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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/29/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-24 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are amended.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of present claims 1-2 and 4-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/10279 to Schertz et al. (“Schertz”, of record) in view of Mallory et al. (US 5,496,649; “Mallory”), and rejection of present claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, 19-21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich et al. (US 2013/0181382; “Aich”) in view of Mallory et al. (US 5,496,649; “Mallory”) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference as discussed in details in the body of the rejection below.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “thermally stable in water…” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thermally stable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examiner, the examiner considers that prior art article having some degree of stability and/or insolubility in water under the same or similar temperature as meeting the claimed limitations. Claims 10 and 19 contain the same issue. Claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18 and 20-24 are rejected due to their dependency of claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich et al. (US 2013/0181382; “Aich”) in view of Wesp et al. (US 3,214,235; “Wesp”).
Regarding claim 1 and claims 4-5, Aich teaches a layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol (para [0013], [0022], the film layer of Aich includes polyvinyl alcohol and suitable additives including alkaline earth metal salts). Aich teaches its film layer include polyvinyl alcohol and further includes suitable additives including alkaline earth metal salts including calcium carbonate among others (para [0013], [0022] [0027]).
Aich does not specifically teach the inclusion of cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol in the manner as instantly claimed.
Wesp teaches a polymeric film comprising cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol and that is thermally stable in water up to temperatures of 90 °C (col. 6, lines 33-45, the cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol is stable, insoluble, in boiling water). In particular, Wesp teaches using cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol and teaches that cross-linking of polyvinyl alcohol is evidenced by insolubility (col. 2, lines 1-25). Wesp further teaches preparation of cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol as a polymeric film, of which the resulting cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol film remained insoluble when immersed in boiling water (col. 6, lines 33-45). Thus, Wesp teaches cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol film that is thermal stability and exhibits resistance to dissolution in water at a temperature up to and above 90 °C (col. 2, lines 1-25, col. 6, lines 33-45), that reads on instantly claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the film layer of Aich in view the teachings of Wesp, to include cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol as taught by Wesp, to provide an improved film layer that is thermal stability and exhibits resistance to dissolution in water at a temperature up to and above 90 °C as taught by Wesp (col. 2, lines 1-25, col. 6, lines 33-45).
Aich does not specifically teach the inclusion of 20 wt% or more of calcium carbonate in the layer, as instantly claimed.
Aich teaches the amount of the suitable additive, i.e., calcium carbonate, in its film layer is a result effective variable, in that Aich teaches its PVOH sheet includes particular additive, i.e., calcium carbonate in the desired amount in order to accelerate the rate of dissolution of the film or container (para [0013], [0022] [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aich, to adjust the amount of calcium carbonate in the film layer through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the layer once produced (i.e., the rate of dissolution of the layer), which would have arrived at a workable amount of wt% that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., 20 wt% or more of calcium carbonate, based on the total weight of the layer as in claim 1, i.e., in an amount of 50 wt% to 97 wt%, based on the total weight of the layer as in claim 4, and i.e., in an amount of 70 wt% to 97 wt%, based on the total weight of the layer as in claim 5. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Aich teaches the calcium carbonate comprises stearic acid treated calcium carbonate (para [0026] [0027, the inclusion of the calcium carbonate in conjunction with acid, stearic acid), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Aich teaches its container further comprising a protective layer on a side of the layer that protects the layer including the polyvinyl alcohol and calcium carbonate from oxidants, moisture, and/or acids, and/or may protect the layer including the polyvinyl alcohol and calcium carbonate from physically contacting contents of the container (para [0042] [0047], further including the top film protects the layer), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Aich teaches the layer is thermally stable at temperatures up to 150 °C (para [0047], having the sealing temperatures of 120 to 195 °C and thus thermally stable at those temperature), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding independent claim 10 and claims 13-14, Aich teaches a container comprising: a body that defines an internal cavity capable of holding an article (para [0001], [0013], [0022], see Fig. 1, the container with internal cavity) wherein the body comprises a layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol (para [0013], [0022], the film layer of Aich includes polyvinyl alcohol and suitable additives including alkaline earth metal salts). Aich teaches its film layer include polyvinyl alcohol and further includes suitable additives including alkaline earth metal salts including calcium carbonate among others (para [0013], [0022] [0027]).
Aich does not specifically teach the inclusion of cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol in the manner as instantly claimed.
Wesp teaches a polymeric film comprising cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol and that is thermally stable in water up to temperatures of 90 °C (col. 6, lines 33-45, the cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol is stable, insoluble, in boiling water). In particular, Wesp teaches using cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol and teaches that cross-linking of polyvinyl alcohol is evidenced by insolubility (col. 2, lines 1-25). Wesp further teaches preparation of cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol as a polymeric film, of which the resulting cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol film remained insoluble when immersed in boiling water (col. 6, lines 33-45). Thus, Wesp teaches cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol film that is thermal stability and exhibits resistance to dissolution in water at a temperature up to and above 90 °C (col. 2, lines 1-25, col. 6, lines 33-45), that reads on instantly claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the film layer of Aich in view the teachings of Wesp, to include cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol as taught by Wesp, to provide an improved film layer that is thermal stability and exhibits resistance to dissolution in water at a temperature up to and above 90 °C as taught by Wesp (col. 2, lines 1-25, col. 6, lines 33-45).
Aich does not specifically teach the inclusion of 20 wt% or more of calcium carbonate in the layer, as instantly claimed.
Aich teaches the amount of the suitable additive, i.e., calcium carbonate, in its film layer is a result effective variable, in that Aich teaches its PVOH sheet includes particular additive, i.e., calcium carbonate in the desired amount in order to accelerate the rate of dissolution of the film or container (para [0013], [0022] [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aich, to adjust the amount of calcium carbonate in the film layer of the container through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the container once produced (i.e., the rate of dissolution of the layer of the container), which would have arrived at a workable amount of wt% that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., 20 wt% or more of calcium carbonate, based on the total weight of the layer as in claim 10, i.e., in an amount of 50 wt% to 97 wt%, based on the total weight of the layer as in claim 13, and i.e., in an amount of 70 wt% to 97 wt%, based on the total weight of the layer as in claim 14. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Aich teaches the calcium carbonate comprises stearic acid treated calcium carbonate (para [0026] [0027, the inclusion of the calcium carbonate in conjunction with acid, stearic acid), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Aich teaches its container further comprising a protective layer on a side of the layer that protects the layer including the polyvinyl alcohol and calcium carbonate from oxidants, moisture, and/or acids, and/or may protect the layer including the polyvinyl alcohol and calcium carbonate from physically contacting contents of the container (para [0042] [0047], further including the top film protects the layer), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Aich teaches the layer is thermally stable at temperatures up to 150 °C (para [0047], having the sealing temperatures of 120 to 195 °C and thus thermally stable at those temperature), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding independent claim 19, Aich teaches a container comprising a layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol (para [0001] [0013], [0022], Fig. 1, the film layer of Aich includes polyvinyl alcohol and suitable additives including alkaline earth metal salts). Aich teaches its film layer include polyvinyl alcohol and further includes suitable additives including alkaline earth metal salts including calcium carbonate among others (para [0013], [0022] [0027]).
Aich does not specifically teach the inclusion of cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol in the manner as instantly claimed.
Wesp teaches a polymeric film comprising cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol and that is thermally stable in water up to temperatures of 90 °C (col. 6, lines 33-45, the cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol is stable, insoluble, in boiling water). In particular, Wesp teaches using cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol and teaches that cross-linking of polyvinyl alcohol is evidenced by insolubility (col. 2, lines 1-25). Wesp further teaches preparation of cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol as a polymeric film, of which the resulting cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol film remained insoluble when immersed in boiling water (col. 6, lines 33-45). Thus, Wesp teaches cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol film that is thermal stability and exhibits resistance to dissolution in water at a temperature up to and above 90 °C (col. 2, lines 1-25, col. 6, lines 33-45), that reads on instantly claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the film layer of Aich in view the teachings of Wesp, to include cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol as taught by Wesp, to provide an improved film layer that is thermal stability and exhibits resistance to dissolution in water at a temperature up to and above 90 °C as taught by Wesp (col. 2, lines 1-25, col. 6, lines 33-45).
Regarding claim 20, Aich does not specifically teach the inclusion of 50 wt% to 97% calcium carbonate in the layer, as instantly claimed.
Aich teaches the amount of the suitable additive, i.e., calcium carbonate, in its film layer is a result effective variable, in that Aich teaches its PVOH sheet includes particular additive, i.e., calcium carbonate in the desired amount in order to accelerate the rate of dissolution of the film or container (para [0013], [0022] [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aich, to adjust the amount of calcium carbonate in the film layer through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the container once produced (i.e., the rate of dissolution of the layer), which would have arrived at a workable amount of wt% that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., in an amount of 50 wt% to 97 wt%, based on the total weight of the layer.
Regarding claim 21, Aich teaches its container further comprising a protective layer on a side of the layer that protects the layer including the polyvinyl alcohol and calcium carbonate from oxidants, moisture, and/or acids, and/or may protect the layer including the polyvinyl alcohol and calcium carbonate from physically contacting contents of the container (para [0042] [0047], further including the top film protects the layer), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Aich teaches the layer is thermally stable at temperatures up to 150 °C (para [0047], having the sealing temperatures of 120 to 195 °C and thus thermally stable at those temperature), meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 7, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich in view of Wesp as applied to claims 1, 10 and 19 above, further in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2023/0257172; “Nishikawa”).
The limitations of claims 1, 10 and 19 are taught by Aich and Wesp as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 7, 16 and 22, Aich does not teach the inclusion of a plasma coating.
Nishikawa teaches a laminate suitable for packaging application, and Nishikawa teaches its laminate includes polyvinyl alcohol layer (para [0036], [0038]) and further includes a plasma coating of barrier coating layer that is formed by plasma coating (para [0033], [0067]) to provide the laminate film with desired gas barrier properties (para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at to modify Aich in view the teachings of Nishikawa, to include a plasma coating layer as a side of the layer of polyvinyl alcohol and calcium carbonate, to protect the layer and to provide improved gas barrier properties as taught by Nishikawa (para [0032] [0033], [0067]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory layer and/or container comprising the layer that is the same as instantly claimed, in claims 7, 16 and 22.
Claim(s) 9, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich in view of Wesp as applied to claims 1, 10 and 19 above, further in view of Wolff (US 3,532,534).
The limitations of claims 1, 10 and 19 are taught by Aich and Wesp as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, 18 and 24, Aich teaches its layer may further includes various additional ingredients as desired (para [0026] [0090]). Aich does not specifically teach the layer with the inclusion of protein.
Wolff teaches film coating comprising polyvinyl alcohol with the inclusion of suitable additives such as protein/soy protein to provide improved flexibility, dimensional stability (col. 4, lines 36-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Aich, to select and include suitable additives as desired such as protein/soy protein as taught by Wolff, depending on the intended end applications of the film layer, to provide a film layer with improved flexibility, dimensional stability as taught by Wolff (col. 4, lines 36-50), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory film layer that is the same as instantly claimed. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights