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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The text of those sections of Title 35 and 37, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The text of those sections of the MPEP not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The amendment filed 3 April 2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are pending.
The rejections as set forth in the office action dated 30 January 2026 are withdrawn as Yamada does not teach a varnish selected from the list of polymers in claim 1.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected species but will be rejoined upon allowance of the generic claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada WO 2019/189092 (US 2021/0023828 relied upon as a translation) in view of Lai (US 2016/0244229)
Yamada teaches a laminate for packaging with a substrate, interlayer, and heat seal layer (¶155). The substrate can be one or multiple layer (see Figures).
The following chart is a mapping of the layers of claims 1 to the prior art:
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 4 / 10
Claim 5
Yamada
Innermost
Heat Seal (30)
Adhesive
Adhesive (50)
Second Layer
Interlayer (40)
Printed Layer
Optional Printed Layer (N/A)
Second Adhesive
Adhesive (50)
Printed Layer
Optional Printed Layer (N/A)
Third Layer
Substrate PE layer (N/A)
Varnish
The heat seal layer (claimed innermost) is a polyethylene layer (¶135). The interlayer (claimed second layer) is oriented polyethylene and may be biaxially oriented (¶156). An adhesive layer (claimed adhesive and/or second adhesive) may be included between any/all layers (¶170).
The substrate layer (20) is formed from polyethylene which can be uniaxially oriented (¶53 and ¶58).
There can be a printed layer on the interlayer (claimed second layer) (¶168) (claim 2) and/or on the substrate (¶124) (claim 5).
The difference between the above claim 1 and the prior art is as follows:
The prior art also fails to disclose each of the claimed layers in a single example. However as each of the layers are disclosed in the reference in a single embodiment the combination of the teachings would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The prior art also fails to disclose vanish as recited in claim 1.
Lai in the same field of compositions and film structures suitable for heat seal production teaches a laminate of a polyolefin (layer A), a second polyolefin (layer B), and an outermost layer (layer C) (abstract). Lai teaches the outermost layer C can be PET, polyamide, propylene homopolymer, and aluminum foil (¶72). Lai teaches the layer is 5-40 microns thick (¶94). Lai teaches the purpose of the layer is to allow for higher heat to be used without sticking to the sealing jaws (¶¶21,143).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used as the outermost layer of Yamada a polyamide layer because Lai teaches polyamide as a suitable outermost layer in a similar arrangement for the benefit of higher sealing temperatures without sticking.
With respect to claim 2, Yamada teaches the interlayer can be printed upon (¶168) as shown above the interlayer is in contact with the adhesive layer on both surfaces.
With respect to claim 4, the prior art fails to teach an embodiment where the second layer is biaxially oriented and third layer is uniaxially stretched, the prior art suggests both as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen as the interlayer a biaxially oriented one and as the substrate a uniaxially oriented one.
With respect to claim 5, Yamada teaches the substrate may be oriented in the MD, TD, or both (¶53) and teaches the substrate may be printed upon (¶55). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose the MD because it is nothing more than choosing from two possibilities both disclosed in the reference as suitable for forming the layer.
With respect to claims 6-8, Yamada teaches a bag (¶251), with a portion for opening (the top of the bag), the bag being capable of being refilled.
With respect to claim 10, the medium density substrate layer is directly attached to the high-density substrate layer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada WO 2019/189092 (US 2021/0023828 relied upon as a translation) in view of Lai (US 2016/0244229) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lu (4870122).
With respect to claim 11, Yamada teaches biaxially stretching the second layer but not a greater or equal stretch in one direction. Lu teaches a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) films, oriented up to about two times in the machine direction and six times or more in the transverse direction to give films having good dead-fold and water vapor transmission characteristics making them highly suited for packaging when coated with or coextruded with a heat sealable layer (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the biaxial stretching process of Yamada by employing the unequal stretch ratios taught by Lu (stretching more in the transverse direction than the machine direction). The motivation for this modification is to achieve the beneficial properties explicitly taught by Lu: improved dead-fold characteristics and superior water vapor transmission rates. Since Yamada is concerned with biaxially stretched films, and Lu teaches that specific biaxial ratios (unequal stretching) optimize packaging performance (e.g., for heat sealing or barrier properties), the skilled artisan would recognize this as a use of a known technique (unequal stretching) to improve a similar device (Yamada’s film) in the same way. A skilled artisan would expect that applying Lu’s stretch ratios to Yamada’s film would result in a film possessing the physical characteristics associated with that orientation, such as the dead-fold properties described by Lu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Applicant argues the Yamada fails to teach a heat-resistant varnish as claimed. The examiner agrees; although Yamada teaches resins as recited in claim 1 those resins are used as adhesives for the aluminum layer and therefore would not be the outermost based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of outermost and layer in light of the specification in the final product.
However, Applicant is directed to the above rejection where it is taught by Lai to use resins as recited in claim 1 for the outermost layer to provide for better manufacturing. These resins being of the same nature as those taught as suitable for inclusion in Yamada generally establishes a reasonable expectation of combination and therefore do not constitute a teaching away.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J VINEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Greg Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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.
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights