RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Claims1-14 and 20-24 are pending in the application, claims 15-19 have been cancelled.
Amendments to the claims filed on October 27, 2025 have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection made of record in office action mailed July 30, 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed October 27, 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record in office action mailed July 30, 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed October 27, 2025.
REJECTIONS
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, 9-14, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et. al (WO 2018/221495) in view of Yamada et al. (WO 2019/189092). For prior at discussion see machine translation of WO 2018/221495 and English equivalent US PG Pub. 2021/0023828 for WO 2019/189092.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 2, Yamada ‘495 discloses a laminate for recyclable packaging materials (para. [0004]). The laminate comprising a substrate layer (ref. #1, para. [0026]), an adhesive layer (para. [0084]) and a sealant layer (polyethylene film layer, ref. #2, para. [0045]). The adhesive layer is between the substrate and sealant layer, therefor the adhesive layer is provided on a first surface side of the substrate layer and a sealant layer bonded to the adhesive layer (para. [0084]).
The substate and sealant layers are co-extruded films, i.e. unstretched, comprising polyethylene as a main component (para. [0001], [0026], [0045]). The adhesive layer comprises a polyester-based resin or a urethane resin (para. [0084]).
Yamada ‘495 fails to disclose a proportion of polyethylene occupying the laminate is 90% by mass or more.
Yamada ‘828 discloses a laminate for recyclable packaging materials (abstract, para. [0001]). The laminate comprising a substrate layer, an adhesive layer and a sealant layer (para. [0047]). The substate and sealant layers comprise polyethylene as a main component (para. [0012]). The amount of polyethylene in the laminate is preferably 90 mass % or more which makes it possible to enhance the recyclability of the laminate according to the present invention (para. [0048]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the laminate of Yamada ‘495 contain 90% by mass or more of polyethylene as taught by Yamada ‘828 to enhance the recyclability of the laminate.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 1, Yamada ‘495 discloses the adhesive layer is disposed between the substrate layer and the sealant layer (para. [0084]). Yamada ‘495 further discloses the substrate layer is an unstretched film (co-extruded, para. [0001]) comprising a polyethylene (HDPE) having a density of 0.940 g/cm3 or more as a main component (para. [0031]).
Regarding Applicant’s claims 3-6, Yamada ‘495 discloses the laminate further comprising a gas barrier layer disposed between the substrate layer and the adhesive layer (para.[0053]). The gas barrier layer is a vapor deposition layer of silicon oxide (para.[0053]).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 7, Yamada ‘495 discloses that the barrier film can have two or more inorganic oxide films (para. [0054]), thus the gas barrier layer comprises a gas barrier coating layer disposed between the vapor deposition layer and the adhesive layer.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 9, Yamada ‘495 discloses the adhesive layer is a layer formed from a cured product of a gas-barrier adhesive (para. [0084]).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 10, Yamada ‘495 discloses the laminate further comprises a print layer disposed between the substrate layer and the sealant layer (para. [0074]).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 11, Yamada ‘495 discloses the laminate comprises a resin layer (shape-retaining layer) formed from an unstretched film comprising a polyethylene as a main component, the resin layer being disposed between the substrate layer and the sealant layer (para. [0050]).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 12, Yamada ‘495 discloses the substrate layer is an unstretched film (co-extruded, para. [0001]) comprising a polyethylene (HDPE, para.[0031]) having a density of 0.940 g/cm3 or more as a main component (para. [0031]). Yamada ‘495 also discloses the sealant layer is formed from an unstretched film comprising a polyethylene (LDPE, para. [0047]) as a main component, has a density of 0.90 to 0.925 g/cm3 (para. [0031]).
Although Yamada ‘495 does not explicitly teach the limitations a difference in heat-fusing temperature between the substrate layer and the sealant layer is 10°C or more, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. HDPE substrate and LDPE sealant layer). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Alternative, "[W]here 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." Therefore, it is deemed a matter of optimization via routine experimentation to determine the difference in the heat-fusing temperature between the substrate and the sealant layer. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 13, 14 and 20, Yamada ‘495 discloses that various types of packaging materials such as self-standing bags/pouches (para. [0093]).
The limitation “for use in boiling” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. Furthermore, Yamada ‘495 discloses the same three layered laminate predominately made of polyethylene.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 22, Yamada ‘495 disclose the laminate further includes, between the substrate and the adhesive layer (para. [0084]), an undercoat layer (shape-retaining layer, para. [0050]), a gas barrier layer that includes a vapor deposition layer and a gas barrier coating layer (para. [0054]), and a print layer (para. [0074]), in this order from the substrate layer to the adhesive layer.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 23, Yamada ‘495 further discloses that polyethylene films typically tend to shrink when heated, but their dimensional stability improves as the crosslinking density increases. Yamada ‘495 fails to disclose wherein the heat shrinkage rates in a running direction (MD direction) and a vertical direction (TD direction) of the substrate layer after being heated at 100°C for 15 minutes are 3% or less.
Therefore, the exact heat shrinkage rates of the laminate are deemed to be a result effective variable with regard to the crosslinking density. It would require routine experimentation to determine the optimum value of a result effective variable, such as heat shrinkage rates, in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed heat shrinkage rates. MPEP 2144.05 II B. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the crosslinking density in order to have low heat shrinkage rate of the polyethylene in order to improve dimensional stability of the laminate.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et. al (WO 2018/221495) in view of Yamada et al. (WO 2019/189092) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-14, 20, 22 and 23 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US PG Pub 2013/0196099). For prior at discussion see machine translation of WO 2018/221495 and English equivalent US PG Pub. 2021/0023828 for WO 2019/189092.
Yamada ‘495 and Yamada ‘092 are relied upon as described above.
Yamada ‘495 and Yamada ‘092 fail to disclose that the gas barrier layer comprises a gas barrier coating layer comprising a water-soluble polymer.
Sakamoto discloses a packaging material comprising a transparent gas barrier film layer, an adhesive layer and a sealant film layer (para. [0056]). The gas barrier film layer comprises a gas barrier coated film on a vapor deposition layer (para. [0065]). The vapor deposition layer is silicon oxide which is transparent and has gas barrier properties against oxygen, water vapor and the like (para. [0105]). The gas barrier coated film comprises a water-soluble polymer (para. [0112]) which provides excellent gas barrier properties and increase contact bondability with the other layers in the layered packaging material (para. [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have include a gas barrier coated film comprises a water-soluble polymer to the laminate of Yamada ‘495 as taught by Sakamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the gas barrier coated film to further enhance the gas barrier properties and increase contact bondability with the other layers in the layered packaging material.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et. al (WO 2018/221495) in view of Yamada et al. (WO 2019/189092) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-14, 20, 22 and 23 above, and further in view of Haruta et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0008607). For prior at discussion see machine translation of WO 2018/221495 and English equivalent US PG Pub. 2021/0023828 for WO 2019/189092.
Yamada ‘495 and Yamada ‘092 are relied upon as described above.
Yamada ‘495 and Yamada ‘092 fail to disclose the molecular orientation ratio (MOR) of the unstretched film constituting the substrate layer is 1.07 or less.
Haruta discloses a film for packaging material with good tearing property (para. [0001]). Haruta further discloses that the molecular orientation ratio is preferably close to 1 in order to satisfy the tear strength of the film (para. [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the molecular orientation ratio of Yamada ‘495 unstretched film as taught by Haruta in order to have a film with a good tearing property. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the tearing property of Yamada ‘495 so that the packaging would easily open.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et. al (WO 2018/221495) in view of Yamada et al. (WO 2019/189092), Haruta et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0008607) and Sakamoto et al. (US PG Pub 2013/0196099). For prior at discussion see machine translation of WO 2018/221495 and English equivalent US PG Pub. 2021/0023828 for WO 2019/189092.
Yamada ‘495 discloses a laminate for recyclable packaging materials (para. [0004]). The laminate comprising a substrate layer (ref. #1, para. [0026]), an adhesive layer (para. [0084]) and a sealant layer (polyethylene film layer, ref. #2, para. [0045]). The adhesive layer is between the substrate and sealant layer, therefore the adhesive layer is in contact with the sealant layer (para. [0084]).
Yamada ‘495 discloses the substrate layer is an unstretched film (co-extruded, para. [0001]) comprising a polyethylene (HDPE, para.[0031]) having a density of 0.940 g/cm3 or more as a main component (para. [0031]). The substate layer has a thickness of 12 µm or more and 35 µm or less (para. [0044]).
Although Yamada ‘495 does not explicitly teach that the substrate has a heat fusing temperature of 120°C or more, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. HDPE). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Alternative, "[W]here 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." Therefore, it is deemed a matter of optimization via routine experimentation to determine the heat-fusing temperature of the substrate. See MPEP 2144.05.
Yamada ‘495 discloses the laminate further comprising a gas barrier layer disposed between the substrate layer and the adhesive layer (para.[0053]). The gas barrier layer is a vapor deposition layer of silicon oxide (para.[0053]). The adhesive layer comprises a polyester-based resin or a urethane resin (para. [0084]), which is deemed to be a gas-barrier adhesive layer.
Yamada ‘495 also discloses the sealant layer is formed from an unstretched film comprising a polyethylene (LDPE, para. [0047]) as a main component, has a density of 0.90 to 0.925 g/cm3 (para. [0031]). The sealant layer has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 200 µm or less (para. [0049]).
Although Yamada ‘495 does not explicitly teach the limitations a difference in heat-fusing temperature between the substrate layer and the sealant layer is 10°C or more, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. HDPE substrate and LDPE sealant layer). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Alternative, "[W]here 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." Therefore, it is deemed a matter of optimization via routine experimentation to determine the difference in the heat-fusing temperature between the substrate and the sealant layer. See MPEP 2144.05.
Yamada ‘495 fails to disclose the substrate layer has a molecular orientation ratio (MOR) of 1.07 or less.
Haruta discloses a film for packaging material with good tearing property (para. [0001]). Haruta further discloses that the molecular orientation ratio is preferably close to 1 in order to satisfy the tear strength of the film (para. [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the molecular orientation ratio of Yamada ‘495 unstretched film as taught by Haruta in order to have a film with a good tearing property. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the tearing property of Yamada ‘495 so that the packaging would easily open.
Yamada ‘495 fails to disclose the laminate further comprises an undercoat layer comprising an acrylic urethane-based resin and has a thickness of 0.05 µm to 2 µm.
Sakamoto discloses a packaging material comprising a transparent gas barrier film layer, an adhesive layer and a sealant film layer (para. [0056]). The resin based film is provided with a surface treatment layer on one or both sides of the film for improving contact bondability between various resin films and inorganic oxide vapor deposition films. The pretreatment coating agent layers there may be used resin compositions wherein the major component of the vehicle is a polyurethane-based resin, (meth)acrylic-based resin, or a copolymer or modified form thereof (para. [0100]-[0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have include a an undercoat layer comprising an acrylic urethane-based resin in the laminate of Yamada ‘495 as taught by Sakamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the undercoat layer to increase contact bondability with the other layers in the layered packaging material.
"[W]here 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." Therefore, it is deemed a matter of optimization via routine experimentation to determine the thickness of the undercoating. See MPEP 2144.05.
Yamada ‘495 fails the gas-barrier adhesive layer comprises an epoxy resin and has a thickness of 0.8 µm or more and 5 µm or less.
Yamada ‘828 discloses a laminate for recyclable packaging materials (abstract, para. [0001]). The laminate comprising a substrate layer, an adhesive layer and a sealant layer (para. [0047]). The substate and sealant layers comprise polyethylene as a main component (para. [0012]). The adhesive comprises polyester-based adhesives, epoxy-based adhesives, urethane-based adhesives and the like (para. [0172]-[0173]). Use of such the specific adhesives makes it possible to inhibit a decrease in the oxygen barrier properties and water vapor barrier properties even if the barrier film generates a crack (para. [0175]). The adhesive layer preferably has a thickness of 0.5 μm or more and 6 μm or less (para. [0245]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an epoxy-based adhesive with a thickness of 0.8 µm or more and 5 µm or less in the laminate Yamada ‘495 as taught by Yamada ‘828 in order to inhibit a decrease in the oxygen barrier properties and water vapor barrier properties even if the barrier film generates a crack.
Yamada ‘495 fails to disclose a proportion of polyethylene occupying the laminate is 90% by mass or more.
Yamada ‘828 discloses a laminate for recyclable packaging materials (abstract, para. [0001]). The laminate comprising a substrate layer, an adhesive layer and a sealant layer (para. [0047]). The substate and sealant layers comprise polyethylene as a main component (para. [0012]). The amount of polyethylene in the laminate is preferably 90 mass % or more which makes it possible to enhance the recyclability of the laminate according to the present invention (para. [0048]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the laminate of Yamada ‘495 contain 90% by mass or more of polyethylene as taught by Yamada ‘828 to enhance the recyclability of the laminate.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed October 27, 2025 regarding the 102 and 103 rejections of record have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
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 Alicia Chevalier whose telephone number is (571)272-1490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 - 5:00.
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, Srilakshmi 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.
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788 04/03/2026
Prosecution Insights