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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 26 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15 are currently pending in the application. The rejections of record from the office action dated 16 December 2025 not repeated herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (Machine Translation of JP H11 198289 A) in view of Kaminaga et al. (Machine Translation of WO 2020/116544).
Regarding claims 1-10, 12-13 and 15 Sugiyama discloses a multilayer packaging film for packaging bags or pouches for packaging a fragrance (claim 1, Fig. 5, [0004], [0013], [0023]), wherein the film comprises a first heat-sealable layer, an intermediate layer and a second heat sealable layer, wherein the heat sealable layers may be made from the same material such as polyethylene or polypropylene (claims 1-3, [0010]), wherein the intermediate layer is a barrier layer and may comprise a layer of silicon or aluminum oxide that is vapor deposited and a further gas barrier layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol or EVOH ([0019])(i.e. a packaging material for packaging contents containing fragrances, comprising a first polyolefin layer, an inorganic deposition layer, an overcoat layer and a second polyolefin layer having heat-sealing properties, in this order; wherein the inorganic deposition layer contains at least one of aluminum oxide and silicon oxide; wherein the first polyolefin layer and the second polyolefin layer are made of the same material; wherein the first polyolefin and the second polyolefin layer are made of polypropylenes; packaging bag; contents containing fragrances packaged in the packaging bag). Given that no layer is mentioned between the combination of vapor deposited layer and further gas barrier layer disclosed at ([0019]), it is the examiner’s position that the further gas barrier layer (overcoat layer) is directly on the inorganic deposition layer.
Sugiyama does not disclose that the gas barrier coating layer has a thickness of 100nm to 500 nm or is a heat dried product of a composition containing at least one of a hydroxyl group containing polymer compound and a hydrosylate thereof and at least one material selected from the group consisting of metal alkoxides, silane coupling agents and hydrolysates thereof or that the gas barrier coating layer contains a polycarboxylic acid polymer crosslinked with polyvalent metal or polyvalent metal compound or that the gas barrier is a cured product of an adhesive composition containing a resin having at least either of aromatic rings and aliphatic rings or that the gas barrier coating layer comprises polyvinyl alcohol resin and a silane compound.
Kaminaga discloses a packaging having a gas barrier film comprising a dried product of a metal alkoxide and a polymer such as polyvinyl alcohol or EVOH or a polycarboxylic acid based polymer and a polyvalent metal compound, wherein the polycarboxylic acid based polymer may comprise styrene groups (i.e. heat dried product of a composition containing at least one of a hydroxyl group containing polymer compound and at least one material selected from the group consisting of metal alkoxides; gas barrier coating layer contains a polycarboxylic acid polymer crosslinked with polyvalent metal or polyvalent metal compound; cured product of an adhesive composition containing a resin having aromatic rings) ([0002], [0014], [0081], [0083]-[0085], [0100], [0113]-[0123], [0127]-[0137]). Kaminaga discloses that the gas barrier layer having a thickness of 0.05 to 5 µm (50 to 5000 nm)(i.e. overlapping 100 nm to 500 nm)([0142]).
Sugiyama and Kaminaga are analogous art because they both teach about packaging materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the gas barrier layer including the materials of Kaminaga as the gas barrier layer of Sugiyama in order to provide good gas barrier properties and because doing so amounts to nothing more than using known materials in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
It would have been obvious to make the gas barrier layer of modified Sugiyama have a thickness as taught by Kaminaga, because it is a well-known thickness for gas barrier layers and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known layer thickness in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claims 12-13, Kaminaga discloses that the gas barrier film may comprise polyvinyl alcohol and a silane coupling agent such as glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane or acryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane ([0118], [0121]-[0123], [0064]-[0066], [0109]).
Regarding claim 15, Kaminaga discloses that the polycarboxylic acid may be polyacrylic acid, polymethacrylic acid, polymaleic acid and the polyvalent metal may be zinc ([0128], [0134]-[0135]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (Machine Translation of JP H11 198289 A) and Kaminaga et al. (Machine Translation of WO 2020/116544), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Miracle et al. (US 2002/0049150 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sugiyama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugiyama does not disclose that the fragrance materials contain at least either of esters or terpenes.
Miracle discloses that typical fragrance materials include esters and terpenes ([0075]).
Sugiyama and Miracle are analogous art because they both teach about fragrance materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the esters and terpenes of Miracle as the fragrances in the packaging of modified Sugiyama in order to provide a packaging for storing and transporting common fragrance materials and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose that the overcoat layer is directly on the inorganic deposition layer.
As set forth above, given that no layer is mentioned between the combination of vapor deposited layer and further gas barrier layer disclosed at ([0019]), it is the examiner’s position that the further gas barrier layer (overcoat layer) is directly on the inorganic deposition layer.
Applicant argues that Sugiyama does not disclose that the overcoat layer has a thickness of 100 nm to 500 nm or that the overcoat layer comprises a heat dried product of a composition containing at least one of a hydroxyl group containing polymer compound and a hydrosylate thereof and at least one material selected from the group consisting of metal alkoxides, silane coupling agents and hydrolysates thereof or that the gas barrier coating layer contains a polycarboxylic acid polymer crosslinked with polyvalent metal or polyvalent metal compound or that the gas barrier is a cured product of an adhesive composition containing a resin having at least either of aromatic rings and aliphatic rings or that the gas barrier coating layer comprises polyvinyl alcohol resin and a silane compound.
As set forth above, Kaminaga is used to teach these limitations.
Applicant argues that the instant invention provides unexpected results over articles that do not have an overcoat layer and points to Examples 1-10 and Comparative examples 1, 2 and 5 and Table 1.
Applicants argument is unpersuasive. It is noted that the comparison should be commensurate in scope with Sugiyama. Given that Sugiyama discloses a barrier layer, Comparative Examples 1, 2 and 5 are not commensurate in scope with the prior art because Comparative Examples 1, 2 and 5 have no barrier layer. This is especially pertinent given that the unexpected results referred to in Table 1 are directed to the barrier properties of the material.
Further, it is noted that the data presented is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims given that the claims broadly recite a thickness of 100 nm to 500 nm and a heat dried product of a composition containing at least one of a hydroxyl group containing polymer compound and a hydrosylate thereof and at least one material selected from the group consisting of metal alkoxides, silane coupling agents and hydrolysates thereof or that the gas barrier coating layer contains a polycarboxylic acid polymer crosslinked with polyvalent metal or polyvalent metal compound or that the gas barrier is a cured product of an adhesive composition containing a resin having at least either of aromatic rings and aliphatic rings or that the gas barrier coating layer comprises polyvinyl alcohol resin and a silane compound, while instant Examples 1-10 are directed to an over coat layer having a thickness of 0.3 µm and comprising specific overcoating compositions as set forth in the instant specification at [0142]-[0157], which appear to be much narrower that the compositions instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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.
/JAMES C YAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782