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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 claims dependency upon a canceled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki et al. (WO 2017/010088 A1; hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7, Sasaki discloses a packaging container comprising a body extending at least partially around an interior of the container, a closed top engaged with the body; a closed bottom engaged with the body (see Figures 1-3); and a barrier member (206) positioned in the interior of the container, the barrier member comprising a laminate structure that includes a composite layer (203/202/201/208) above at least one polymeric layer with an uninterrupted lower portion (Examiner notes that 206 and 205 are uninterrupted), the laminate structure comprises at least one line of weakening (207a-b) extending partially therethrough so as to terminate above a lower surface of the at least one polymeric layer to form the uninterrupted lower portion thereof (see Fig. 4), the at least one polymeric layer is a second polymeric layer, the laminate structure comprises a first polymeric layer (204a) between the second polymeric layer and the composite layer, the at least one line of weakening extending at least partially through the first polymeric layer, the composite layer, the first polymeric layer, and the second polymeric layer at least partially form an upper portion of the laminate structure, wherein the laminate structure further comprises a lower portion contacting the upper portion thereof, and wherein the lower portion of the laminate structure comprises a third polymeric layer (204b/205) contacting the second polymeric layer.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki discloses a packaging container wherein the at least one line of weakening is a second line of weakening extending at least partially through the composite layer and the first polymeric layer, and the laminate structure comprises a first line of weakening extending at least partially through the composite layer, the first line of weakening spaced apart from the second line of weakening (see Fig. 4). Examiner notes that 207a and 207b are spaced apart.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Yoshikawa et al. (JP 2003-165567 A; hereinafter Yoshikawa).
Regarding claims 10-11, 14, and 16, Sasaki discloses the claimed invention except for an oriented polyethylene terephthalate (OPET) film. Yoshikawa teaches a composite wherein a first polymeric layer comprises an oriented polyethylene terephthalate (OPET) film (see Par. 0051, 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Sasaki’s packaging to include a bi-axially oriented polyethylene terephthalate film as a gas barrier to preserve the integrity of the packaging and freshness of contents, as taught by Yoshikawa.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Yoshikawa as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Toppan (JP 2002-120820 A).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Sasaki, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the polymeric layer having a thickness of about 12 microns. Toppan teaches a barrier container wherein a first polymeric layer has a thickness of about 12 microns (see Par. 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Sasaki’s container to have a polymeric layer with a thickness of about 12 microns in order to have a sufficient barrier, as taught by Toppan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18, 22-28, and 30-32 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-12, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 17-20 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Herlin have been fully considered and are persuasive. Herlin lacks the partial tear structure as claimed. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 102(a)(1)--Sasaki.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights