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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first coating layer comprising a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer”, as required in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian (EP 3,325,713) in view of Inagaki (WO 2022/250135).
Claim 1
Sebastian discloses a packaging capable to be used for accommodating an aerosol delivering article, the packaging comprising a base paper (102); a first coating layer (defined by combination of 106 and 108) on a top of the base paper; and a second coating layer (104) on a bottom of the base paper, wherein the first coating layer comprises a first layer (106) and a second layer (108) disposed on the first layer (see figure 1), the first layer comprises calcium carbonate (see [0016] and [0017]), and the second layer disposed on the first layer comprises a water-resistant agent comprising polylactic acid (see [0016], [0017], [0019], and [0024]). Sebastian discloses the polymer coating materials disclosed for layer (104) are also used for the disclosure of coating layers (106 and 108) (see [0019] and [0020]). Sebastian further discloses the base paper having a basis weight of 230 grams per square meter (see [0015]). Sebastian does not disclose the thickness of the second coating layer. However, Inagaki discloses a liquid repellent paper layer comprising a paper layer provided with a coating that provides water repellency to the paper layer, wherein the coating has a thickness which can be 30 micrometers (see pages 6 and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the second coating layer of Sebastian with the required thickness as taught by Inagaki depending on the desired strength and efficient water repellency of the packaging. Please note that Applicant’s Written Description, page 5 lines 30-32 and page 6 lines 24-27, does not disclose any criticality for the claimed subject matter.
Claim 8
Sebastian further discloses the packaging comprises an inner liner (see [0018]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian (EP 3,325,713) and Inagaki (WO 2022/250135) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lange (WO 2022012961).
Sebastian further discloses the thickness of the base paper is at least 0.25 mm (250 micrometers) and comprises recycled paperboard (see [0015]). Sebastian does not disclose the exact required thickness for the base paper. However, Lange discloses a container for consumer goods comprising a paper layer/first cellulose based layer (see page 2 lines 3-7) comprising a thickness between 200 and 400 micrometers (see page 15 lines 22-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the base paper of Sebastian with the required thicknesses depending on the desired strength of the packaging. Please note that Applicant’s Written Description, page 5 lines 30-32 and page 6 lines 24-27, does not disclose any criticality for the claimed subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that Sebastian does not disclose the first coating comprising a polymer with a calcium carbonate, the examiner points out that applicant is arguing more than the claimed limitations. Nowhere in the claim is required that the first coating comprises a polymer. Sebastian discloses a first coating (defined by combination of 106 and 108) on a side of the base paper substrate, wherein the first coating is a polymer of a thermoplastic material with embedded materials, wherein the embedded material could be calcium carbonate and the second layer could be polylactic acid polymer (see [0016] and [0017]) which is a water-resistant agent. Sebastian discloses the polymer coating materials disclosed for layer (104) are also used for the disclosure of coating layers (106 and 108) (see [0019] and [0020]), therefore the first coating layer is considered as combination of layers (106 and 108)
and the second coating layer is layer (104).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights