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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 08, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment and response filed on January 08, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10 are pending.
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 1, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-201839 A (JP ‘839) in view of NIU et al. (US Pub 2015/0352877 A1) and one of WO2021/010040 A1 (WO ‘040), Urscheler et al. (US Pub 2005/0039871), or Carvagno et al. (US Pub 2018/0282449).
With respect to claim 1, JP ‘839 discloses a laminate comprising a paper substrate (pg 4, line 26); a coating layer containing a polyolefin resin (pg 2, line 24) disposed directly on the paper substrate; and a plurality of particles fixed to the coating layer (pg 2, line 7). Claim 1 further requires “wherein the particle diameter of the particles is greater than a thickness of the coating layer.” The BRI for this limitation reads on the thickness of any part of the coating layer and does not require that the average particle size is greater than coating layer, i.e., reads on just some of the particles having a diameter greater than the thickness of the coating layer. JP ‘839 discloses that the thickness of the coating layer (L1) and volume average particle diameter (L2) satisfy the following equation: 0.1≤L1/L2<1. Further, the Figure clearly shows that the particles have a diameter greater than a thickness of the coating. For example, see the area between the particles depicted with an arrow below. Thus, JP ‘839 discloses this claim limitation as well as the ratio claimed in claim 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
92
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the newly added limitations with respect to the coating layer thickness and average particle diameter, JP ‘839 discloses using a coating layer and particles having a diameter within these claimed ranges (Tables 3 and 4).
Regarding the limitation that a clay coating is disposed on the paper substrate, JP ‘839 discloses that the substrate, i.e., base sheet, is not particularly limited and does specifically disclose the use of a paper base sheet (pg 4, line 26). WO ‘040 discloses a paper laminate wherein the paper layer preferably includes a clay coat layer in order to enhance the sealing and smoothing of the paper base material (pg 4, 2nd to last paragraph). Additionally, Urscheler and Carvagno disclose that it is known in the art to use clay-coated paper as substrates for adhesive tapes. See Urscheler (Example 7, Table 10, [0019]) and Carvagno [0104]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a clay coating to the paper base sheet of JP ‘839, motivated by the desire to obtain a laminate having desired smoothness properties, as taught by WO ‘040, and/or to select a conventional known substrate material for an adhesive laminate, as taught by Urscheler and Carvagno.
JP ‘839 does not disclose using polyolefin particles. NIU et al., also directed to the coated paper art, discloses a coated paper wherein large diameter polyolefin, i.e., polypropylene or polyethylene, particles are used [0018]. NIU et al. disclose that using large was particles significantly improves the scratch resistance of the laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the large diameter polyolefin or paraffin wax particles of LIU et al. in the laminate of JP ‘839 motivated by the desire to obtain a coated paper having enhanced scratch resistance.
JP ‘839 does not specifically disclosed the claimed heat-seal strength using the claimed measurement steps of claim 3. However, JP ‘839 does disclose that the laminate exhibits sufficient heat-seal properties and adhesive strength (pg 4, lines 41-55) and Tables 3 and 4 show examples having a heat seal adhesive strength of 2.1 N/15 mm or more using a different heat-seal strength. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the heat-seal properties would inherently be similar absent some evidence to the contrary. That is, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claim 6, JP ‘839 discloses that the filler is present in an amount from 0.1-5 wt % (pg 2, line 9).
With respect to claim 7, JP ‘839 discloses winding of the laminate (pg 2, line 14) which implies that the laminate can be formed into a roll.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 10 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. None of the prior art documents of record disclose or suggest the claimed laminate as set forth in claim 1, wherein the peeling strength is 0.1 N/15 mm or less as measured through steps (a1)-(c1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument that WO ‘040 teaches away from providing a polyolefin coating directly on a clay-coated paper is not persuasive. The benefits of using a clay-coated paper layer as set forth in WO ‘040, i.e., to enhance the sealing and smoothing of the paper base material, would be expected to be achieved in both embodiments with and without a vapor-deposited layer present between the paper substrate and polyolefin containing coating layer. That is, WO ‘040 recognizes that a clay-coated paper enhances the smoothness of the paper. Moreover, Urscheler and Carvagno have been added to the pending obviousness rejection as evidence that the use of clay-coated paper backings are conventional in the adhesive laminate art.
The argument with respect to the unexpected properties of the claimed laminate is partially persuasive. As set forth above, the argument with respect to suppressing fiber peeling in high temperature environments, i.e., the test of claims 2 and 10, is persuasive. However, the argument with respect to the heat-seal strength is not persuasive for the reasons detailed above in paragraph 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781