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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-5 and 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02 January 2026.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are 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 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation comprises “greater than or equal to 80%”, and the claim also recites “greater than or equal to 85%, greater than or equal to 90%, or greater than or equal to 95%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-3 and 6-11 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenzetti et al. (WO 2013/041469 A1) in view of Sins (US 2009/0123677 A1) and Vinnicombe et al. (US 2018/0215510 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6 and 8-11, Lorenzetti discloses a paper based packaging film comprising a polyolefin core layer (i.e. polymeric film) that may comprise barrier layers including layers of metal or metal oxide (i.e. barrier material; metal, metal oxide) on both sides of the core layer, the core layer being laminated to a paper layer, wherein the polyolefin core layer may comprise BOPP (i.e. wherein the polymeric film is BOPP), wherein the multilayer structure may be laminated via adhesive (i.e. wherein the barrier material is attached to the paper component by an adhesive; further comprising an adhesive layer attaching the paper component to the polymeric film) to a paper or paperboard bulk layer (i.e. paper component) and the packaging laminate has an inner and outer heat sealable layers (i.e. sealable material; heat sealable)(i.e. a paper-based packaging film comprising a paper component, a polymeric film, the film coated with a barrier material, a sealable material, wherein the polymeric film is located between the paper component and the sealable material, the barrier material is located between the polymeric film and the paper component)(abstract, P7/L20-P8/L15, P11/L1-L15, P12/L30-P13/L10, P19/L29-P20/L31, Fig. 1a, 1b and 2). Lorenzetti states that the multilayer polymer barrier film can be of any thickness and may be from 5-30 µm and the EVOH layer is less than 1.5 µm thick (P7/L20-25, P19/L4-L20). Therefore, the BOPP layer is calculated to be at least 3.5-28.5 µm thick (i.e. overlapping 2 µm to 10 µm thick). It is exemplified that the BOPP layer may be 9.3 µm (P22/L30-35). Alternatively, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed thickness depending on the desired strength, flexibility and cost of the film.
Lorenzetti does not disclose that the sealable material is patterned.
Vinnicombe teaches a packaging material wherein the sealing material is patterned along selected portions so that the packaging material can be assembled along seal lines and into a package (abstract, [0030]).
Lorenzetti and Vinnicombe are analogous art because they both teach about packaging materials. It would have been obvious to pattern the seal material of Lorenzetti as taught be Vinnicombe in order to provide a packaging material that can be assembled into a package along seal lines and lower cost because the sealing material is only present where it is needed for sealing. Doing so amounts to nothing more than using a known configuration in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Lorenzetti does not disclose that the packaging film comprises greater than or equal to 80%, 85%, 90 or 95% of the paper component.
Sins discloses a paper-based packaging material and that the paper content of the packaging should be at least 95% to improve the recyclability (abstract, [0004]).
Lorenzetti and Sins are analogous art because they both teach about paper-based packaging materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the packaging of modified Lorenzetti having at least 95% paper component as taught by Sins in order to provide the advantage of a packaging material that has improved recyclability.
Regarding claim 8, while there is no specific disclosure of the sealable material in terms of basis weight, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed basis weight of the sealable material depending on the desired adhesion, weight and cost factors depending on the desired end use of the packaging material.
Regarding claims 10-11, Lorenzetti discloses a tie layer that may comprise EMAA may be used as a binding layer between the BOPP core layer and the barrier layer and therefore between the BOPP core layer and the paper layer (i.e. an adhesive layer attaching the paper component to the polymeric film)(P9/L24-30). It is well-known that EMAA is water sensitive.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenzetti et al. (WO 2013/041469 A1), Sins (US 2009/0123677 A1) and Vinnicombe et al. (US 2018/0215510 A1), in view of Suter (US 4,337,862).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lorenzetti discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lorenzetti does not disclose that the sealable material is a pressure sensitive cold seal.
Suter discloses a paper-based packaging material comprising a sealable material and that heat sealable materials are equivalent and interchangeable with pressure sensitive cold sealing materials (abstract, C3/L10-25).
Lorenzetti and Suter are analogous art because they both teach about paper-based packaging materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a pressure sensitive cold seal material as taught by Suter as the sealable material of the packaging of Lorenzetti because they are equivalent and interchangeable and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenzetti et al. (WO 2013/041469 A1), Sins (US 2009/0123677 A1) and Vinnicombe et al. (US 2018/0215510 A1), in view of Simon (US 4,925,684).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lorenzetti discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lorenzetti does not disclose that the sealable material has a basis weight of from about 1 g/m2 to about 10 g/m2.
Simon discloses a food packaging having a sealable layer having a basis weight of 2-3 g/m2 (i.e. overlapping about 1 g/m2 to about 10 g/m2)(C4/L50-55).
Lorenzetti and Simon are analogous art because they both teach about food packaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of sealable material disclosed by Simon in the packaging of modified Lorenzetti because it is well known to do so and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known amount in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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.
/JAMES C YAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782