DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are amended. New claims 11-16 are added. Claims 1-16 are pending and under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US 2019/0270289 A1).
Okamoto et al. disclose a paper barrier material (equivalent to the gas barrier paper packaging material of the claimed invention) having excellent gas barrier property as well as excellent water vapor barrier property, comprising a water vapor barrier layer (equivalent to the adhesive layer of the claimed invention) and a gas barrier layer (equivalent to the barrier coating layer of the claimed invention) provided on a paper base material (equivalent to the paper substrate layer of the claimed invention) in this order. Multiples coating layers can be provided on the paper barrier material. The water vapor barrier layer contains a water vapor barrier resin and a water repellent wherein the water vapor barrier resin may be a styrene-butadiene, styrene-acrylic, ethylene-vinyl acetate, butadiene-methyl methacrylate, vinyl acetate-butyl acrylate copolymer or any of various other copolymers, maleic anhydride copolymer, acrylate-methyl methacrylate copolymer or other synthetic adhesive, which may be used alone, or two or more of them may be combined. These resins can be combined with casein (meeting the limitations of claims 11, 12, and 13). The coating quantity of the water vapor barrier layer is preferably 3 g/m2 or greater (meeting the limitations of claim 5). The gas barrier layer contains water-soluble polymers and examples include completely saponified polyvinyl alcohol, partially saponified polyvinyl alcohol, ethylene copolymer polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, starch, methyl cellulose, carboxy methyl cellulose, sodium alginate, etc. Among these, polyvinyl alcohol and carboxy methyl cellulose are preferred, while polyvinyl alcohol is more preferred, from the viewpoint of gas barrier property (meeting the limitations of claims 3, 4, and 15). Preferably a pigment is contained in the gas barrier layer from the viewpoint of gas barrier property. For the pigment used in the gas barrier layer, kaolin, clay, engineered kaolin, delaminated clay, ground calcium carbonate, precipitated calcium carbonate, mica, talc, titanium dioxide, barium sulfate, calcium sulfate, zinc oxide, silicate, silicate salt, colloidal silica, satin white, mica, or other inorganic pigment, or solid, hollow or core-shell type organic pigment, etc., may be used alone, or two or more of them may be combined (meeting the limitations of claim 16). The coating quantity of the gas barrier layer is 0.2 g/m2 or greater (meeting the limitations of claim 6). Okamoto et al. also discloses a laminate layer constituted by a polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl acetate polymer, bio-derived film, biodegradable film, etc., (equivalent to the sealant layer of the claimed invention and meeting the limitations of claim 10) which may be provided on at least one side of the paper barrier material comprising a paper base material on which a water vapor barrier layer and a gas barrier layer have been provided. The bio-derived film refers to a polyester (PTT), soybean polyol, polyurethane (meeting the limitations of claim 7). Also, such laminate layer may be provided in one or more numbers according to the purpose (thus when the laminate layer is provided with more than one layer; one layer is equivalent to the sealant film and the other is equivalent to the anchor coating agent of the claimed invention). Also, the method for stacking the laminate layer is not limited in any way, and any known method such as the traditional molten extrusion lamination method, film-based dry lamination method, direct molten coating method, etc., may be used. Example 7 clearly shows that a low-density polyethylene may be used as the laminate layer.
With regards to the oxygen permeability limitation recited in claim 9, the Examiner takes the position that such a property limitation is inherent in the paper barrier materials taught by Okamoto et al. given that the structure and chemical composition of the paper barrier material and the gas barrier packaging material of the claimed invention is identical.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments 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
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights