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
Claims 1-8 and 17-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 22, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 9-16) in the reply filed on July 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai et al. (U.S. 2022/0001647). Regarding claim 9, Imai et al. teaches a container (“packaging bodies”; paragraph [0008]) for holding one or more products (paragraph [0009]), the container comprising a container body 100 (“packaging bodies”; paragraph [0008]) comprising a container wall (at lead line 50 in figure 5) extending at least partially around an interior of the container, a top end (adjacent lead line 100 in figure 5), a bottom end (opposite the top end; figure 5), and a barrier member 4 positioned in the interior of the container, the barrier blank comprising a base layer 4A, a barrier film layer 4B, 4C, a first functional polymer layer 4D, and a second functional polymer layer 4E configured to at least partially seal the laminate structure to the container wall 10 of the container (figure 4), the first functional polymer layer 4D reactive to the application of radiofrequency energy for promoting joining the second functional polymer layer to the container wall of the container (due to material disclosed for layer 4D in paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, the first functional polymer layer 4D is configured to at least partially melt when subjected to radiofrequency energy (inherent characteristic of material disclosed for layer 4D in paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 11, the barrier film layer 4B, 4C being adhered to the base layer 4A, the first functional polymer layer 4D being applied to the barrier film layer 4C, and the second functional polymer layer 4E being applied to the first functional polymer layer 4D (figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, the first functional polymer layer 4D comprises a copolymer of ethylene and methyl acrylate (paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 13, the copolymer of ethylene and methyl acrylate comprises above about 15% methyl acrylate by weight (paragraph [0101]).
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.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (U.S. 2022/0001647). Regarding claim 14, Imai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first functional polymer layer 4D being present in an amount of between about 2 g/m2 and about 50 g/m2. Imai et al. teaches that it is known to provide a material wherein the first functional polymer layer 4D is present in an amount of between about 0.1 g/m2 and about 2 g/m2 (see paragraph [0106]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the material of Imai et al. with the first functional polymer layer 4D is present in an amount of between about 2 g/m2 and about 50 g/m2, in order to improve the strength and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the second functional polymer layer 4E comprises one or more polyolefins (paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 16, the barrier film layer comprises a carrier film 4C and at least one barrier 4B deposited on the carrier film, the at least one barrier 4B selected from the group consisting of aluminum, silicone oxide, and aluminum oxide (paragraph [0072]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the layered structure.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736