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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on October 16, 2025 have been entered and considered. Claims 1 and 14 are amended and claims 1 – 23 and 25 – 28 are pending. In view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim 14, the Examiner withdraws the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. After consideration of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, the Examiner has maintained the previously set forth rejection. The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liu does not teach using adhesives to adhere the various films together. As Applicant does not specify that “the at least one adhesive” used to adhere the layers together, is a separate layer, the PHA in the heat seal and the protective layer can also function as Applicant’s adhesive, in particular the multi-layered film is co-extrusion casted [0018]. Alternatively or additionally, Liu et al. teaches that the packaging film can be made of multiple layers and several of the layers can comprise PHA [0010]. While Applicant points to embodiments 2 – 4 where Liu discloses PVOH as an adhesive, this does not negate the entirety of the disclosure which teaches the use of PHA in the layers of the multilayered film.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12 – 13, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN109955555A) (English translation provided by Applicant on 10/06/23.
Liu et al. is directed to a biodegradable high barrier liquid packaging film [0002].
As to claim 1, Liu et al. teach a packaging film comprising a heat seal layer, a barrier layer and a protective layer [0009]. Liu et al. teach that the heat seal layer and protective layer can be selected from materials including polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) [0010]. Liu et al. teach that the heat seal layer can have a plurality of layers and the material composition between the layers of the heat seal layer may be the same or different, in certain embodiments the heat seal layers can have the same composition formed by multilayer co-extrusion casting machine [0018]. Additionally, Liu et al. teaches that the protective layer can have multiple layers (e.g. 2 – 3 layers). The Examiner equates these layers to Applicant’s “biodegradable heat-sealable layer” and “biodegradable printed layer”. As Applicant does not specify that “the at least one adhesive” used to adhere the layers together, is a separate layer, the PHA in the heat seal and the protective layer can also function as Applicant’s adhesive. Alternatively or additionally, Liu et al. teaches that the packaging film can be made of multiple layers and several of the layers can comprise PHA [0010]. Liu et al. teach a packaging film having a heat seal layer, a protective layer, an aluminum layer and the protective layer [0069]. Liu et al. teach that the packaging film can be printed with a pattern or text on the outside of the packaging film specifically on the protective layer [0054] and the printing can be provided by means of a printing press [0084]. It should be noted that the Examiner considers a printing press to result in the same final structure as the claimed processes using flexographic, gravure or digital printing method as required in claim 23. Liu et al. teach that the film can be used for packaging for a packaged article [0093] such as a stand-up pouch, a bailey bag, a Tetra Pak bag [0094]. Liu et al. teach the use of adhesives to bond the layers [0052].
As to claim 12, Liu et al. teach a packaging film can have a heat seal layer, a protective layer, an aluminum layer and the protective layer [0059 – 0061] and [0069].
As to claim 13, Liu et al. teach that the packaging film thickness is not particularly limited and can include thicknesses of 30 and 50 microns [0013].
As to claim 15, Liu et teach that the packaging film can additionally comprise a layer comprising PA5X and PA410 [0047].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 25 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (CN109955555A) (English translation provided by Applicant on 10/06/23.
Liu et al. teach the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the multilayer structure has a melting point of greater than 102 degrees C as determined by ASTM E794-06 as required by claim 25, the food pouch as a shelf-life of at least 18 months as determined by ASTM E2454 as required by claim 26, the oxygen transmission rate of less than 0.45ml/m2/24hrs as determined by ASTM D3985 as required by claim 27 and the water vapor transmission rate of less than 0.2 g/m2/24 hours as determined according to ASTM F1249. It is reasonable to presume that the above properties are inherent to Liu et al. Support for said presumption is found in that Liu et al. also teach a packaging film comprising a heat seal layer, a barrier layer and a protective layer [0009] comprising PHA layers [0010], specifically embodiments a heat seal layer, a protective layer, an aluminum layer and the protective layer [0069]. Liu et al. teach that the packaging film can be printed with a pattern or text on the outside of the packaging film specifically on the protective layer [0054]. Liu et al. teach that the film can be used for packaging for a packaged article [0093] such as a stand-up pouch, a bailey bag, a Tetra Pak bag [0094]. Liu et al. teach the use of adhesives to bond the layers [0052]. Liu et al. teach the oxygen permeability of 0.3 – 1.3 cc/m2/24 hr using GB/T 19789-2005 [0072] which is equivalent to 0.3 – 1.3 mL/m2/24 hr and the water vapor transmission is not more than 2.2 g/(m2-24hr) using GB/T 1037-88 test [0073] and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13 – 14, 17 and 22 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy et al. (US 9,328,239) in view of (CN109955555A) (English translation provided by Applicant on 10/06/23.
Krishnaswamy et al. is directed to compositions of polymer blends of polylactic
acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoate for use in articles, films and laminates (Abstract) specifically suitable for coating other layers such as paper to produce articles or containers (column 7, lines 14 – 20).
As to claim 1, Krishnaswamy et al. teach a laminate between 1 to 15 layers specifically laminates of 3 layers or more (column 7, lines 30 – 40). Krishnaswamy et al. teach that the compositions of each layer can be the PLA/PHA blends as described (column 7, lines 35 – 45 and column 24, lines 1 – 3). The 3 or more layers of the described composition are equated to Applicant’s “biodegradable heat-sealable layer”, “barrier layer” and “biodegradable printed layer”. Krishnaswamy et al. teach that the layered products of the composition can be used to create food wrap and food bags among many other applications (column 24, lines 29 – 70). Krishnaswamy et al. teach the use of adhesives between the layers (column 7, lines 20 – 26).
Krishnaswamy et al. fail to teach that an exterior layer equated to the “biodegradable printed layer” is printed and is a pouch having at least one sidewall and a pouch closure.
Liu et al. is directed to a biodegradable high barrier liquid packaging film [0002]. Liu et al. teach a packaging film comprising a heat seal layer, a barrier layer and a protective layer [0009]. Liu et al. teach that the heat seal layer and protective layer can be selected from materials including polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) [0010]. Liu et al. teach that the heat seal layer can have a plurality of layers and the material composition between the layers of the heat seal layer may be the same or different, in certain embodiments the heat seal layers can have the same composition formed by multilayer co-extrusion casting machine [0018]. Additionally, Liu et al. teaches that the protective layer can have multiple layers (e.g. 2 – 3 layers). In certain embodiments, the material layers comprising the protective layer can have the same material composition made by a multi-layer coextrusion casting machine [0019]. Liu et al. teach that the packaging film can be printed with a pattern or text on the outside of the packaging film specifically on the protective layer [0054] and the printing can be provided by means of a printing press [0084]. It should be noted that the Examiner considers a printing press to result in the same final structure as the claimed processes using flexographic, gravure or digital printing method as required in claim 23. Liu et al. teach that the film can be used for packaging for a packaged article [0093] such as a stand-up pouch, a bailey bag, a Tetra Pak bag [0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print using a printing press an exterior layer of packaging film in order to provide a label or identification of the product contained within. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a pouch using the laminate composite having at least one sidewall and a closure in order to effectively contain a food product.
As to claims 13 – 14 and 22, Krishnaswamy et al. teach that the laminate can have a size from 25 – 75 microns and each individual layer can have a size of about 1 – 5 microns (column 7, lines 30 – 40).
As to claim 17, Krishnaswamy et al. teach that the laminate can comprises 1 to 15 layers where the layers can be made of multiple layers (column 7, lines 30 – 40).
Claims 2 – 11, 16 and 18 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy et al. (US 9,328,239) in view of Liu et al. (CN109955555A) (English translation provided by Applicant on 10/06/23 as applied above, further in view of Durie et al. US 2022/0089863).
Krishnaswamy et al. teach a polymer blend having polylactic
acid and a PHA copolymer comprising 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) and hydroxyhexanaote (3HH) having 25 – 50 weight % 3HH (column 2, lines 45 – 70) Krishnaswamy et al. teach one or more additives can be included in the composition, specifically a nucleating agent comprising cyanuric acid or boron nitride (column 4, lines 40 – 53). The percentages of PLA in the PLA/PHA blend are 50-95% by weight and for example 90/10, 85/15, 80/20, 75/25, 70/30, 65/35, 60/40, 55/45 or 50/50 (column 16, lines 18 – 30).
Krishnaswamy et al. in view of Liu et al. teach the inclusion of an nucleating agent but fail to teach a percentage of nucleating agent present relative to the layer, specifically, about 0.1 to about 5 weight % as required by claims 2, 7 and 16.
Durie et al. teach a preform for a biodegradable container (Abstract) comprising a poly(hydroxyalkanoate) copolymer such as poly-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate (P3HB-co-P3HHx) [0010]. Durie et al. teach that the preform also typically includes from about 0.1 to about 10 weight percent of at least one nucleating agent and from about 0.005 to about 3 weight percent of at least one melt strength enhancer [0008]. The nucleating agent can comprise boron nitride among other nucleating agents [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use about 0.1 to about 10 weight percent nucleating agent as suggested by Durie et al. in order to make a biodegradable container having an appropriate amount of nucleating agent to predictably create a biodegradable container with increased biodegradability and/or composability [0038]. MPEP 2143
As to claims 3 – 5, 8 – 10 and 18 – 20, Krishnaswamy et al. teach the PHA can be a copolymer (containing two or more different monomer units) in which the different monomers are randomly distributed in the polymer chain. Examples of PHA copolymers include poly 3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxypropionate (PHB3HP), poly 3-hydroxybutyrate-co-4-hydroxybutyrate (P3HB4HB), poly 3-hydroxybutyrate-co-4-hydroxyvalerate (PHB4HV), poly 3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate (PHB3HV), poly 3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate (PHB3HH) and poly 3-hydroxybutyrate-co-5-hydroxyvalerate (PHB5HV) (column 10, lines 28 – 40). Krishnaswamy et al. teach that by selecting the monomer types and controlling the ratios of the monomer units in a given PHA copolymer a wide range of materials properties can be achieved. Although examples of PHA copolymers having two different monomer units have been provided, the PHA can have more than two different monomer units (e.g., three different monomer units, four different monomer units, five different monomer units, six different monomer units) An example of a PHA having 4 different monomer units would be PHB-co-3HH-co-3HO-co-3HD or PHB-co-3-HO-co-3HD-co-3HDd (these types of PHA copolymers are hereinafter referred to as PHB3HX). Typically where the PHB3HX has 3 or more monomer units the 3HB monomer is at least 70% by weight of the total monomers, preferably 85% by weight of the total monomers, most preferably greater than 90% by weight of the total monomers for example 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96% by weight of the copolymer and the HX comprises one or more monomers selected from 3HH, 3HO, 3HD, 3HDd (column 10, lines 40 – 60). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of monomer units to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide 75-99.9 mole percent 3-hydroxybutyrate, 0.1 – 25 mole percent 3-hydroxyhexanoate and 0.1 to 25 mole percent of 3-hydroxvalerate, 3-hydroxyoctanoate, 3-hydroxydeconoate to have a tailored polymer with the desired material properties. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
As to claim 6, 11 and 21, Krishnaswamy et al. teach the PHA has a molecular weight of 100,000 to 600,000 (column 8, lines 20 – 29).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786