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 and Amendment Filed
Applicant’s response and amendment, filed December 16, 2025, has been entered.
Previously Set Forth Rejections
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 as set forth in the previous Office action has been overcome by amendments to claims 1, 5 and 7.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-8 as being obvious over JP4774587 is hereby withdrawn.
The following new grounds of rejection are set forth:
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4749050 (hereinafter JP ‘050 – see attached translation).
In regard to claims 1-6 and 8, JP ‘050 teaches a packaging bag for a chemical warmer (see Background Art section and heat generating part 12) comprised of a resin film layer and first and second vapor deposition film layers (see Fig. 1 and Best-Mode section). The first and second vapor deposition layers are comprised of aluminum vapor deposited in a thickness of 0.02 to 0.08 µm to obtain satisfactory oxygen barrier and water vapor barrier properties (see Best-Mode section) The resin film is made of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate or the like and the resin film can be a biaxially stretched polypropylene film (see Best-Mode section). The laminated film has an oxygen transmission (permeability) rate at 20 degrees C of 0.5 to 10 cc/m2 per day per atm (see Best-Mode section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention that the laminated film of JP ‘050 is capable of oxygen transmission rates at 50 degrees C of 11.4 to 62.8 cc/m2 per day per atm or at 40 degrees C of 5.7 to 26.7 cc/m2 per day per atm as the range disclosed by JP ‘050 is within the range at 40 degrees C (claim 2) and that the oxygen permeability rate would rise as the temperature rises. Furthermore, since the range discloses by JP ‘050 is at its highest at 10 cc/m2 per day per atm at a lower temperature, one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the oxygen permeability rate would not exceed 62.8 cc/m2 per day per atm in the film of JP ‘050. In regard to claim 7, see Figure 4 of JP ‘050.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights