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REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
All previous rejections have been withdrawn.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
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, 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2012-101838 in view of JP2012-223942 and JP2002-274594.
JP2012-101838 discloses a packaging bag for directly packaging nuggets obtained by crushing polysilicon is constituted from a multilayer film in which an innermost layer is a polyethylene film to which additives have not been added and discloses a package in which said nuggets are filled in said packaging bag (corresponds to instant claim 6) (paragraphs [0001 – 0003], [0017 – 0019], [0027]).
JP2012-101838 does not disclose a multi-layer film in which an additive-free polyethylene-based resin layer is disposed in an innermost layer, and, on the polyethylene-based resin layer, at least a gas barrier layer made from SiO2 and a reinforcing material layer are stacked.
JP2012-223942 discloses a layered product for a packaging bag, which is suitable for packaging electronic material parts, is obtained using a polyethylene film containing no additives in an innermost layer, and discloses a barrier film on which silicon dioxide has been vapor deposited and an intermediate layer comprising a polyamide such as Nylon 6 or Nylon 6,6 for supplementing the mechanical strength of the layered product (this corresponds to instant claim 3) as other layers (paragraphs [0001], [0007] and [0031 – 0038] and Fig. 1) for the purpose of providing improved barrier properties.
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 a multi-layer film in which an additive-free polyethylene-based resin layer is disposed in an innermost layer, and, on the polyethylene-based resin layer, at least a gas barrier layer and a reinforcing material layer are stacked in JP2012-101838 in order to provide improved barrier properties as taught or suggested by JP2012-223942.
JP2012-101838 discloses wherein the crushed polysilicon material packed has an average maximum piece length of 5 mm to 150 mm (paragraphs [0001 – 0003], [0017 – 0019], [0027]).
JP2012-101838 does not disclose wherein the reinforcing material layer is disposed in an outermost layer in the multi-layer film.
JP2002-274594 discloses a packaging bag suitable for packaging an electronic component comprises a laminated film obtained by laminating a base material film, a barrier layer and a heat sealing layer, and indicates that the base material film, which is disposed as an outermost layer, comprises a polyamide resin such as Nylon 6 or Nylon 6,6 (paragraphs [0001], [0007 – 0009], [0014] and Fig. 1) for the purpose of providing improved barrier and mechanical properties.
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 reinforcing material layer is disposed in an outermost layer in the multi-layer film in JP2012-101838 in order to provide improved barrier and mechanical properties as taught or suggested by JP2002-274594.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2012-101838 in view of JP2012-223942 and JP2002-274594, as applied to claims 1, 3 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 2017/0233174).
JP2012-101838 does not disclose wherein the multi-layer film has a piercing strength of not less than 10 N measured in conformity to JIS-Z1707 and a double-packaging polysilicon package comprising the polysilicon package enclosed in an outer bag made of a polyethylene-based resin film.
Yoshimura discloses wherein the multi-layer film has a piercing strength of not less than 10 N measured in conformity to JIS-Z1707 and a double-packaging polysilicon package comprising the polysilicon package enclosed in an outer bag made of a polyethylene-based resin film (paragraphs [0012 – 0020], [0041], [0084 – 0089] and Table 1) for the purpose of providing improved damage reduction.
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 multi-layer film has a piercing strength of not less than 10 N measured in conformity to JIS-Z1707 and a double-packaging polysilicon package comprising the polysilicon package enclosed in an outer bag made of a polyethylene-based resin film in JP2012-101838 in order to provide improved damage reduction as taught or suggested by Yoshimura.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments of 12/29/25 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant’s summary of the teachings of references 1-4 are acknowledged.
Applicant argues, “…even if the technical contents of References 2 to 4 are applied to the subject-matter disclosed in Reference 1, it is not obvious to use a gas barrier layer, which is a vapor-deposited film of silicon oxide, as an intermediate layer and to dispose a reinforcing material layer in an outermost layer, thereby effectively preventing breakage of the gas barrier layer serving as the intermediate layer while exhibiting an effect of preventing contamination of the crushed polysilicon material from immediately after packaging.”
The examiner disagrees. JP2002-274594 (reference 3) discloses a packaging bag suitable for packaging an electronic component comprises a laminated film obtained by laminating a base material film, a barrier layer and a heat sealing layer, and indicates that the base material film, which is disposed as an outermost layer, comprises a polyamide resin such as Nylon 6 or Nylon 6,6 (paragraphs [0001], [0007 – 0009], [0014] and Fig. 1) for the purpose of providing improved barrier and mechanical properties. Clearly, having a barrier layer as the intermediate layer is obvious and well known in the art. Furthermore, once modified JP2012-101838 (reference 1) is provided with an outer reinforcement layer according to the teachings of JP2002-274594 (reference 3) the silicon oxide barrier layer of JP2012-101838 (reference 1) becomes an intermediate layer.
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 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
March 10, 2026