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 .
Withdrawn Objection/Rejections
The objection of claim 21 of record in the previous Office Action mailed 4/7/2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/6/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 7 of record in the previous Office Action mailed 4/7/2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/6/2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the second edge of the second polymeric layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fullerton (WO 2019/152718A1).
Regarding claim 21, Fullerton teaches an insulating material (Figs. 7-9) comprising a metallized polymeric layer including a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Figs. 7-8; metal layer 200 and polymer layer 198; page 16), a first edge, and a first thickness extending from the first side to the second side of the metallized polymeric layer (Figs. 7-8), a first polymeric layer (layer 194) including a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, a second edge sealed to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer (Fig. 9, edges 306, 308 and/or 310; page 20), and a second polymeric layer having a first side (layer 196; page 19), and a layer of air pockets (bubbles; page 18) having first ends (216) attached to the first side of the second polymeric layer and second ends (214) attached to the second side of the metallized polymeric layer (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 22, Fullerton discloses the metallized polymeric layer (Fig. 7) including a polymeric layer (polymer layer 198) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the first surface (surface 212) facing towards the first and second polymeric layers (layers 194 and 196), the second surface (surface 210) facing away from the first and second polymeric layers, and a metallic layer (metallic layer 200) on the second surface of the polymeric layer, the metallic layer having a third surface (surface 206) facing away from the polymeric layer (layer 198).
Regarding claim 28, Fullerton discloses the sealing of the second edge of the second polymeric layer to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer is by heat sealing (page 17, line 23 to col. 18, line 20).
Regarding claim 29, Fullerton discloses the second polymeric layer (layer 196) having a third edge and the third edge is sealed to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer and the second edge of the first polymeric layer (page 17, line 23 to col. 18, line 20).
Regarding claim 30, Fullerton discloses the second polymeric layer (layer 196) is not sealed to the metallized polymeric layer and the first polymeric layer, since there is no sealing at the areas including the bubbles and spaces between the bubbles).
.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 21, 22 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marzano (US 6,139,188).
Regarding claim 1, Marzano discloses an insulating material (Figs. 2a-2c, 7a-7b and Fig. 9), comprising a first polymeric layer having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (polymer layer 62), a first edge (Fig. 4 and Fig. 9), and a first thickness extending from the first side to the second side of the first polymeric layer (layer 62), a metallic layer (metal layer 60) at the first side of the first polymeric layer (layer 62), the metallic layer having a second thickness less than the first thickness (col. 4, lines 1-5), a second polymeric layer (layer 68) having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, and a second edge sealed to the first edge of the first polymeric layer (Fig. 4, 7a-7b and Fig. 9; col. 4, lines 55-60), a third polymeric layer having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (layer 64), and a layer of air pockets (bubbles 65) having first ends attached to the first side of the second polymeric layer (layer 68) and second ends attached to the second side of the first polymeric layer (layer 62).
Regarding claim 4, Marzano teaches the second polymeric layer (layer 68) including a third thickness extending from a first side to the second side of the second polymeric layer less than the first thickness (layer 62) and the second thickness (layer 60) summed together (Figs. 2b-2c).
Regarding claim 8, Marzano teaches the metallic layer (60) being an aluminum material (col. 4, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 21, Marzano teaches an insulating material (Figs. 2a-2c, Fig. 4, Figs. 7A-7B and Fig. 9) comprising a metallized polymeric layer including a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (plastic-aluminum sheet 63), a first edge (Figs. 7A-7B and Fig. 9), and a first thickness extending from the first side to the second side of the metallized polymeric layer (Figs. 2a-2c), a first polymeric layer (layer 68) including a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, a second edge sealed to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer (Figs. 4, 7a-7b and Fig. 9; col. 4, lines 55-60), and a second polymeric layer having a first side (layer 65), and a layer of air pockets (bubbles 65) having first ends attached to the first side of the second polymeric layer (layer 65) and second ends attached to the second side of the metallized polymeric layer (Figs. 2b-2c; col. 4, lines 6-37).
Regarding claim 22, Marzano discloses the metallized polymeric layer (63) including a polymeric layer (polymer layer 62) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the first surface facing towards the first and second polymeric layers (layers 68 and 64), the second surface facing away from the first and second polymeric layers, and a metallic layer (metallic layer 60) on the second surface of the polymeric layer, the metallic layer having a third surface facing away from the polymeric layer (layer 62).
Regarding claim 26, Marzano discloses the third polymeric layer (64) having a third edge (Fig. 2a-2c) and the third edge is sealed to the first edge of the first polymeric layer (62) and the second edge of the second polymer layer (68) [Fig. 4, margins 30 and 32; col. 1, lines 42-44 and col. 4, lines 55-60].
Regarding claim 27, Marzano discloses the third polymer layer (64) not being sealed to the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer, since there is no sealing at the areas including the bubbles and at the spaces between the bubbles).
Regarding claim 28, Marzano discloses the sealing of the second edge of the second polymeric layer (65) to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer (63) is by heat sealing (abstract; col. 1, lines 42-44).
Regarding claim 29, Marzano discloses the second polymeric layer (65) having a third edge and the third edge is sealed to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer (63) and the second edge of the first polymeric layer (Fig. 4, margins 30 and 32; col. 1, lines 42-44 and col. 4, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 30, Marzano discloses the second polymeric layer is not sealed to the metallized polymeric layer and the first polymeric layer, since there is no sealing at the areas including the bubbles and the spaces between the bubbles).
.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullerton (WO 2019/152718A1) in view of Beckett (US 4,398,994).
Regarding claim 1, Fullerton discloses an insulating material (Figs. 7-9), comprising a first polymeric layer having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (polymer layer 198), a first edge (Fig. 9, edge 306, 308 or 310), and a first thickness extending from the first side to the second side of the first polymeric layer, a metallic layer (layer 200) at the first side of the first polymeric layer (layer 198), a second polymeric layer having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (layer 194), and a second edge sealed to the first edge of the first polymeric layer (Fig. 9, edge 306, 308 or 310; page 20), a third polymeric layer having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (layer 196), and a layer of air pockets (bubbles) having first ends (216) attached to the first side of the second polymeric layer (layer 194) and second ends (214) attached to the second side of the first polymeric layer (layer 198).
Fullerton teaches the metallic layer can be very thin (page 1, lines 16-17), but fails to specifically teach the metallic layer having a thickness less than the first thickness of the first polymeric layer.
Beckett teaches that it is well known in the packaging art to utilize a metallized polymer film wherein the thickness of the metal film is smaller than the thickness of the polymer layer (col. 2, lines 10-24) for the purpose of forming a suitable packaging material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metallic layer in Fullerton to have a thickness that is smaller than the thickness of the first polymer layer as suggested by Beckett in order to form a suitable packaging material if so desired.
Regarding claims 3, 23 and 25, Fullerton fails to specifically teach the thickness of the metallic layer ranging from 200 Å to 350 Å. Beckett teaches that it is well known in the packaging art to utilize a metallized polymer film wherein the thickness of the metal film is about 10 to about 1000Å, preferably 300 to 600 Å (col. 2, lines 18-24) for the purpose of forming a suitable packaging material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metallic layer in Fullerton to have a thickness ranging from 200 Å to 350 Å as suggested by Beckett in order to form a suitable packaging material if so desired.
Regarding claim 4, Fullerton teaches the second polymeric layer (layer 194) including a third thickness extending from a first side to the second side of the second polymeric layer less than the first thickness (layer 198) and the second thickness (layer 200) summed together (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Fullerton discloses the metallic layer is an aluminum material (page 8, line 30).
Regarding claim 24, Fullerton fails to teach the metallized polymeric layer having a first thickness ranging from 3 mil to 4 mil. Beckett teaches that it is well known in the packaging art to utilize a metallized polymer film wherein the thickness of the metallized polymeric film is about 3 mil (col. 2, lines 10-24) for the purpose of forming a suitable packaging material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metallized polymeric layer in Fullerton to have a thickness of 3 mil as suggested by Beckett in order to form a suitable packaging material if so desired.
Regarding claim 26, Fullerton discloses the third polymeric layer has a third edge and the third edge is sealed to the first edge of the first polymeric layer and the second edge of the second polymeric layer (Fig. 7; col 17, line 23 to col. 18, line 20).
Regarding claim 27, Fullerton discloses the third polymeric layer is not sealed to the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer, since there is no sealing at the areas including the bubbles and the spaces between the bubbles.
Claims 2, 5, 6 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzano (US 6,139,188).
Regarding claims 2, 5 and 24, Marzano teaches the claimed insulating material as shown above and teaches the first thickness and the second thickness summed together being about 5 mil. Marzano fails to specifically teach the first thickness and the second thickness summed together ranging from 3 mil to 4 mil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses of the first polymeric layer and the metallic layer in Marzano to have the thicknesses summed together ranging from 3 mil to 4 mil, since 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 absence of showing unexpected results. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Marzano fails to teach the third thickness of the second polymeric layer being substantially equal to 2.5 mil and the third polymeric layer having a thickness being substantially equal to 2 mil. Marzano teaches the thickness of the first polymer layer (62) being 3 mil (col. 4, lines 3-4) which is close to 2 mil and 2.5 mil. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses of the second and third polymeric layers in Marzano to be substantially equal to 2.5 mil or substantially equal to 2 mil, if so desired, in order to form a suitable insulated pouch. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses of the second and third polymeric layers in Marzano to have a thickness substantially equal to 2.5 mil or substantially equal to 2 mil, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore obvious. MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzano as applied to claims 1 and 4-6 above, and further in view of Orologio (US 2007/0245664).
Marzano teaches the claimed insulating material as shown above and that each respective air pocket (bubble 65) of the plurality of air pockets has a cylindrical portion having a depth extending from a respective second end (Figs. 2a-2c). However, Marzano fails to teach a depth ranging from 0.3125 inch to 0.5 inch.
Orologio teaches that it is well known in the bubble packaging art to have bubbles having a depth ranging from 0.2-1cm, which includes 0.3125-0.394 inch (paragraph [0069]), for the purpose of providing sufficient insulating properties.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bubbles of the packaging material in Marzano to have a depth ranging from 0.3125 inch to 0.394 inch as suggested by Orologio in order to provide a packaging material with sufficient insulating properties.
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 21 and 22 anticipated by Fullerton
Applicant argues that “Fullerton does not disclose sealing the edges of the composite layers of its packaging material, it does not disclose the edge sealing limitation of claim 21 and therefore does not anticipate claim 21”.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. Fullerton teaches the polymeric layers (layers 194, 196 and 198) being coupled together “through any suitable process for coupling two polymeric layers together, such as by using a heat gun or other source of heat to melt the respective materials and weld them together” (see page 17, line 23 to col. 18, line 19). Thus, the polymeric layers are welded together to bond them together. Accordingly, the edges of these layers would be sealed together. Therefore, Fullerton teaches a second edge of a first polymeric layer sealed to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer as required by claim 21. As such, claim 21 is anticipated by Fullerton, and claim 22, which depends from claim 21, is also anticipated by Fullerton.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 21-22 anticipated by Marzano
Applicant argues that Marzano does not disclose sealing the edges of the individual layers of its composite sheet, and therefore does not disclose the sealing limitation of claim 1.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. Marzano teaches the edges of the inner and outer composite sheets (27 and 28) being welded together along the left and right side margins 30, 32 as shown in Fig. 4 (col. 4, lines 55-58), wherein each composite sheet can have the sheet structure of Fig. 2c. Marzano also discloses that the edges of the composite sheets are welded or otherwise secured together to form a pouch (col. 1, lines 42-47). Thus, Marzano teaches a second edge of the second polymeric layer sealed to the first edge of the first polymeric layer as required by claim 1, and a second edge of the first polymeric layer sealed to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer as required by claim 21. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 21 are anticipated by Marzano, and claims 4, 8 and 22, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 21, are also anticipated by Marzano.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8 and 23-25 as obvious over Fullerton in view of Beckett
Applicant argues that, as discussed above, Fullerton does not disclose the required edge sealing limitation of claim 21, and similarly does not disclose the required edge sealing limitation of claim 1.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. As discussed above for claim 21, Fullerton teaches the polymeric layers (layers 194, 196 and 198) being coupled together “through any suitable process for coupling two polymeric layers together, such as by using a heat gun or other source of heat to melt the respective materials and weld them together” (see page 17, line 23 to col. 18, line 19). Thus, the polymeric layers are welded together to bond them together. Accordingly, the edges of these layers would be sealed together. Therefore, Fullerton teaches a second edge of the second polymeric layer sealed to the first edge of the first polymeric layer as required by claim 1. Beckett was merely cited to teach that it is well known in the packaging art to utilize a metallized polymer film wherein the thickness of the metal film is smaller than a thickness of the polymer film, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metallic layer in Fullerton to have a thickness that is smaller than the thickness of the first polymer layer as suggested by Beckett in order to form a suitable packaging material if so desired. As such, claim 1 is unpatentable over Fullerton in view of Beckett, and claims 3, 4, 8 and 23-25, which depend from claim 1, are also unpatentable over Fullerton in view of Beckett.
Claims 2, 5, 6 and 24 as obvious over Marzano
Applicant argues that, as discussed above, Marzano does not disclose the required sealing limitations of claims 1 and 21, and therefore claims 2, 5, 6 and 24 which depend from either claim 1 or claim 22, are not obvious over Marzano.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. As discussed above, Marzano teaches the edges of the inner and outer composite sheets (27 and 28) being welded together along the left and right side margins 30, 32 as shown in Fig. 4 (col. 4, lines 55-58), wherein each composite sheet can have the sheet structure of Fig. 2c. Marzano also discloses that the edges of the composite sheets are welded or otherwise secured together to form a pouch (col. 1, lines 42-47). Thus, Marzano teaches a second edge of the second polymeric layer sealed to the first edge of the first polymeric layer as required by claim 1, and a second edge of the first polymeric layer sealed to the first edge of the metallized polymeric layer as required by claim 21. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 21 are anticipated by Marzano, and claims 2, 5, 6 and 24, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 21, are unpatentable over Marzano.
Claim 7 as obvious over Marzano in view of Orologio
Applicant argues that, as discussed above, Marzano does not disclose the required edge sealing limitation of claim 1, and Orologio does not disclose the edge sealing element required by claim 1. Orologio’s combination with Marzano therefore does not disclose all of the elements of claim 7 and this combination does not render claim 7 obvious.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. As discussed above, Marzano teaches the edges of the inner and outer composite sheets (27 and 28) being welded together along the left and right side margins 30, 32 as shown in Fig. 4 (col. 4, lines 55-58), wherein each composite sheet can have the sheet structure of Fig. 2c. Marzano also discloses that the edges of the composite sheets are welded or otherwise secured together to form a pouch (col. 1, lines 42-47). Thus, Marzano teaches a second edge of the second polymeric layer sealed to the first edge of the first polymeric layer as required by claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Marzano, and claim 7, which depend from claim 1, is unpatentable over Marzano. Orologio was merely cited to teach that it is well known in the bubble packaging art to have a bubble depth ranging from 0.2-1 cm and it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bubble depth of the bubbles in Marzano to range from 0.2-1 cm as suggested by Orologio in order to provide a packaging material with sufficient insulating properties. Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over Marzano in view of Orologio.
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 CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights