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 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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 20160075468 A1) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a laminate sheet comprising a substrate (paper substrate layer) having a sheet shape, a sealant layer provided on the substrate, the sealant layer including a first resin layer (heat-sealable PET resin layer) and a second resin layer (second adhesive layer) located between and joined to the first resin layer and the substrate (Kobayashi, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0011, 0016-0018). Kobayashi teaches the second resin layer comprises maleic anhydride-modified EVA and does not state that polyester is required and therefore teaches the second resin layer contains no polyester (Kobayashi, Par. 0016-0018). Kobayashi teaches the first resin layer comprises polyester (PET) and does not state that other materials are required and therefore satisfies the limitation of consisting of polyester (Kobayashi, Par. 0016). Kobayashi teaches the polyester has a crystalline portion of less than 15%, and can be further increased to 35% or more for heat resistance and therefore teaches the polyester is a crystalline polyester (Kobayashi, Par. 0016 and 0024). This is further shown as the instant specification discusses that the instant crystallinity has a polyester of 10% or higher (See the instant specification Par. 0047), which is overlapped by the range of Kobayashi of less than 15%, or encompasses the range of Kobayashi of 35% or more above, see MPEP 2131.03 & 2144.05, I. Kobayashi teaches the crystalline polyester is kept at a temperature of 130-220°C to raise the crystal portion, and thus teaches the crystalline polyester has a crystallization temperature of 130-220° (Kobayashi, Par. 0024), which overlaps the claimed range of 120°C or higher and 150°C or lower and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi teaches the substrate includes a support layer made of paper (paper substrate layer) and a barrier layer located between the support layer and the sealant layer (Kobayashi, Par. 0016).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi teaches a packaging body (See container) comprising the laminate sheet of claim 1, wherein an innermost layer of the packaging body is formed of the first resin layer of the sealant layer, and a first part of the first resin layer and a second part of the first resin layer are bonded together (sealed) (Kobayashi, Par. 0015-0018, 0023-0027, and 0035).
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Murschall et al. (US 20030068511 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Kobayashi teaches all of the elements of the instant invention as stated above for claim 1. Kobayashi is silent regarding a glass transition temperature of the crystalline polyester being 70°C or higher and 80°C or lower as required by claim 2, and is silent regarding a melting temperature of the crystalline polyester being 210°C or higher and 240°C or lower as required by claim 3.
Murschall teaches a laminate comprising a sealant layer, wherein the sealant layer comprises a crystalline polyester (PET) with a glass transition temperature of 65-130°C and a melting temperature of 180-365°C (Murschall, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0037-0041, 0045, 0058, 0071-0075), which overlap the claimed ranges of 70°C or higher and 80°C or lower and 210°C or higher and 240°C or lower respectively and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Kobayashi and Murschall are analogous art as they both teach laminates comprising a sealant layer of crystalline PET. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the crystalline PET of Murschall as the crystalline polyester of Kobayashi. This would allow for a sealant layer having very good sealing properties (Murschall, Par. 0071-0075).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kobayashi teaches a thickness of the first resin layer is 20-40 µm (Kobayashi, Par. 0067), which is the same as the claimed range and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Modified Kobayashi further teaches that an adhesive strength (Seal strength) between the first and second part is at least 1.3 N/15 mm (Murschall, Par. 0075), which overlaps the claimed range of 20 N/15 mm or higher and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 07 November 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Kurian does not teach the limitations of the instant claim 1. This is moot.
The previous grounds of rejection in view of Kurian have been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments. New grounds of rejection based upon Kobayashi have been made above.
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 THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782