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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Official Action says that Toft's induction sealing durable layer 13 corresponds to the claimed barrier pre-coating. Importantly though, Toft says nothing about a base layer pre-coating, specifically a base layer pre-coating different from the induction sealing durable layer 13 and applied by dispersion or solution coating onto the paper/cellulose-based layer 11 so that the base layer pre- coating is positioned directly adjacent to and in contact with the first side of the paper/cellulose-based layer 11, while also being positioned beneath the induction sealing durable layer 13. The Office provides no evidence that ordinarily skilled artisans in this area of technology, at the time the claimed invention here was developed, were well aware: i) that packaging laminates like those disclosed in Toft were susceptible of shortcomings in terms of strength; ii) that the strength of packaging laminates like that disclosed in Toft can be improved by adding a base layer pre-coating; iii) that the base layer pre-coating added to improve strength should be different from a barrier pre coating.
This is not found persuasive because a new reference Shamoto in view of Toft is used to teach the common technical feature as stated below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/11/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “polyvinyl alcohol”, “ethylene vinyl alcohol”, “PVOH”, and “EVOH”, wherein “PVOH” is the same as “polyvinyl alcohol” and “EVOH” is the same as “ethylene vinyl alcohol”. Please put “PVOH” and “EVOH” in parentheses since the terms are initials for the polymer full names. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In order to ensure proper antecedent basis, Applicant is advised to add “The” before, “barrier-coated” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites, “measured as described herein”, it is not clear what is measured and described and the claim looks incomplete. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamoto et al. (JP 2020-189489) in view of Toft et al. (US 2018/0311940).
Regarding claims 1, 4-7 Shamoto discloses a barrier laminate with paper as a base material for packaging materials (title). The barrier laminate of the present embodiment has a water vapor barrier layer and a gas barrier layer in this order on at least one surface of the paper base material. The water vapor barrier layer and the gas barrier layer may be provided on only one side of the paper base material, or the water vapor barrier layer and the gas barrier layer may be provided on both sides of the paper base material (page 1-2). Shamoto discloses 10% aqueous solution of ethylene copolymer polyvinyl alcohol (Excelval AQ4104) was prepared and used as a coating liquid for a gas barrier layer (Example 1). The form of the layered inorganic compound is flat. A water vapor barrier layer is formed when a mixed solution of a layered inorganic compound, a cationic resin and an anionic binder is prepared and coated on a paper substrate (page 3).
Shamoto discloses the barrier laminate comprises a paper (or cellulosic) base [cellulose based substrate) material having a water vapor barrier layer and gas barrier layer disposed in that order, wherein the water vapor barrier layer is considered to be equivalent to base layer pre-coating and the gas barrier layer is equivalent to the claimed barrier pre-coating (abstract; para. 0009-0057).
However, the recitation in the claims that the barrier laminate is “for providing gas and water vapor barrier properties in a laminated packaging material and packages” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Shamoto disclose barrier coated cellulose based substrate as presently claimed, it is clear that the barrier laminate of would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for providing gas and water vapor barrier properties in a laminated packaging material and packages, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
However, Shamoto fails to disclose a barrier deposition coating with vapor deposition on to barrier-precoating layer.
Whereas, Toft discloses a method for manufacturing of a laminated cellulose-based liquid or semi-liquid food packaging material, wherein the laminated packaging material has a bulk material layer of paper, paperboard or other cellulose-based material, an innermost, heat sealable and liquid-tight layer of a thermoplastic polymer, the innermost polymer layer intended to be in direct contact with the packaged food product, a barrier layer laminated between the bulk layer and the innermost layer (abstract). The compact-surface barrier paper is first coated with a pre-coating of a barrier material and subsequently further coated with a vapour deposition barrier coating onto the pre-coating surface (para 0039). The pre-coating barrier material is a PVOH pre-coating from about 1 to 3 g/m.sup.2, such as from 1 to 2 g/m.sup.2, and the vapour deposition coating is a metallisation coating having an optical density higher than 1.5, such as from 1.8 to 3, such as from 2 to 3, such as 2.5 (para 0042). One common type of vapour deposition coating, often having some barrier properties, in particular water vapour barrier properties, are so called metallisation layers, e.g. aluminium metal physical vapour deposition (PVD) coatings (para 0146). Such a vapour deposited layer, substantially consisting of aluminium metal may have a thickness of from 5 to 50 nm (para 0147). The pre-coating barrier material is PVOH and the vapour deposition coating is a metallised coating having an optical density higher than 1.5 (claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form vapor deposition aluminum metal barrier coating having a thickness of 5-50 nm of Toft on to the gas barrier layer of Shamoto motivated by the desire to have exhibits both oxygen barrier and excellent light barrier.
Alternatively, With respect to process limitation of “vapor deposition method”, Any difference imparted by product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324, In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 and MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Shamoto discloses the gas barrier layer is a layer having a function of mainly blocking the permeation of oxygen gas, and is laminated on the water vapor barrier layer. The gas barrier layer contains a water-soluble polymer.
(Water-soluble polymer). Examples of the water-soluble polymer include polyvinyl alcohol (page 7).
Regarding claim 3, Shamoto discloses the coating amount of the gas barrier layer is preferably 0.1 g / m .sup.2 or more and 10 g / m .sup.2 or less, and more preferably 0.5 g / m .sup.2 or more and 5 g / m .sup.2 or less (page 8). Shamoto discloses 10% aqueous solution of ethylene copolymer polyvinyl alcohol (Excelval AQ4104) was prepared and used as a coating liquid for a gas barrier layer (Example 1).
Regarding claim 10, Shamoto discloses the coating amount of the water vapor barrier layer is preferably 1 g / m .sup.2 or more and 30 g / m .sup.2 or less, and more preferably 3 g / m .sup.2 or more and 20 g / m .sup.2 or less as a solid content (page 7).
A water vapor barrier layer is formed when a mixed solution of a layered inorganic compound, a cationic resin and an anionic binder binder is prepared and coated on a paper substrate (page 3).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamoto et al. (JP 2020-189489) in view of Toft et al. (US 2018/0311940) as applied to claim 1, further in view of (JP 6526444).
Regarding claims 8-9, Shamoto discloses water vapor barrier layer as base layer pre-coating, but fails to disclose that the water vapor barrier layer comprises a material selected from starch, modified starch.
Whereas, JP’444 discloses paper barrier packaging material (hereinafter referred to as “packaging material”) in which at least a water vapor barrier layer and a gas barrier layer are provided in this order on a paper substrate (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “base paper”). A liquid paper container consisting of the water vapor barrier layer contains a pigment and a binder resin (page 2-3). As the binder resin to be contained in the water vapor barrier layer Starches such as thermochemically modified starch, oxidized starch, cationized starch, esterified starch, hydroxyethylated starch, hydroxyethyl cellulose, cellulose ethers such as methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, acetyl cellulose and derivatives thereof (page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include modified starch, ethyl cellulose as taught by JP’444 in the water vapor barrier layer of Shamoto motivated by the desire to have improved water vapor barrier properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights