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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claim 1-8) in the reply filed on August 07, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-17 are withdrawn as non-elected invention.
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, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj et al. (US 2018/0257349 A1) in view of Jameson et al. (US 2021/0079261 A1), Liu et al. (CN 111114075 A) and Wolfgang et al. (DD 219598 A1).
Claim 1: Bhardwaj teaches a two-layer structure 205 [0055] comprising a paperboard substrate 100 [0023], an LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120 [0024] on the paperboard substrate 100 and a tear resistance PET film 125 [0051] on the LDPE laminating layer 120 (Fig. 5). The structure 205 corresponds the claimed sustainable barrier board, the paperboard substrate 100 corresponds to the claim cellulose board substrate, the LDPE laminating layer 120 corresponds to the claimed first biopolymer heat sealable coating and the tear resistance PET film 125 corresponds to the first biopolymer barrier film.
Bhardwaj does not teach the paperboard substrate 100 comprises a hydrophobic substance. However, Jameson teaches a paper based corrugated structure 100 comprising a coating 103 containing wax (Fig. 1 and [0017]). The wax meets the claimed hydrophobic substance. Bhardwaj and Jameson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the packaging material art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the wax material of Jameson with the paperboard substrate 100 of Bhardwaj, and the motivation for combining would be to provide a paperboard having enhanced barrier against moisture and wetness.
Bhardwaj does not teach the LDPE laminating layer 120 further comprises or uses a biopolymer material. However, Liu teaches low density polyethylene (LDPE) has a heat sealing property (page 6, line 25). Similarly, Liu teaches polycaprolactone and polybutylene succinate have a heat sealing property (page 6, lines 28-29). The polycaprolactone and polybutylene succinate meet the claimed biopolymer. Liu shows that the polycaprolactone and polybutylene succinate are equivalent materials known in the packaging material art. Therefore, because these materials, (i.e., LDPE, polycaprolactone and polybutylene succinate) were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the LDPE for polycaprolactone or polybutylene succinate.
Bhardwaj does not teach the tear resistance PET film 125 further comprises a biopolymer material. However, Wolfgang teaches a layer or a film having a high tear resistance, good dimensional stability, high transparency and sufficient flexibility are met by the use of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and cellulose acetate film (page 3, lines 23-25). Bhardwaj and Wolfgang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the self-adhesive/sealed product art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and cellulose acetate film of Wolfgang with the invention of Bhardwaj, and the motivation for combining would be to provide a high tear resistance layer having a biopolymer property.
Claim 2: Bhardwaj teaches a two-layer structure 205 [0055] comprising a paperboard substrate 100 [0023], an LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120 [0024] on the paperboard substrate 100 and a tear resistance PET film 125 [0051] on the LDPE laminating layer 120 (Fig. 5). The structure 205 corresponds the claimed sustainable barrier board, the paperboard substrate 100 corresponds to the claim cellulose board substrate, the LDPE laminating layer 120 corresponds to the claimed first biopolymer heat sealable coating and the tear resistance PET film 125 corresponds to the first biopolymer barrier film.
Bhardwaj does not teach the paperboard substrate 100 comprises a hydrophobic substance. However, Jameson teaches a paper based corrugated structure 100 comprising a coating 103 containing wax (Fig. 1 and [0017]). The wax meets the claimed hydrophobic substance. Bhardwaj and Jameson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the packaging material art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the wax material of Jameson with the paperboard substrate 100 of Bhardwaj, and the motivation for combining would be to provide a paperboard having enhanced barrier against moisture and wetness.
Claim 4: Bhardwaj teaches a two-layer structure 205 [0055] comprising a paperboard substrate 100 [0023], an LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120 [0024] on the paperboard substrate 100 and a tear resistance PET film 125 [0051] on the LDPE laminating layer 120 (Fig. 5). The structure 205 corresponds the claimed sustainable barrier board, the paperboard substrate 100 corresponds to the claim cellulose board substrate, the LDPE laminating layer 120 corresponds to the claimed first biopolymer heat sealable coating and the tear resistance PET film 125 corresponds to the first biopolymer barrier film.
Bhardwaj does not teach the paperboard substrate 100 comprises a hydrophobic substance. However, Jameson teaches a paper based corrugated structure 100 comprising a coating 103 containing wax including paraffin wax (Fig. 1 and [0017]). Bhardwaj and Jameson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the packaging material art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the wax material of Jameson with the paperboard substrate 100 of Bhardwaj, and the motivation for combining would be to provide a paperboard having enhanced barrier against moisture and wetness.
Claim 5: Bhardwaj teaches a two-layer structure 205 [0055] comprising a paperboard substrate 100 [0023], an LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120 [0024] on the paperboard substrate 100 and a tear resistance PET film 125 [0051] on the LDPE laminating layer 120 (Fig. 5). The structure 205 corresponds the claimed sustainable barrier board, the paperboard substrate 100 corresponds to the claim cellulose board substrate, the LDPE laminating layer 120 corresponds to the claimed first biopolymer heat sealable coating and the tear resistance PET film 125 corresponds to the first biopolymer barrier film.
Bhardwaj does not teach the paperboard substrate 100 comprises a hydrophobic substance. However, Jameson teaches a paper based corrugated structure 100 comprising a coating 103 containing wax including tallow-, palm- or soy-based wax (Fig. 1 and [0017]). The wax meets the claimed natural wax. Bhardwaj and Jameson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the packaging material art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the wax material of Jameson with the paperboard substrate 100 of Bhardwaj, and the motivation for combining would be to provide a paperboard having enhanced barrier against moisture and wetness.
Claim 6: Bhardwaj teaches a two-layer structure 205 [0055] comprising a paperboard substrate 100 [0023], an LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120 [0024] on the paperboard substrate 100 and a tear resistance PET film 125 [0051] on the LDPE laminating layer 120 (Fig. 5). The structure 205 corresponds the claimed sustainable barrier board, the paperboard substrate 100 corresponds to the claim cellulose board substrate, the LDPE laminating layer 120 corresponds to the claimed first biopolymer heat sealable coating and the tear resistance PET film 125 corresponds to the first biopolymer barrier film.
Bhardwaj does not teach the tear resistance PET film 125 further comprises a biopolymer material. However, Wolfgang teaches a layer or a film having a high tear resistance, good dimensional stability, high transparency and sufficient flexibility are met by the use of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and cellulose acetate film (page 3, lines 23-25). Bhardwaj and Wolfgang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the self-adhesive/sealed product art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and cellulose acetate film of Wolfgang with the invention of Bhardwaj, and the motivation for combining would be to provide a high tear resistance layer having a biopolymer property.
Claim 7: Bhardwaj teaches a two-layer structure 205 [0055] comprising a paperboard substrate 100 [0023], an LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120 [0024] on the paperboard substrate 100 and a tear resistance PET film 125 [0051] on the LDPE laminating layer 120 (Fig. 5). The structure 205 corresponds the claimed sustainable barrier board, the paperboard substrate 100 corresponds to the claim cellulose board substrate, the LDPE laminating layer 120 corresponds to the claimed first biopolymer heat sealable coating and the tear resistance PET film 125 corresponds to the first biopolymer barrier film.
Bhardwaj does not teach the LDPE laminating layer 120 further comprises or uses a biopolymer material. However, Liu teaches low density polyethylene (LDPE) has a heat sealing property (page 6, line 25). Similarly, Liu teaches polybutylene succinate has a heat sealing property (page 6, line 29). Liu shows that the polybutylene succinate is an equivalent material known in the packaging material art. Therefore, because these materials, (i.e., LDPE and polybutylene succinate) were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the LDPE for polybutylene succinate.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj et al. (US 2018/0257349 A1), Jameson et al. (US 2021/0079261 A1), Liu et al. (CN 111114075 A) and Wolfgang et al. (DD 219598 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brungardt (US 2014/0174682 A1).
Bhardwaj, Jameson, Liu and Wolfgang teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 3: Bhardwaj does not teach the paperboard substrate 100 comprises a hydrophobic substance. However, Jameson teaches a paper based corrugated structure 100 comprising a coating 103 containing paraffin wax (Fig. 1 and [0017]). Jameson teaches use of paraffin wax in a paperboard manufacturing [0017] but does not teach use of synthetic wax. However, Brungardt teaches use of paraffin wax, microcrystalline wax, or any natural or synthetic wax [0044]. Brungardt shows that synthetic wax is an equivalent material known in the papermaking art. Therefore, because these two materials, (i.e., paraffin wax and synthetic wax) were art recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the paraffin wax for synthetic wax.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Jameson and Brungardt, (i.e., use of synthetic wax) with the paperboard substrate 100 of Bhardwaj, and the motivation for combining would be to provide a paperboard having enhanced barrier against moisture and wetness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj et al. (US 2018/0257349 A1), Jameson et al. (US 2021/0079261 A1), Liu et al. (CN 111114075 A) and Wolfgang et al. (DD 219598 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Bhardwaj, Jameson, Liu and Wolfgang teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 8: Bhardwaj teaches the two-layer structure 205 [0055] further comprises an optional printable coating 110 on the paperboard substrate 100 (Fig. 5 and [0023]). Bhardwaj teaches applying the LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120 on the uncoated side of the paperboard substrate 100 [0024], but Bhardwaj does not teach a second LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120 on the paperboard substrate 100 and a second tear resistance PET film 125 on the second LDPE laminating/adhesive layer 120. Since the printable coating 110 is optional [0023], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further apply a second LDPE laminating layer 120 and a second tear resistance PET film 125 on the other side of the paperboard substrate 100, and the motivation would be to provide superior durability and moisture protection. It is well established that a protection applied on one side of a paperboard only provides protection on a single side, but a protection applied on both sides of a paperboard provides a better and complete protection; therefore, applying the LDPE laminating layer 120 and tear resistance PET film 125 on both sides of the paperboard substrate 100 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Pertinent Prior Art
Penttinen et al. (US 2013/0071677 A1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
August 20, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
