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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/01/2025 has been entered.
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) 15-18, 21-22 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2012/0040113) in view of Taoka et al. (US 2014/0121099).
In re claim 15: Sato et al. discloses a multilayer laminate capable of producing a tubular container ([0098]), comprising: at least one paper layer ([0052]),a sealable exposed polymer layer on one side of the at least one paper layer, and a polymer coating from an olefin-based material applied directly on the at least one paper layer on an other side of the at least one paper layer facing away from the sealable polymer layer ([0054] – [0057]), wherein the polymer coating is a protective polymer coating with a weight per area in the range from 0.5 g/m2 to 4.9 g/m2 ([0074]), and where the protective polymer coating is either exposed towards the outside or carries applied printing (see [0056], [0098], [0100] and [0103]).
Sato et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following specific limitation that is taught by Taoka et al.:
Taoka et al. teaches the provision of using a vinyl alcohol polymer barrier layer between the sealable exposed layer and the at least one paper layer for improving surface properties of substrates such as paper (clear coating agents, binders in pigment coating, coating agents (sealing agent) for a paper surface of release papers, and the like), materials for forming an ink-receiving layer in ink jet recording materials, materials for forming a coating layer such as a thermal coloring layer or an overcoat layer in thermal recording materials (see [0002] of Taoka et al.). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the multilayer laminate of Sato et al. with a vinyl alcohol polymer barrier layer as taught by Taoka et al. for the reasons discussed above.
In re claim 16: the protective polymer coating comprises at least one acid-modified olefin or consists of such ([0056] of Sato et al.).
In re claim 17: the protective polymer coating exhibits a weight per area in the range from 1 g/m2 to 2.5 g/m2 ([0074] of Sato et al.).
In re claim 18: the protective polymer coating carries applied printing which is formed from a layer of overprint varnish and a layer region of printing inks arranged between the overprint varnish layer and the protective polymer coating, where the overprint varnish is exposed with its surface facing away from the at least one paper layer (see [0056], [0074], [0098], [0100] and [0103] of Sato et al.).
In re claim 21: the overprint varnish is an acryl-based varnish ([0103] of Sato et al.).
In re claim 22: the sealable exposed polymer layer comprises a polyethylene and/or a cyclo-olefin copolymer or consists of such material (see [0056], [0065], [0088], and [0096] of Sato et al.).
In re claim 27: the laminate exhibits more than one paper layer, where one of the paper layers carries the barrier layer ([0065] -([0070] of Sato et al.).
Claim(s) 19-20, 24-25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2012/0040113) in view of Taoka et al. (US 2014/0121099) and in further view of West et al. (US 7,819,251). Sato et al. in view of Taoka et al. teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following specific limitations:
In re claim 19: the applied printing exhibits a thickness of less than 3 µm.
Sato et al. in view of Taoka et al. in view of West et al. teaches the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of a printing thickness of less than 3 µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a printing thickness of less than 3 µm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 20: the overprint varnish is an acryl-based varnish ([0103]).
In re claim 24: the laminate exhibits a weight per area in the range from 200 g/m2 to 450 g/m2.
Sato et al. in view of Taoka et al. in view of West et al. teaches the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of a laminate weight per area in the range from 200 g/m2 to 450 g/m2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a laminate weight per area in the range from 200 g/m2 to 450 g/m2, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 25: the weight per area of the at least one paper layer in the laminate lies in the range from 80 g/m2 to 350 g/m2.
Sato et al. in view of Taoka et al. in view of West et al. teaches the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of a laminate weight per area in the range from 80 g/m2 to 350 g/m2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a laminate weight per area in the range from 80 g/m2 to 350 g/m2, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 30: Sato et al. in view of Taoka et al. teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following specific limitation that is suggested by West et al.:
West et al. teaches the provision of a multilayer laminate tubular container which using a heavy thickness of paper depending on the desired rigidity of the tubular container in combination with very thin layers of protective coating starting at 0.0001mm. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multilayer laminate of Sato et al. with such a weight fraction of the paper as suggested by West et al. This combination teaches the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the total weight per area of the laminate is at least 75%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate at least one paper layer out of the total weight per area of the laminate is at least 75%, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2012/0040113) in view of Taoka et al. (US 2014/0121099) and in further view of Yoshida et al. (US 2018/0099787). Sato et al. in view of West et al. teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following specific limitation that is taught by Yoshida et al.:
In re claim 28: A tubular body formed from a laminate according to Claim 15, where the tubular body 10a comprises a tube laminate blank which is rolled about a tubular body longitudinal axis, where end regions of the tube laminate blank which face towards one another in the circumferential direction about the tubular body longitudinal axis are bonded with one another through sealing 11, forming a sealed seam 11 running in the direction along the tubular body 10a longitudinal axis, where the sealed seam 11 either i) is an overlap sealed seam (fig. 4a) in which the sealable polymer layer overlaps the protective polymer coating in an overlap region, where the overlap region extends in the circumferential direction and in the direction along the tubular body longitudinal axis and where the sealable polymer layer and the protective polymer coating are firmly bonded in the overlap region with one another (see [0092] and [0093] of Yoshida et al.), or ii) is a butt sealed seam, in which the end regions which face towards one another in forming a butt joint which proceeds in the direction along the tubular body longitudinal axis and radially away from the tubular body longitudinal axis, approach one another where the butt joint on at least one radial side with respect to the tubular body longitudinal axis is covered by a sealing strip which extends along the butt joint, spans the butt joint in the circumferential direction, and on each of the two circumferential sides of the butt joint is firmly bonded with an exposed surface section of the tube laminate in the end regions.
In re claim 29: a tube top 20 bonded with the tubular body 10a which exhibits at least one exposed surface from a polyolefin encircling the tubular body longitudinal axis, where an exposed surface of the tubular body 10a is firmly bonded through sealing with the encircling exposed surface of the tube top 20 (see [0093] of Yoshida et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed modify the multilayer laminate container of Sato et al. in view of Taoka et al. with the tube container as taught Yoshida et al. in order to allow users to squeeze products out of the container when in use (see [0006] of Yoshida et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights