion of a colorant, dye, and/or pigment in the coating layer (2), reads on the claimed coating layer which constitutes a decorative layer (claim 3) and contains a printing ink (claim 4).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riva in view of Haruta and Naito as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pockat.
Regarding claims 8-10, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above, the grounds of rejection of claim 11 above, inclusive of the cited teachings of Haruta, are incorporated herein by reference. In short, Haruta teaches utilizing the multilayer laminate to form packaging bags.
Further, Haruta teaches that multilayer laminates including an innermost heat-sealable layer are commonly utilized as lids for packaging (i.e. lidding stock, i.e. lidding films) [0002], wherein it is readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that the heat-sealable layer of said laminates is utilized to seal the lid to a corresponding container or other packaging body defining an internal volume, e.g. trays.
Nevertheless, Pockat teaches that food packaging commonly takes the form of – in the alternative to bags formed from multilayer films which are heat-sealed to themselves at opposed and respectively facing heat-sealable layers – trays which are sealed to and enclosed by a lidding film inclusive of an innermost heat-sealable layer, e.g. multilayer lidding film [Fig. 5; 0012-0014, 0021, 0044, 0098, 0155, 0177, 0196, 0200].
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 laminate of Riva (as modified above) by utilizing the laminate as a lid in combination with a tray or other packaging body/container, wherein said lid would have been heat-sealed to said tray or packaging body/container via the innermost heat-sealable polyester layer of the laminate (in contact with the corresponding outer or inner surface, e.g. rim, flange, mouth/top, and/or sidewall(s) of the tray or packaging body/container), as the laminate (multilayer flexible packaging material) of modified Riva would have been recognized as suitable for the intended use as a lidding film in addition to, or in the alternative to, film suitable for forming bags (MPEP 2144.06(II); MPEP 2144.07); and/or readily recognized as a multilayer laminate suitable for use in food packaging applications requiring protection of oxygen-sensitive foodstuffs and/or antioxidant properties (MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance therewith, the multilayer laminate of modified Riva would have taken the form of a lidding film for a corresponding tray, container, or other packaging body – that is, the laminate would have been heat-sealed via the innermost heat-sealable polyester layer to one or more corresponding surfaces of a tray, container, or other packaging body (e.g. rim, flange, mouth/top, and/or sidewall(s); see Fig. 5 of Pockat), thereby reading on each “packaging body or container” defined by claims 8-10, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, presented on pp. 6-7 of the Remarks filed 05 September 2025, have been considered by the Examiner and found persuasive. It is agreed that the adhesive layer(s) 11 of previously-cited prior art to Kamai are not external/outermost layers of the laminate, but rather interposed layers which are internal to the outermost and innermost layers, i.e. layers which have layers or other materials disposed on both surfaces thereof. Therefore, and as stated above, the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are set forth hereinabove, necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 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