DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the submission filed 11/26/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romano US 2019/0351661 in view of Hjelt et al. US 2023/0023213.
Regarding claim 1:
Romano teaches a packaging material with a multi-layer structure (abstract) comprising: a structural substrate (“a”); at least one layer (“c”) for the release of an active agent with antimicrobial and/or antifungal activity ([0012]), comprising said active agent dispersed or dissolved in a biodegradable polymeric material, selected from the group consisting of a polysaccharide, polyhydroxyalkanoates and polybutylene succinate and mixtures thereof ([0060], chitosan is a well-known biodegradable polysaccharide), and at least one coating layer (“b”) on one side of the structural substrate, comprising nano-fillers ([0011]).
Romano does not teach the nano-fillers being nanocellulose, having a nanocellulose content of at least 90 wt. %.
Hjelt teaches a recyclable packaging material (abstract) that includes a coating layer that “includes nanocellulose as its main component based on the total dry weight of the closed cell foam coating layer. In some embodiments, the closed cell foam of the coating layer comprises in the range of 50-99.5 wt. %, preferably in the range of 60-99.5 wt. %, more preferably in the range of 65-98 wt. % of nanocellulose, based on the total dry weight of the closed cell foam.” ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the “nano-fillers” of Romano, by including at least 90 wt. % of nano-cellulose, as suggested by Hjelt, since Hjelt discloses that “cellulose-based packaging materials such as paper or paperboard instead of fossil-based synthetic polymers can reduce the carbon dioxide footprint and improve the recyclability of the packaging materials” ([0002]).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein said at least one coating layer comprising nanocellulose further comprises water or a polymer selected from polyhydroxyalkanoates, polybutylene succinate and polyacrylic polymers and mixtures thereof or a filler selected from hydrotalcite and montmorillonite and mixtures thereof, or an active agent having antimicrobial or antifungal properties, and wherein the nanocellulose content together with a content of said water, polymer, filler or active agent sum up to 100 wt. % of said at least one coating layer (Romano, see [0050]).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, comprising a structural substrate (Romano, “a”) comprising or consisting of a material selected from the group consisting of a polyhydroxyalkanoate or poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) and their co-polymers ([0103]), said structural substrate optionally including said active agent ([0010]) and wherein said at least one coating layer comprising nanocellulose is applied as a coating (“b”) to at least one face of the structural substrate and said layer for the release of the active agent is a surface layer (“c”) of the packaging material on its side that, in use, is intended to face a product to be packaged in said packaging material (clear from [0049] and FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein said active agent included in said at least one layer for the release of the active agent and/or in said structural substrate is selected from the group consisting of grapefruit seed extract, lemon zest or limonene essential oil, tea tree oil, cinnamon oil, thyme oil, ethanol powder and mixtures thereof (Romano, [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 4, as discussed above, wherein said active agent is contained in said at least one layer for the release of the active agent and/or in said structural substrate in quantities from 1 to 60% by weight referring to a weight of the biodegradable polymeric material ([0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein said at least one layer for the release of the active agent comprises ethanol powder and a biodegradable polymeric component selected from chitosan grafted with polyethylene glycol or with cyclodextrin, and a mixture of chitosan and polyethylene glycol (Romano, [0060]).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein said at least one coating layer comprising nanocellulose comprises cellulose nanofibers (Hjelt, [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 7, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein said at least one coating layer comprising nanocellulose includes an anti-microbial agent.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination of Romano and Hjelt, by providing the nanocellulose layer with the same or a different anti-microbial agent as Romano’s “c” layer ([0012]), since Romano discloses providing the agents to other layers (e.g., see [0015]), and doing so would provide the anti-microbial benefits to the outside of the package.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising a coating layer (Romano, “d”) having oxygen scavenging properties adapted to reduce oxygen concentration in a head space of a package made with the packaging material ([0081]).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 9, as discussed above, wherein said coating layer with oxygen scavenging properties is obtained from a biodegradable lacquer including iron or iron oxide ([0084]).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 9, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein said coating layer with oxygen scavenging properties is interposed between the structural substrate and said at least one layer for the release of the active agent.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to provide the another oxygen scavenging layer interposed between the structural substrate and the layer for the release of the active agent, in order to provide additional oxygen scavenging effect.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising [an additional] a barrier coating layer obtained with use of a varnish or polymeric lacquer, in a solvent or without solvent, including fillers of a phyllosilicate or of hydrotalcite, in an amount from 3 to 30% by weight referred to weight of the varnish or polymeric lacquer.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination of Romano and Hjelt, by providing an additional barrier coating layer obtained with use of a varnish or polymeric lacquer, in a solvent or without solvent, including fillers of a phyllosilicate or of hydrotalcite, in an amount from 3 to 30% by weight referred to weight of the varnish or polymeric lacquer, as described in [0050], in order to enhance the barrier effect of the material.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 13, as discussed above, wherein said varnish or polymeric lacquer comprises a biodegradable polymeric component selected from the group consisting of poly (ethylene vinyl alcohol) (EVOH) and poly (vinyl alcohol) (PVOH) ([0050]).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein in said at least one layer for the release of the active agent, the biodegradable polymeric material is a poly (hydroxyalkanoate) consisting of polyhydroxybutyrate and mixtures thereof ([0034]).
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1 comprising: a structural substrate (Romano, “a”) optionally including an active agent with antimicrobial and/or antifungal activity ([0010]), said at least one coating layer (“b”) comprising nanocellulose (addressed in rejection of claim 1), applied to one side of said structural substrate, said at least one layer (“c”) for the release of the active agent, applied as a surface layer on a side of the packaging material intended to face a packaged product (clear from [0049] and FIG. 2), and a coating layer (“d”) with oxygen scavenging properties for reducing oxygen concentration in a head space of the package ([0081]).
The combination does not teach the coating layer applied as an intermediate layer between said at least one layer for the release of the active agent and said structural substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to provide another oxygen scavenging layer interposed between the structural substrate and the layer for the release of the active agent, in order to provide additional oxygen scavenging effect.
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 16, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising a coating layer with gas-barrier properties, applied as a coating of said coating layer comprising nanocellulose on a side of the packaging material that in use is opposite with respect to the product packaged therein.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination of Romano and Hjelt, by providing the nanocellulose layer with a gas barrier layer similar to layer b) ([0049]), since this would allow for enhanced gas blocking between the nanocellulose layer and the substrate layer, prolonging the quality of the latter.
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches a package comprising a food product, particularly a bakery product, in a packaging material as set forth in claim 1 (Romano, [0022]).
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein said polysaccharide is selected from chitosan and mixtures thereof ([0077]).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Romano and Hjelt, as applied above, and further in view of Li et al. US 2020/0398246 and Tammaji et al. US 2006/0069197.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 9, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein said coating layer with oxygen scavenging properties is obtained from a solution comprising meso-porous silica, poly (ethylene vinyl alcohol) (EVOH), and iron.
Li discloses a material for an oxygen scavenging coating that is obtained from a solution comprising meso-porous silica, poly (ethylene vinyl alcohol) (EVOH), and iron ([0151]-[0152]; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the oxygen scavenging coating of the combination of Romano and Hjelt, by having it obtained from a solution comprising meso-porous silica, poly (ethylene vinyl alcohol) (EVOH), and iron, as taught by Li, since Li discloses this is done to “prolong the shelf life of food and incorporated with barrier polymer films to further improve the oxygen barrier” ([0152]).
The above references don’t teach the inclusion of sodium ascorbate, however, Tammaji teaches including sodium ascorbate as an additive in oxygen scavenging coatings for packaging materials since they “bind oxygen by oxidizing carbon-carbon double bonds” ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the coating of the combination of Romano, Hjelt, and Li, by adding sodium ascorbate to the solution, as taught by Tammaji, since this would provide additional oxygen scavenging properties to the material.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Romano and Hjelt, as applied above, and further in view of Burger et al. US 2011/0182951.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Romano and Hjelt teaches the packaging material of claim 16, as discussed above, further comprising a protective coating comprising an anti-microbial substance selected from silver ions, copper ions or ZnO particles as an external coating layer.
Burger discloses a coating for a substrate “which comprises antimicrobial ions, in particular silver ions” ([0234]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination of Romano and Hjelt by providing a protective coating comprising an anti-microbial substance such as silver ions, as taught by Burger, since this would enhance the anti-microbial efficiency of the packaging material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not persuasive. The remarks regarding Mohanty being a composite and not a coating, and the 90 wt.% nanocellulose are moot due to the new grounds of rejection made in this action, necessitated by amendment. The newly found Hjelt reference discloses using up to between 60%-99.9% of nanocellulose by weight in a related coating for a packaging material, which would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art that increasing nanocellulose content to 90% or more in the Romano material would lead to beneficial properties, among them being to “reduce the carbon dioxide footprint and improve the recyclability of the packaging materials” (Hjelt, [0002]).
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 extension fee 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 DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731