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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-63 were previously canceled. Claims 64-78 are pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (e.g., a material blend comprising at least one cellulose material and one or more additives other than wax), Species A7 (cellulose ether(s)) and Species MB1 [Starch (4.1-16.5 wt.%), PVOH (5-15 wt.%), CNC (0.1-5 w.t%), HPMC and/or CMC (0.1-0.5 wt.%)], in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged, and although the Applicant indicated that claims 64-73 and 76-78 are readable on the elected invention and species, upon further review, the Examiner notes that claim 77 only recites formulations corresponding to Invention II or Invention III based upon the requirement that each of the alternative formulations of claim 77 include a wax component. Hence, claims 74-75 and claim 77 have withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/9/2025.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites, in total, “The technology disclosed herein concerns films and products providing superior OTR and WVTR properties” (emphasis added), wherein the bolded portion is a phrase that should be avoided given that it can be implied, and the single sentence does not describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: a comma should be inserted after “wax” on line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 69 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma on line 6, after “dimer (AKD)” and before “or” should be replaced by a semicolon (e.g., as on line 3 after “glycogen”); the comma on line 7, after “alginate” and before “or” should be replaced by a semicolon; the comma on line 9, after “halloysite” and before “or” should be replaced by a semicolon; the comma on line 14, after “polyglycoside” and before “or” should be replaced by a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 76 is objected to because of the following informalities: semicolons should be utilized to separate each set of cellulose, wax, and additive components of a given alternative blend when a series of alternative materials already separated by commas is recited for one or more components of the blend, and preferably with “and” utilized before the last alternative in a given series and before the last component of a given blend. For example, alternative blend (10) reads: “HPMC, and at least one wax selected from carnauba wax, vegetable wax, beeswax, soy wax, coconut wax, Candelilla wax, and at least one modified wax, at least one additive selected from carbohydrates, crosslinking agents, polymers, natural additives, minerals, surfactants, nanoparticles;” however, from the standpoint of proper punctuation of a list of separate components that already contain commas (and to assist with clarity), blend (10) should probably read: “HPMC; at least one wax selected from carnauba wax, vegetable wax, beeswax, soy wax, coconut wax, Candelilla wax, and at least one modified wax; and at least one additive selected from carbohydrates, crosslinking agents, polymers, natural additives, minerals, surfactants, and nanoparticles;” with a semicolon after HPMC, no “and” before “at least one wax”, an “and” before “at least one additive” (e.g., the last component of the blend), and an “and” before “nanoparticles” as the last alternative of the “at least one additive”. Additionally, “an at least one surfactant” (emphasis added) in alternative blend (32) should probably read “and at least one surfactant”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 78 is objected to because of the following informalities: a comma should be inserted after “wax” on line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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 76 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 76 recites, “at least one cellulose-based material” (emphasis added) on lines 3 and 9 for alternative blend materials (1) and (3), respectively, however, it is unclear as to what is meant to be encompassed by the term “cellulose-based material” and whether a “cellulose-based material” is different from a “cellulose material” as recited in alternative blend materials (4) and (12)-(16), and as particularly recited in claim 64 from which claim 76 depends. Similarly, claim 76 recites “at least one wax-based material” (emphasis added) on lines 6 and 9 for (non-elected) alternative blend materials (2) and (3), but simply recites “at least one wax” in the other alternative blend materials and in independent claim 64 such that it is unclear as to what is meant to be encompassed by the claimed “wax-based material” limitation and if said “wax-based material” is meant to be different from “at least one wax” as recited in claim 64. In looking to the specification for guidance, it is noted that the specification recites, “As used herein, cellulose material-based film is one which comprises in addition to the cellulose material one or more additives imparting together the superior OTR and/or WVTR properties. Similarly, the wax-based film comprises in addition to the wax material one or more additives imparting together the superior OTR and/or WVTR properties” (emphasis in original; see page 13, first full paragraph). However, the specification does not specifically define “cellulose-based material” nor “wax-based material”, and if one was to look to the above cited section of the specification, it would appear as if the claimed “cellulose-based material” and “wax-based material” already include the at least one additive that is separately recited in alternative blends (1)-(3) with the “cellulose-based material” and/or “wax-based material”. It is also noted that alternative blends (34)-(44) recite wt% ranges in parentheses such that it is unclear whether the wt% ranges in the parentheses are meant to be encompassed by the claim or are merely suggested ranges. Further, given that the claim does not specifically recite a basis for said wt% ranges and that the wt% values for each alternative blend of (34)-(44) do not add up to 100wt%, it is unclear as to what is meant to be encompassed by blends (34)-(44) especially given that claim 76 recites that the blend material may be one “consisting of” the recited components that as noted above do not add up to 100wt%. Hence, for the above reasons, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 65 recites, “The film according to claim 64, wherein the material blend comprises at least one cellulose material, and/or at least one wax,” however, given that claim 64 already recites, “a film of a material blend…wherein the material blend film comprises at least one cellulose material and/or at least one wax” on lines 1-3, claim 65 does not further limit claim 64. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 64-71, 76, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakasugi (JPH09150476A, please see attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Wakasugi discloses a water-soluble laminated packaging film comprising “a film made of at least one resin selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol resin, cellulose derivative resin and polyethylene oxide resin, and a metal vapor deposition layer or metal oxide vapor deposition layer having a thickness of 50 to 500 angstroms formed on at least one side of the film” (Paragraph 0006; e.g., a “metallized film” as in instant claims 64 and 78), such as a vapor deposited layer of aluminum (Paragraph 0015, as in instant claim 66), with examples of the cellulose derivative including methyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose, and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Paragraph 0011, as in instant claims 71 and 76, e.g., #17-19). Wakasugi discloses that “[t]he polyvinyl alcohol resin, cellulose derivative resin, or polyethylene oxide resin may contain additives such as plasticizers, surfactants, pigments, dyes, inorganic fillers, and starch” (Paragraph 0014, reading upon the claimed “one or more additional additives” as in instant claims 64 and 78, and the “at least one additive” of instant claims 68-69 and 76), with a working example (Example 4) consisting of a film made of HPMC and polyethylene glycol (e.g., a material blend comprising a cellulose material and an additive as in instant claims 64, 65, 68, 69, 70 - given that the polyethylene glycol also reads upon “a thermoplastic polymer”, 71, 76, and 78), that is metallized with aluminum on one side by vapor deposition to form an aluminum layer of 300 angstroms in thickness (Paragraph 0024, reading upon the claimed “metallized”, “metal surface”, :thin metal film”, and “metallization is achieved by vapor-depositing a metal thin film” as in instant claims 64, 66, and 78). Hence, Wakasugi anticipates instant claims 64-66, 68-71, 76, and 78.
With respect to instant claim 67, it is again noted that Wakasugi clearly discloses that the metal vapor deposition layer has a thickness of 50 to 500 angstroms, wherein the 500 angstroms reads upon the claimed “thin metal film having a thickness of between 500 Å (Angstrom) and 100 nm”, and given that Wakasugi specifically discloses examples at 300 Å, the Examiner takes the position that Wakasugi discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claim 67.
Claims 64-73, 76, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adebayo (WO96/17371A1). Adebayo discloses metallization of a phosphor screen utilizing a preformed film of a polymeric material having a film of a metal deposited on at least one side thereof (e.g., a metallized film; Abstract), preferably a layer of aluminum deposited by vacuum evaporation (as in instant claim 66; Claim 8), “wherein the polymeric film comprises a film of a poly(acrylate), poly(methacrylate), poly(hydroxy-alkanoate), poly(carbonate), poly(ethylene-oxide), poly(propyleneoxide) block copolymer, poly(alpha-methylstyrene)[,] hydroxypropyl cellulose, methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, alginic acid or an associative thickener” (Claim 4, Page 5, lines 5-14). Adebayo specifically discloses a working example (Example 10) comprising an aluminized hydroxypropylcellulose (HPC) film formed by spin coating a MYLAR sheet (“substrate”) with an aqueous solution comprising HPC (a cellulose or “cellulose-based” material as in instant claims 64-65, 71-73, 76, and 78) and BYK024 wetting agent (an “additive” – specifically a polysiloxane defoaming agent/surfactant as evidenced by the attached Technical Data Sheet for BYK-024, reading upon the claimed “one or more additional additives” of instant claims 64 and 78, and particularly an additive as in instant claims 68-69, 72, 73, 76, and 78, as well as a “thermoplastic polymer” as in instant claim 70), and drying to form a coated MYLAR sheet that is then aluminized on the HPC film by vapor deposition of 99.99% pure aluminum (Page 8, lines 1-7; Claim 9; as in instant claim 66) to form a metallized HPC-coated MYLAR sheet (reading upon the claimed metallized film consisting of a substrate, a film of a blend material comprising a cellulose material and at least one additive, and a metal film as in instant claims 64-65, 72, and 73), wherein the metallized HPC film is then peeled off its MYLAR backing, providing a pre-formed aluminized film made from HPC (reading upon the claimed metallized film consisting of a film of a material blend and a metal surface as in instant claim 78). Hence, Adebayo anticipates instant claims 64-66, 68-73, 76, and 78.
With respect to instant claim 67, Adebayo discloses that the aluminum layer which is deposited upon the polymeric film or upon the film coated screen has a thickness in the range of from 0.1 to 0.3 µm (i.e., from 100 nm to 300 nm; Page 6, lines 6-20; Claim 9), reading upon the claimed invention at a thickness of 100 nm. Hence, the Examiner takes the position that Adebayo discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claim 67.
Claims 64-73, 76, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neagu (US2018/0319143A1). Neagu discloses a barrier film or sheet comprising cellulose nanofibrils and a laminated packaging material comprising the barrier film or sheet, particularly for liquid food packaging, having good oxygen and water vapor barrier properties (Abstract, Paragraphs 0001-0002 and 0017-0024; Examples); wherein the barrier film comprises a gas barrier layer comprising cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) and up to 25wt% of a plasticizer compound, a vapor deposition barrier coating on at least one side of the gas barrier layer, and optionally a substrate layer upon which the gas barrier layer is coated (Claims 1-4). Neagu discloses that the vapor deposition barrier coating is a thin vapor deposited layer having a thickness for example of from 1 to 500 nm or 50 to 5000 Å, preferably 1 to 200 nm, and most preferably 5 to 50 nm, made of a metal compound or an inorganic metal compound, particularly aluminum metal (Paragraphs 0041-0050), with working examples utilizing aluminum having varying thicknesses reported in terms of optical density from 1.84 to 3.15 (as in instant claims 66-67) provided on a CNF film having an unknown type and amount of plasticizer (Paragraphs 0080 and 0109-0111, Table 5, Examples). Neagu discloses that “the plasticizer compound is selected from the group consisting of polyols, saccharides, polysaccharides, cellulose derivatives polyethylene glycols and polyvinyl alcohols” (PVOH) (Claim 5); preferably “selected from the group consisting of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), glycerol, polyethylene glycol (PEG) with a molecular weight from 2000 to 4000, and polyvinyl alcohols having a high degree of hydrolysis” for the purpose of food packaging (Paragraph 0031; Claim 6). Neagu discloses that the gas barrier layer may also include a small amount of binder polymer such as PVOH, vinyl acetate polymers, EVOH, acrylate polymers and copolymers, polyolefins (i.e., thermoplastic polymers), starch (i.e., a carbohydrate) and cellulose esters (i.e., a cellulose material), wherein the addition of such polymer binders overlaps with the addition of plasticizer compound additives to the CNF composition, when those additives and polymers are the same; however, most preferably, no higher than 20wt% of plasticizing compounds or similar polymer compounds is present in the CNF composition (Paragraphs 0032-0033), which may further comprise inorganic filler particles, laminar nano-clay particles and colloidal particles (e.g., mineral material and/or nanoparticle additives), to the composition, in order to improve barrier properties (Paragraph 0033).
Neagu specifically discloses examples comprising a CNF film comprising a blend of CNF and CMC (Examples, Table 4) such that either component may read upon the broadly claimed cellulose material and the other on the broadly claimed additive, e.g. the CNF may read upon polymers, natural additives, and/or nanoparticles, while the CMC is a polymer additive, thereby anticipating the claimed “material blend” of independent claims 64 and 78; or alternatively, both may read upon the claimed “at least one cellulose material” of instant claims 64 and 78, and given that Neagu clearly discloses that the CNF composition may also comprise a (thermoplastic) polymer as a binder in addition to the CMC plasticizer and/or may further comprise inorganic filler particles, laminar nano-clay particles and colloidal particles as barrier improving additives, the Examiner takes the position that Neagu discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 64-73, 76, and 78.
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.
Alternatively, claims 64-73, 76, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagu, as applied above and further discussed below.
The teachings of Neagu are discussed in detail above and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory with respect to instant claims 64-73, 76, and 78 for the reasons discussed in detail above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 64-73, 76, and 78 would have been obvious over the teachings of Neagu given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, with respect to the elected material blend (i.e., Species MB1) of instant claim 76, it is noted that if the claimed invention was limited to said blend composition and if the recited weight percentages were based upon the total weight of the blend material (in terms of solid content or total weight including any liquid/solvent used to form the blend film), then the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention also would have been obvious over the teachings of Neagu given that as discussed above, Neagu clearly teaches that the gas barrier layer comprising cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) may comprise up to 25wt% of the plasticizer compound, and more preferably not higher than 20wt% of plasticizing compounds or similar polymer compounds, e.g., as a binder, with examples thereof including the claimed starch, PVOH, and CMC (Paragraphs 0031-0032); and given that one skilled in the art would clearly recognize that the CNF taught by Neagu may also include the claimed CNC (i.e., crystalline nanocellulose, or nanocrystalline cellulose) due to the CNF production method (as evidenced by Land Hensdal, US2020/0086604A1, Paragraph 0038). Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the elected blend of claim 76 would have been obvious over Neagu.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Land Hensdal (US2020/0086604A1) discloses a multilayer barrier film having good and stable oxygen barrier properties at high relative humidities comprising at least one layer produced from a mixture comprising microfibrillated cellulose and microfibrillated dialdehyde cellulose (DA-MFC) applied to a substrate, and preferably a metallized barrier layer of a thin layer of metal providing barrier properties reducing permeability to, e.g., oxygen, water, water vapor, and light; wherein the mixture may also contain nanocrystalline cellulose (CNC) depending upon the method used to manufacture the MFC, as well as additives, preferably any one of a starch, carboxymethyl cellulose, a filler, retention chemicals, flocculation additives, deflocculating additives, dry strength additives, softeners, or mixtures thereof. Harlan (US2011/0223401A1) discloses a fibrous product having good oxygen and water vapor barrier properties comprising a fibrous substrate, a polymeric coating layer on at least one surface of the fibrous substrate, and a thin inorganic barrier layer of metal or metal oxide applied on the polymeric coating layer, wherein the polymeric coating layer in one embodiment comprises a biopolymer selected from carboxymethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, microfibrillated cellulose, cellulose acetate and other cellulose derivatives; and may further comprise one or more additional components selected from the group consisting of antifoaming agents and salts, defoaming agents and salts, biocides and preservatives, surface tension agents, water retention agents, rheology modifiers, dispersing agents, plasticising agents, lubricants, optical brightening agents, colouring agents, cross-linkers, waxes, volatile alkalis and hydrophobic agents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-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, 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787