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 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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites the term “easily openable” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is thus unclear what is required by the limitation of easily openable. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted such that the limitation “easily openable” is met if the packaging material is openable.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefenstein et al. (US 20230114239 A1) in view of Lebsanft et al. (EP 3730695 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grefenstein teaches an openable packaging material having a laminated structure comprising, in the following order: a paper base material (paper layer, 2); an anchor coat layer (adhesive layer, 9), a vapor deposition layer of a metal oxide (barrier layer, 6), and a sealant layer (sealing layer, 7) (Grefenstein, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0013-0014, 0025-0026, 0029, 0036-0038, and Fig. 3). Grefenstein teaches a weight of the paper base material is 50-90% by mass or more based on an entirety of the packaging material (Grefenstein, Abstract and Par. 0014), which lies within the claimed range of 50% or more and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Grefenstein teaches a thickness of the sealant layer is less than 50 µm (Grefenstein, Par. 0055), which overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 40 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Grefenstein teaches the sealant layer includes a first polyolefin resin (Grefenstein, Par. 0055). Grefenstein further teaches that it is known to change the properties, such as tensile strength, of paper laminates via the orientation of the layers (Grefenstein, Par. 0007).
Grefenstein is silent regarding the packaging material having a tensile strength at break of 40 to 70 N/15 mm.
Lebsanft teaches a packaging material comprising a paper layer wherein the packaging material has a tensile strength of 40-90 N/15mm or 20-70 N/15 mm (Lebsanft, Abstract and Par. 0043), which overlaps the claimed range of 40-70 N/15 mm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Grefenstein and Lebsanft are analogous art as they both teach packaging materials comprising a paper layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the packaging material of Grefenstein to have a tensile strength within the claimed range. This would allow for adequate strength of the packaging material (Lebsanft, Par. 0043).
Regarding claim 3, modified Grefenstein teaches a thickness of the sealant layer is less than 50 µm (Grefenstein, Par. 0055), which overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 20 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 4, modified Grefenstein teaches an adhesive layer (joining layer, 8) between the vapor deposition layer and the sealant layer (Grefenstein, Par. 0056 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, modified Grefenstein teaches an overcoat layer (substrate layer, 4) between the adhesive layer and the vapor deposition layer wherein the overcoat layer comprises a polyolefin-based resin which comprises a carboxyl group (see ethylene acrylic acid copolymer) (Grefenstein, Par. 0041-0043 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Grefenstein teaches the anchor coat layer comprises a polyolefin-based resin having a carboxyl group (see ethylene acrylic acid copolymer) (Grefenstein, Par. 0029-0031 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, modified Grefenstein teaches the anchor coat layer comprises polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) (Grefenstein, Par. 0029-0030).
Regarding claim 8, modified Grefenstein teaches a packaging bag having a folded part comprising the packaging material (Grefenstein, Abstract and Par. 0002).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefenstein et al. in view of Lebsanft et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takasugi et al. (US 20190240956 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Grefenstein teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Grefenstein is silent regarding the first polyolefin-based resin having at least one selected from the group consisting of a carboxyl group and a salt of a carboxyl group.
Takasugi teaches a packaging material comprising a laminate which comprises a paper layer, a vapor deposition layer, and a sealant layer wherein the sealant layer comprises a polyolefin comprising a carboxyl group (see ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer) (Takasugi, Abstract, Par. 0011, 0040, 0070-0073, and Figs 1-2).
Modified Grefenstein and Takasugi are analogous art as they both teach packaging materials comprising a paper layer, a vapor deposition layer, and a sealant layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sealant layer material of Takasugi as the sealant layer material of modified Grefenstein. This would allow for a layer with good sealing properties and flex resistance (Takasugi, Par. 0070-0073).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grefenstein et al. in view of Lebsanft et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 20190176455 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Grefenstein teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 8. Modified Grefenstein is silent regarding the packaging bag having a folded part.
Kikuchi teaches a package comprising folded region, wherein the packaging bag comprises a paper layer (Kikuchu, Abstract and Par. 0103).
Modified Grefenstein and Kikuchi are analogous art as they both teach packages comprising a paper layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the package of modified Grefenstein to have a folded region. That would allow for different containers such as a container for liquids (Grefenstein, Par. 0103).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights