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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noishiki et al. (US 2024/0309588) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2017/0009034).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 13 and 14, Noishiki et al. teaches base paper for vapor deposition paper that can provide excellent barrier properties (See Abstract) comprising paper substrate, resin layer, i.e. first resin layer, a vapor deposition layer, and an overcoat layer, i.e. second resin layer, (paragraph [0038], [0098], [0102]), and wherein a thickness of the paper base is 5 to 150 μm (paragraph [0051]), which encompasses the claimed range of 20 to 40 μm and a density of the paper base is 0.5g/cm3 to 1.2g/cm3 (paragraph [0052]) which overlaps the claimed range of 0.81g/cm3 to 1.17g/cm3. Noishiki et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the deposition layer is 2 to 1000 nm (paragraph [0101]) which encompasses the claimed range of 30 nm or more and 100 nm or less and the deposition layer is any of an aluminum layer, a silicon oxide layer, and an aluminum oxide layer (paragraph [0099]). Noishiki et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the overcoat layer, i.e. second resin layer is 0.1 to 10 μm (paragraph [0111]).
Noishiki et al. discloses the overcoat layer can have a heat seal layer containing a thermoplastic resin (paragraphs [0166]-[0167]) but fails to teach the second resin layer is a layer as claimed.
However, Suzuki et al. teaches a gas barrier film comprising a paper base material (See Abstract, paragraph [0148]) and a heat-sealable resin layer comprising acid modified polyolefin-based resins that are modifications of these resins with unsaturated carboxylic acids such as acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic anhydride or fumaric acid (paragraph [0207]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include acid modified polyolefin-based resins in the heat seal layer of Noishiki et al. in order to effectively melt by heat to allow mutual fusion (Suzuki et al., paragraph [0207]).
Given that Noishiki et al. in view of Suzuki et al. teaches a gas barrier laminate comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the gas barrier laminate would necessarily have properties regarding water vapor permeability as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the limitation that the second resin layer is a layer “obtained from a polyolefin aqueous dispersion”. It is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Noishiki et al. in view of Suzuki et al. meets the requirements of the claimed second resin layer, Noishiki et al. in view of Suzuki et al. clearly meets the requirements of present claims.
Regarding claim 5, Noishiki et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the overcoat layer, i.e. second resin layer is 0.1 to 10 μm (paragraph [0111]) which encompasses the claimed range of 2.5 μm or more and 7 μm or less.
Regarding claim 6, Noishiki et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the overcoat layer, i.e. second resin layer is 0.1 to 10 μm (paragraph [0111]) and wherein a thickness of the paper base is 5 to 150 μm (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Noishiki et al. teaches wherein the density of the paper base is 0.5g/cm3 to 1.2g/cm3 (paragraph [0052]) which overlaps the claimed range of 1.0g/cm3 to 1.17g/cm3.
Regarding claim 8, Noishiki et al. teaches the vapor deposition paper can be used as a packaging material for food such as coffee, confectionery, and milk, a drug medicine, a medical product, an electronic part, and the like, i.e. a wrapping material.
Regarding claim 9, Noishiki et al. teaches the paper substrate having a basis weight of 20-500 g/m2 (paragraph [0050]), the clay coat having a basis weight of 5-30 g/m3 (paragraph [0063]), the resin layer having a basis weight of 0.1-10 g/m2 (paragraph [0087]), and the overcoat layer having a basis weight of 0.1-10 g/m2 (paragraph [0110]). Therefore, it is calculated that the weight of the paper substrate is 28% (20/70) to 99% (500/505.2) of the weight of the base paper. Although there is no disclosure of the weight of the vapor deposition layer, given that the thickness of the vapor deposition layer is in nm, i.e. would have small basis weight as compared to the other layers of the base paper, and given that the paper substrate can include up to 99% of the weight of the base paper, even with the inclusion of the weight of the vapor deposition layer, the weight of the paper substrate would clearly still overlap that presently claimed.
Regarding claim 11, given that Noishiki et al. teaches gas barrier laminate comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the gas barrier laminate would necessarily have a water vapor permeability as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 12, Noishiki et al. teaches wherein the heat seal layer, i.e. second resin layer is the outermost layer of the gas barrier film (paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Noishiki et al. teaches wherein resin layer contains a water-suspendable polymer, such as an olefin-unsaturated carboxylic acid-based copolymer such as an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer and an ethylene-methacrylic acid copolymer (paragraphs [0067]-[0068]), i.e. polyolefin.
It is noted limitations regarding that the first resin layer is a layer “obtained from a polyolefin aqueous dispersion” is a process limitation. Analogous reasoning applies as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to narrow density of paper base and included “wherein a thickness of the deposition layer is 30nm or more and 100nm or less, and the deposition layer is an aluminum layer, wherein a thickness of the second resin layer is 2.5µm or more and 8µm or less, and the second resin layer is a layer obtained from a polyolefin aqueous dispersion, wherein an initial water vapor permeability of the gas barrier laminate measured by an isobaric method under the condition of a temperature of 40°C and a relative humidity of 90% is 10g/m² day or less, and wherein the gas barrier laminate has a property of exhibiting less than a 2 factor increase in water vapor permeability after the gas barrier laminate is folded from an original configuration in which the gas barrier laminate is not bent such that the second resin layer is positioned at an outermost side of the folded gas barrier laminate and then the gas barrier laminate is returned to the original configuration.” Applicant amended ranges recited in claims 5-7, cancelled claims 3-4 and added new claims 12-18.
Applicant argues that Noishiki does not disclose the second resin layer is a layer obtained from a polyolefin aqueous dispersion, as presently claimed.
However, it is agreed, which is why Suzuki et al. is used to teach the material of the second resin layer. Therefore, given that Noishiki et al. in view of Suzuki et al. teaches a gas barrier laminate comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the gas barrier laminate would necessarily have properties regarding water vapor permeability as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant submits that it is extremely difficult to prepare an Additional Comparative Example as requested by the Examiner, at least because Applicant has been unable obtain paper having the exact same properties as one of the Examples while having a different thickness, and Applicant submits such paper does not appear to be commercially available. For at least these reasons, Applicant cannot prepare an additional Comparative Example.
However, it is noted that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the inability to prepare additional comparative examples due to commercially unavailability of specific paper thicknesses must be supported by a declaration or affidavit.
Applicant argues that the thickness and materials of the first resin layer are not critical to the effect of maintaining the post-folding WVTR at less than twice the initial value and submits a Declaration. Applicant submits the presently claimed range of thickness of the paper base is critical.
The data provided by Applicant is sufficient to establish that the thickness and materials of the first resin layer are not critical to the effect of maintaining the post-folding WVTR at less than twice the initial value.
However, the data remains unpersuasive given that the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the present claims. Specifically, there is no data at the upper and lower end points of the thickness of the paper base, i.e. 20 µm and 40 µm. Further, there is no data at the upper end point of the thickness of the deposition layer, i.e. 100 µm.
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 CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights