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 Amendments/Arguments
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed 8/12/2026.
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 8-22 were withdrawn. Claim 1 is amended.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of present claims 1-7 as being unpatentable over WO2016/207918 to Chaturvedi (“Chaturvedi”) in view of Maksymkiw et al. (US 7,695,809; “Maksymkiw”) and further in view of EP 2257430 to Toft et al. (“Toft”) have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made based on Chaturvedi, Maksymkiw and Toft in view of newly discovered reference Paduan et al. (WO 2015/123462), as discussed in detail below.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/207918 to Chaturvedi (“Chaturvedi”) in view of Paduan et al. (WO 2015/123462) and Maksymkiw et al. (US 7,695,809; “Maksymkiw”) and further in view of EP 2257430 to Toft et al. (“Toft”).
Regarding claim 1, Chaturvedi teaches a packaging structure (the packaging laminate 102 of Chaturvedi, see Fig. 2 below, page 4, fourth and fifth paragraphs) comprising:
- a first film layer (the film 202) comprising an outer surface and an inner surface (Fig. 2, the film 202 having outer surface 208 and inner surface 210, page 4, fourth and fifth paragraphs);
– an ink layer disposed on the inner surface (i.e., the layer 211) of the first film layer (202) (see Fig. 2, page 4, fourth para, page 5, second para),
- an oxygen barrier coating (page 6, third para, Fig. 2, the film 204 having a gas/oxygen barrier layer 213 that is of EVOH is considered equivalent to the instantly claimed oxygen barrier coating) disposed adjacent the ink layer (211) (see Fig. 2, the layer of 204 is disposed adjacent the ink layer 211, meeting the claimed limitations);
- a second film layer (the film 206) adhesively joined to the oxygen barrier coating (204) (see Fig. 2, page 7, last para, and page 8, first para; the film 206 adhesively joined/laminated to the oxygen barrier coating 204, meeting the claimed limitations), wherein the second film layer (the film 206) is metalized polyethylene (page 7, last para, and page 8, last para, the film 206 includes metalized film, of which Chaturvedi teaches the suitable materials for film 206/217 includes polyethylene (PE), i.e., metalized polyethylene);
- a seal adhesive applied to the second film layer (216) opposite the oxygen barrier coating (page 8, second para; the surface 218 of the second film layer 206 (i.e., opposite the oxygen barrier coating) is sealable with the inclusion of sealable adhesive/coating on the surface; also, Chaturvedi teaches as in one of its embodiments that the sealable surface 218 is not heat sealable, i.e., does not require heat to become sealable).
PNG
media_image1.png
758
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chaturvedi teaches the inner surface layer (211) of the first film layer (202) is suitable for receiving printed material (i.e., text, images), and that the surface contemplates reverse printing (page 5, second para). However, Chaturvedi does not specifically teach the inclusion of a specific ink layer comprises white pigment containing titanium dioxide particles, as instantly claimed.
In the same field of packing materials, Paduan teaches reverse printing of polymeric packaging films and the use of white pigment layer to provide opacity and function as a light barrier, and to improve the appearance of printed packaging (para [0001]-[0004]). Paduan teaches a white pigment composition comprising titanium dioxide particles (para [0016] [0018] [0020]) and teaches using the white pigment composition comprising titanium dioxide particles in a reverse-printed film before laminating the film to another film (para [0016] [0018] [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi in view the teachings of Paduan, to include a white pigment containing ink layer comprising titanium dioxide particles as taught by Paduan on selected portions of Chaturvedi’s metallized surface layer (211), for the benefit of providing an opaque white background and improve the visual contrast of printed information while retaining transparent regions for reviewing printed material (i.e., text, images) as desired, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging structure including a layer/an ink layer disposed on the inner surface of the first film layer of the laminate and that the layer/an ink layer comprising a white pigment containing titanium dioxide particles.
Modified Chaturvedi does not specifically teach the inclusion of a cold seal adhesive, as instantly claimed.
In this regard, Chaturvedi teaches the inclusion of a seal adhesive applied to the second film layer (216) opposite the oxygen barrier coating (page 8, second para). Chaturvedi teaches as in one of its embodiments that the sealable surface 218 is not heat sealable (page 8, second para). Chaturvedi also teaches that its seal adhesive/sealable coating may be replace buy any other sealable coating approved for food/medical application (page 8, second para).
Maksymkiw teaches a packaging laminate article suitable for medical and/or food applications and the method of preparing the laminate (col. 1, lines 11-17 and col. 3, lines 20-27, col. 12, lines 29-35). Maksymkiw teaches the inclusion of a cold seal adhesive applied to the laminate substrate to provides a packaging laminate article includes that provides a packaging laminate that is non-blocking and pressure sealable at ambient temperatures (col. 1, lines 11-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi in view the teachings of Maksymkiw, to replace the seal adhesive of Chaturvedi with a cold seal adhesive taught by Maksymkiw to the second film layer (216) opposite the oxygen barrier coating of the packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi, because Chaturvedi also teaches that its seal adhesive/sealable coating may be replace buy any other sealable coating approved for food/medical application (page 8, second para of Chaturvedi), for the benefit of providing a packaging laminate that is non-blocking and pressure sealable at ambient temperatures as taught by Maksymkiw (col. 1, lines 11-17 of Maksymkiw). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
As discussed above, Chaturvedi teaches the inclusion of an oxygen barrier coating (page 6, third para, Fig. 2, the layer of 204 having a gas/oxygen barrier layer 213). But Chaturvedi does not specifically teach its oxygen barrier coating comprising polyvinyl alcohol, as instantly claimed. In this regard, it is noted that Chaturvedi teaches the inclusion of an oxygen barrier coating (the barrier coating 213) is of EVOH (page 6, third and fourth para).
Toft teaches a packaging laminate including a gas barrier layer (para [0001] [0009]). Toft teaches that polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and EVOH are among the known suitable materials for gas barrier coating/layer, and that polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) provides good oxygen barrier properties and provides good odour barrier properties (para [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi in view the teachings of Toft, to replace the gas barrier coating layer of Chaturvedi that is of EVOH, with a gas barrier coating layer of polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) as taught by Toft, because Toft teaches that polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and EVOH are among the known suitable materials for gas barrier coating layer and that polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) provides good oxygen barrier properties and provides good odour barrier properties (para [0009]), to provide a packaging structure laminate with good oxygen barrier properties and good odour barrier properties, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging structure that is the same as instantly claimed. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Chaturvedi teaches wherein the first film layer comprises polyethylene (page 8, last para, Chaturvedi teaches the suitable materials for the first film 202/209 includes polyethylene).
Regarding claim 5, Chaturvedi teaches its packaging structure is recyclable (page 8, third para, i.e., easy to recycle), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Chaturvedi teaches its packaging structure may include additional adhesive layers as desired to provide adhesion between adjacent layers (page 7, first para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi, to further include an adhesive layer disposed between the oxygen barrier coating (the film 204 having a gas/oxygen barrier layer 213 that is of EVOH of Chaturvedi) and the second film layer (the film 206 of Chaturvedi), to provide desired adhesion between adjacent layers as taught by Chaturvedi (page 7, first para), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging structure that is the same as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaturvedi in view of Paduan and Maksymkiw and Toft as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wilkie (US 5,985,426).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Chaturvedi in view of Paduan and Maksymkiw and Toft as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Chaturvedi teaches its packaging structure laminate includes a first film layer (page 4, fourth and fifth paragraphs, and page 8, last para).
Wilkie teaches a multilayer packaging film (col. 1, lines 35-50, col. 2, lines 28-35). Wilkie teaches the multilayer packaging film having an exterior surface that is a cold seal release surface that possess excellent cold seal release, good anti-blocking characteristic, and good lamination and ink bonds, which film surfaces do not poison cold seal cohesive properties after the surface been in contact with each other (col. 2, lines 28-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi in view the teachings of Wilkie, to provide the outer surface of the first film layer of the packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi with an outward facing cold seal adhesive release surface as taught by Wilkie, to prevent unwanted adhesion to the cold-seal adhesive on the opposition surface during storage/roll storage and unwinding, while preserving the adhesive’s subsequent sealing performance, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging structure that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Chaturvedi teaches its packaging structure laminate includes a first film layer (page 4, fourth and fifth paragraphs, and page 8, last para).
Wilkie teaches a multilayer packaging film (col. 1, lines 35-50, col. 2, lines 28-35). Wilkie teaches the multilayer packaging film having an exterior surface that is a cold seal release surface that possess excellent cold seal release, good anti-blocking characteristic, and good lamination and ink bonds, which film surfaces do not poison cold seal cohesive properties after the surface been in contact with each other (col. 2, lines 28-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi in view the teachings of Wilkie, to provide the outer surface of the first film layer of the packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi with an outward facing cold seal adhesive release surface as taught by Wilkie, to prevent unwanted adhesion to the cold-seal adhesive on the opposition surface during storage/roll storage and unwinding, while preserving the adhesive’s subsequent sealing performance, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging structure having the outer surface of its first film layer does not adhere to the cold seal adhesive.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaturvedi in view of Paduan and Maksymkiw and Toft as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang (US 5,616,400).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Chaturvedi in view of Paduan and Maksymkiw and Toft as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Chaturvedi teaches inclusion of a cold seal adhesive (taught by Maksymkiw) applied to the second film layer (216) opposite the oxygen barrier coating.
Zhang teaches a cold seal adhesive suitable for packaging material (col. 1, lines 5-15, col. 4, lines 10-15). Zhang teaches applying the cold seal adhesive in a pattern (i.e., strips form) in desired regions for controlled placement of cold seal adhesive in desired sealing regions (col. 2, lines 3-11, col. 4, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified packaging structure laminate of Chaturvedi (modified in view of Maksymkiw as discussed above), to apply the cold seal adhesive in a pattern as taught by Zhang (col. 2, lines 3-11, col. 4, lines 10-15), to selectively position the cold seal adhesive in regions intended for sealing for controlled placement of cold seal adhesive to avoid unnecessary adhesive coverage of non-sealing regions, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging structure that is the same as instantly claimed.
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 YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights