DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kujirai et al. (JP 3233001) in view of Yuki et al. (JP 2021-091108).
Kujirai is directed to a bag-shaped package formed from a packaging paper comprising a translucent paper layer (paragraph 0001). The packaging paper comprises a glassine paper layer, a printed layer, a transparent functional film layer with gas barrier properties, and a sealant layer (paragraph 00017 and Figure 1). The printed layer is formed on the back surface of the glassine layer, but still visible through the semi-transparent glassine paper layer (paragraph 0018). The transparent functional film comprises an extremely thin film of silica or aluminum formed by vapor deposition (paragraph 0020). The bag-shaped package is formed by bending the packaging paper into a U-shape (paragraph 0024).
While Kujirai does not report the maximum light transmission for a light beam having a wavelength of 300 to 800 nm, the paper layer is taken to meet this limitation since the glassine paper layer is described as semi-transparent and printing on one side of the paper can be viewed from the other.
Kujirai does not teach the presence of an anchor coat provided between the glassine paper and the transparent layer with gas barrier properties and the reference is silent regarding the thickness of the anchor coat, transparent layer with gas barrier properties, and glassine paper.
Yuki is directed to a paper material used as packaging comprising a paper base layer and an inorganic vapor deposition layer (paragraphs 0001-0002). An adhesive is applied between the paper base layer and inorganic vapor deposition layer to aid in deposition by forming an even surface and minimizing the generation of paper dust during deposition (paragraph 0019). The paper base layer has a preferred thickness of 30 to 100 mm (paragraph 0020) and represents preferably 70% of the total thickness (paragraph 0012) so as to reduce the environmental impact and improve the recyclability and biodegradability of the packaging (paragraph 0002). The adhesive may be an acid-modified polyolefin resin (paragraph 0033) applied at a preferred thickness of 2 to 10 mm (paragraph 0034). The inorganic vapor deposition layer is preferably formed of aluminum oxide or silicon oxide at a preferred thickness of 50 to 2000 Å (paragraphs 0056-0057), i.e., 5 to 200 nm.
It would have been obvious to apply an adhesive layer as taught by Yuki to the paper layer of Kujirai prior to forming the transparent layer with gas barrier properties to form an even surface for deposition and to minimize the generation of paper dust during deposition. Such an adhesive layer reads on the anchor coat of claim 3 while the sealant layer taught by Kujirai reads on the overcoat layer.
Regarding claim 4, Yuki teaches that the adhesive layer has a preferred thickness of 2 to 10 mm. Therefore, the thickness range for the adhesive layer of Yuki overlaps the range recited in the claims and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for overlapping ranges. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Yuki teaches that aluminum oxide or silicon oxide films used as vapor barrier layers in paper packaging films have a preferred thickness of 5 to 200 nm, a thickness that overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the barrier layer of Kujirai at a thickness of 5 to 200 nm since the courts have held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fabricate the packaging paper of Kujirai such that the paper constituted at least 70% of the total thickness to reduce the environmental impact and improve the recyclability and biodegradability of the resulting package. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a glassine paper layer having a thickness of 30 to 100 mm since the courts have held that the selection of a known material (e.g., paper having a thickness of 30 to 100 mm) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., substrate of a paper packaging film) supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kujirai et al. (JP 3233001) in view of Yuki et al. (JP 2021-091108) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Schäfer et al. (US 2020/0094535).
Kujirai et al. taken in view of Yuki suggest all the limitations of claims 5 and 10, as outlined above, except for the thickness and use of a polyolefin having a polar group as the sealant layer (i.e., the layer corresponding to the overcoat layer of the claims). However, Kujirai does teach that the sealant layer may be made of low density polyethylene or linear low density polyethylene (paragraph 0021).
Schäfer is directed to a film for packaging applications (paragraph 0002). The film comprises a sealing layer having a thickness of 1 to 100 mm (paragraph 0084). Suitable materials for the sealing layer include low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, and polymers of ethylene and acrylic acid (paragraph 0085).
Schäfer shows that low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, and polymers of ethylene and acrylic acid are known in the art as functionally equivalent materials for forming sealant layers in packaging laminates. Therefore, because these polymers were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a polymer of ethylene and acrylic acid for the low density polyethylene or linear low density polyethylene taught by Kujirai. Additionally, since the courts have held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to use a polymer of ethylene and acrylic acid as the sealant layer of Kujirai.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of this claim are satisfied since the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for overlapping ranges. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kujirai et al. (JP 3233001) in view of Yuki et al. (JP 2021-091108) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kagawa (JP 2006-026945).
Kujirai et al. taken in view of Yuki suggest all the limitations of claim 12, as outlined above, except for the use of a polyvinyl alcohol-based resin as the adhesive applied between the paper base layer and inorganic vapor deposition layer. However, Yuki does teach the application of a layer, such as a polyurethane, acrylic, epoxy, or polyvinyl acetate resin (paragraph 0033) between the paper base layer and inorganic vapor deposition layer to aid in deposition by forming an even surface (paragraph 0019).
Kagawa is directed to a laminate for use as a packaging material (paragraph 0001). Kagawa teaches the application of a resin coating on the surface of a polybutylene terephthalate film to form a smooth layer by eliminating fine surface irregularities (paragraph 0018). Suitable resins include polyvinyl alcohol, acrylic resin, polyurethane resin, and epoxy resin (paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polyvinyl alcohol for the layer to form an even surface since the courts have held the selection of a known material (in this case, polyvinyl alcohol) based on its suitability for its intended use (in this case, forming a smoothing coating in a packaging laminate) supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, since Kagawa shows that polyvinyl alcohol and other resins such as polyurethane, acrylic, and epoxy are known in the art as functionally equivalent materials for forming a smoothing coating in a packaging laminate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute polyvinyl alcohol for polyurethane, acrylic, and epoxy resins taught by Yuki.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 with respect to the rejections over Smith et al. (WO 2022/058724) have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections over Smith have been withdrawn.
The applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 with respect to the rejections over Kujirai and Yuki have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
The applicant argues that applying the adhesive of Yuki between the glassine paper and vapor-deposited layer of Kujirai would render Kujirai unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as it would obscure the print.
This is not persuasive for at least the reason that there does not appear to be any support for the applicant's contention that the incorporation of a layer designed to form an even surface on the paper base layer would obscure the printing. Rather, Kagawa teaches that the application of a coating that smooths over fine surface irregularities can eliminate opacity provide high clarity (see paragraph 0018).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday afternoons, Eastern time.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787