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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 15 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are currently pending in the application. Claims 4-5 and 12-16 are withdrawn. The rejections of record from the office action dated 16 March 2026 not repeated herein have been withdrawn.
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 8-10 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 8-10, 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.
Regarding the limitation “the paper component forms an outer layer located at an exterior surface of the paper-based packaging film”, it is the examiner’s position that layers 22-24 (Fig. 2) could be considered to be the “paper-based packaging film” and therefore, the paper layer would be considered an outer layer located at an exterior surface of the paper-based packaging film. Alternatively, given that the outermost layer 25 is applied as a final step to make the final product (P 32/L15-25), it is the examiner’s position that before layer 25 is applied, the laminate meets the limitations of the instant claims (i.e. the paper component forms an outer layer located at an exterior surface of the paper-based packaging 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 claim 10, Lorenzetti discloses an adhesive layer that may comprise EMAA may be used as a binding layer between the BOPP core layer and the barrier layer. It would have been obvious to use EMAA as the adhesive between the paper layer and the barrier layer given that it is a known adhesive for use in the laminate (i.e. an adhesive layer attaching the paper component to the barrier material)(P9/L24-30). Doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish and entirely expected result. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the paper board layer of Lorenzetti does not form an outer layer located at an exterior surface of the paper-based packaging film as set forth in newly amended claim 1.
As set forth above, regarding the limitation “the paper component forms an outer layer located at an exterior surface of the paper-based packaging film”, it is the examiner’s position that layers 22-24 (Fig. 2) could be considered to be the “paper-based packaging film” and therefore, the paper layer would be considered an outer layer located at an exterior surface of the paper-based packaging film. Alternatively, given that the outermost layer 25 is applied as a final step to make the final product (P 32/L15-25), it is the examiner’s position that before layer 25 is applied, the laminate meets the limitations of the instant claims (i.e. the paper component forms an outer layer located at an exterior surface of the paper-based packaging film).
Regarding claim 10, applicant argues that the EMAA layer of Lorenzetti is between the BOPP layer and the barrier layer not the paper layer and the barrier layer.
As set forth above, Lorenzetti discloses an adhesive layer that may comprise EMAA may be used as a binding layer between the BOPP core layer and the barrier layer. It would have been obvious to use EMAA as the adhesive between the paper layer and the barrier layer given that it is a known adhesive for use in the laminate (i.e. an adhesive layer attaching the paper component to the barrier material)(P9/L24-30). Doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish and entirely expected result. It is well-known that EMAA is water sensitive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights