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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden (see remarks, page 2, second para). This is not found persuasive for at least the following reasons. In the present case, restriction for examination purposes as indicated in the restriction action is proper because all these inventions listed in the Restriction action dated 10/20/2025 are independent or distinct for the reasons given therein and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their
different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their
recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing differentsearch queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to
another invention; and
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 are being examined on the merits in the present action. Claims 8-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “cold seal” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold seal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination, the examiner considers any sealable seal/coating/adhesive taught by the prior art that does not require specific heat/heating to become sealable as to read on the instantly claimed cold seal. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependency of claim 1.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/207918 to Chaturvedi (“Chaturvedi”) 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 (211) disposed on the inner surface (210) of the first film layer (202) (see Fig. 2, page 4, fourth para), wherein the ink layer (211) comprises titanium dioxide (page 5, last para, and page 6, first para, the layer 211 is of the material comprising titanium dioxide);
- 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 cold 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, and such sealable adhesive/coating that does not require heat/heating to be sealable is considered as to read on the instantly claimed cold seal adhesive. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 made of record in this Office Action).
PNG
media_image1.png
758
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 3, Chaturvedi teaches the suitable material for its first film layer includes polyethylene (PE) (page 8, last para), which is of the same material as that of the instant application for the first film layer (see instant specification, para [0021], the first film layer may be a polyethylene film.
Chaturvedi is silent as to the first film layer is a cold seal adhesive release film.
However, it is expected that the first film layer of Chaturvedi would possess the same or similar properties, i.e., such as being a cold seal adhesive release film, as the instantly claimed first film layer, because the first film layer of Chaturvedi and the instantly claimed first film layer are identical or substantially identical in composition (as discussed above). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01.
Regarding claim 4, Chaturvedi teaches wherein the cold seal adhesive is patterned applied (page 8, second para; Chaturvedi teaches the second film layer 206 includes sealable adhesive/coating on the surface, such sealable adhesive/coating that does not require heat/heating to be sealable is considered as to read on the instantly claimed cold seal adhesive; and in Chaturvedi, the cold sealable adhesive/coating is applied to the surface, i.e., pattern of entire surface, of the second film layer, and is considered being patterned applied meeting the claimed limitations).
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 6, Chaturvedi teaches the suitable material for its first film layer includes polyethylene (PE) (page 8, last para), which is of the same material as that of the instant application for the first film layer (see instant specification, para [0021], the first film layer may be a polyethylene film.
Chaturvedi is silent as to the outer surface of its first film layer does not adhere to the cold seal adhesive. However, it is expected that the outer surface of its first film layer of Chaturvedi would possess the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed outer surface of the first film layer, i.e., such as the outer surface of its first film layer does not adhere to the cold seal adhesive, because the first film layer of Chaturvedi and the instantly claimed first film layer are identical or substantially identical in composition (as discussed above). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01.
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.
Conclusion
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