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 .
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
All previous rejections have been withdrawn.
REJECTIONS REPEATED
There are no rejections repeated.
NEW REJECTIONS
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 1-10 and 1-8 of U.S. Patent Nos. 18/029,573, 18/261,174 and 18/272,519, respectively, in view of Pey (US 2020/0346440).
Claims 1-9, 1-10 and 1-8 of U.S. Patent Nos. 18/029,573, 18/261,174 and 18/272,519, respectively, recite applicant’s invention substantially as claimed but do not recite wherein a proportion occupied by a thickness of the innermost sealant layer with respect to a thickness of the laminated body is 60% or more.
Pey discloses wherein a proportion occupied by a thickness of the innermost sealant layer with respect to a thickness of the laminated body is 60% or more in a stand-up pouch comprising linear low density polyethylene for the purpose of providing improved heat sealing and/or recyclability (paragraphs [0003-0004], [0009],[0022], [0087], [0093-0099], [0108], [0119] and Table 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided wherein a proportion occupied by a thickness of the innermost sealant layer with respect to a thickness of the laminated body is 60% or more in claims 1-9, 1-10 and 1-8 of U.S. Patent Nos. 18/029,573, 18/261,174 and 18/272,519, respectively, in order to provide improved heat sealing and/or recyclability as taught or suggested by Pey.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pey (US 2020/0346440) in view of JP2016536160 (English machine translation provided previously).
Pey discloses a laminated body comprising an innermost sealant layer formed of a polyethylene based resin and a base material formed of a polyethylene based resin and wherein a proportion occupied by a thickness of the innermost sealant layer with respect to a thickness of the laminated body is 60% or more (paragraphs [0003-0004], [0009],[0022], [0087], [0093-0099], [0108], [0119] and Table 1).
Pey does not disclose an outermost heat-resistant layer formed on an outer surface of the base material.
JP2016536160 discloses an outermost heat-resistant layer formed on an outer surface of the base material (paragraphs [0010], [0013-0014], [0026-0029], [0035], [0041], [0050], [0054-0056], [0076-0077]) in a stand up pouch for the purpose of providing improved heat resistance (paragraph [0056]).
Both references are drawn to a standup pouch.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided an outermost heat-resistant layer formed on an outer surface of the base material in Pey in order to provide improved heat resistance as taught or suggested by JP2016536160.
JP2016536160 discloses wherein the heat-resistant layer is formed of a varnish, a package body comprising a folding member folded such that outer surfaces thereof face each other along a fold line (since a stand-up pouch is disclosed), wherein at least the folding member is formed of the laminated body, wherein one or more of the folding members are provided between a pair of flat planar members (since a stand-up pouch is disclosed), wherein the planar members are laminated bodies, each including an innermost sealant layer formed of a polyethylene- based resin and an outermost base material layer formed of a polyethylene-based resin, the package body having a bottom member folded in half along a fold line, the bottom member being sandwiched between a pair of barrel members (since a stand-up pouch is disclosed), wherein the bottom member is the folding member, and the barrel members are the planar members, wherein a heat-resistant layer is locally formed in a region of an outer surface of the folding member corresponding to a portion to which an inner surface of the folding member is joined (since a stand-up pouch made from the laminate of JP2016536160 is disclosed), wherein the heat-resistant layer is omitted and the base material layers are joined together at an end portion of the folding member in a direction along the fold line (since layer C is optional) (paragraphs [0010], [0013-0014], [0026-0029], [0035], [0041], [0050], [0054-0056], [0076-0077]).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pey (US 2020/0346440) in view of JP2016536160 (English machine translation provided previously), as applied to claims 1-2 and 6-11 above, and further in view of WO2019189092.
Pey does not disclose wherein the sealant layer is formed of an unstretched polyethylene-based resin, and the base material layer is formed of a stretched polyethylene-based resin, wherein a printed layer or an adhesive layer is provided between the sealant layer and the base material layer, wherein 95% by weight or more of the laminated body is formed of a polyethylene-based resin.
WO2019189092 discloses wherein the sealant layer is formed of an unstretched polyethylene-based resin, and the base material layer is formed of a stretched polyethylene-based resin, wherein a printed layer or an adhesive layer is provided between the sealant layer and the base material layer, wherein 95% by weight or more of the laminated body is formed of a polyethylene-based resin (since the entire film is polyethylene) (paragraphs [0017], [0023], [0028], [0031], [0069-0081], [0128]) in a standup pouch for the purpose of providing improved strength, heat resistance and excellent recyclability.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided wherein the sealant layer is formed of an unstretched polyethylene-based resin, and the base material layer is formed of a stretched polyethylene-based resin, wherein a printed layer or an adhesive layer is provided between the sealant layer and the base material layer, wherein 95% by weight or more of the laminated body is formed of a polyethylene-based resin in Pey in order to provide improved strength, heat resistance and excellent recyclability as taught or suggested by WO2019189092.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments of 3/20/26 have been carefully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 pm EST.
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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
May 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights