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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 57-67, 74-76 and election of species blank: paper and hydrophobic material: oxidized polyethylene wax and styrene-acrylate mixture in the reply filed on 2/6/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claims 57-60, 65-67, 74 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al. (JP2005-162213, see machine translated version) in view of Dragner et al. (US Patent No. 5,795,932).
Regarding claims 57, 59, 60, 65 and 67, Miyake et al. teach a paper (non-metalized blank) (paragraphs [0001], [0007]) having a number of folds (at least one mechanically induced folding pattern) (paragraphs [0010], [0017]), the paper (blank) comprising a combination of wax and styrene-acrylate (a hydrophobic material) (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0025]) and having a moisture permeability of 40 g/m2 24 hours which reads on Applicant’s claimed water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) that is between 1 and 20 gr/m2·day, when measured at 38°C and 90% relative humidity, at any point along the blank surface, including at the folding pattern (paragraph [0037]), wherein the hydrophobic material is a mixture of wax and styrene-acrylate (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0025]).
Miyake et al. fail to teach wherein the wax is oxidized polyethylene wax. However, Dragner et al. teach paperboard (non-metalized blank) (col. 1, lines 9-12, 55-65), the paperboard (non-metalized blank) comprising a hydrophobic material comprising styrene-acrylic (col. 2, lines 55-65) and oxidized polyethylene wax (col. 2, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the oxidized polyethylene wax of Dragner et al. with the styrene-acrylate of Miyake et al. in order to improve water resistance (Dragner et al., col. 2, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 58, Miyake et al. teach a paper (non-metalized blank) (paragraphs [0001], [0007]) having a number of folds (at least one mechanically induced folding pattern) (paragraphs [0010], [0017]) and comprising a combination of wax and styrene-acrylate (a hydrophobic material) (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0025]), the hydrophobic material endowing said paper with a moisture permeability of 40 g/m2 24 hours which reads on Applicant’s claimed water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) between 1 and 20 gr/m2·day, when measured at 38°C and 90% relative humidity, wherein the WVTR is substantially the same throughout the blank surface, including at the folding pattern (paragraph [0037]).
Miyake et al. fail to teach wherein the wax is oxidized polyethylene wax. However, Dragner et al. teach paperboard (non-metalized blank) (col. 1, lines 9-12, 55-65), the paperboard (non-metalized blank) comprising a hydrophobic material comprising styrene-acrylic (col. 2, lines 55-65) and oxidized polyethylene wax (col. 2, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the oxidized polyethylene wax of Dragner et al. with the styrene-acrylate of Miyake et al. in order to improve water resistance (Dragner et al., col. 2, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 66, Miyake et al. teach wherein the paper (blank) being in the form of a multilayered structure (paragraph [0017]), wherein the layer of wax and styrene acrylate forms a layer of the multilayered structure (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0017], [0025]).
Miyake et al. fail to teach wherein the wax is oxidized polyethylene wax. However, Dragner et al. teach paperboard (non-metalized blank) (col. 1, lines 9-12, 55-65), the paperboard (non-metalized blank) comprising a hydrophobic material comprising styrene-acrylic (col. 2, lines 55-65) and oxidized polyethylene wax (col. 2, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the oxidized polyethylene wax of Dragner et al. with the styrene-acrylate of Miyake et al. in order to improve water resistance (Dragner et al., col. 2, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 74, Miyake et al. teach a packaging material formed of paper (non-metalized packaging material formed of a non-metalized blank) (paragraphs [0001], [0007]), the packaging material having a number of folds (one or more panels or faces foldable along at least one mechanically induced folding pattern) (paragraphs [0010], [0017]), the packaging material having a moisture permeability of 40 g/m2 24 hours which reads on Applicant’s claimed water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) that is substantially constant throughout the material surface including the folding pattern (paragraph [0037]), wherein the paper (blank) comprises a combination of wax and styrene-acrylate (a hydrophobic material) (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0025]).
Miyake et al. fail to teach wherein the wax is oxidized polyethylene wax. However, Dragner et al. teach paperboard (non-metalized blank) (col. 1, lines 9-12, 55-65), the paperboard (non-metalized blank) comprising a hydrophobic material comprising styrene-acrylic (col. 2, lines 55-65) and oxidized polyethylene wax (col. 2, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the oxidized polyethylene wax of Dragner et al. with the styrene-acrylate of Miyake et al. in order to improve water resistance (Dragner et al., col. 2, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 75, Miyake et al. teach wherein the paper (paper-based blank) comprises a sheet of a dry pulp composition (paragraph [0027]) and a layer of a combination of wax and styrene-acrylate (a hydrophobic material) (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0025]).
Miyake et al. fail to teach wherein the wax is oxidized polyethylene wax. However, Dragner et al. teach paperboard (non-metalized blank) (col. 1, lines 9-12, 55-65), the paperboard (non-metalized blank) comprising a hydrophobic material comprising styrene-acrylic (col. 2, lines 55-65) and oxidized polyethylene wax (col. 2, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the oxidized polyethylene wax of Dragner et al. with the styrene-acrylate of Miyake et al. in order to improve water resistance (Dragner et al., col. 2, lines 5-10).
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al. (JP2005-162213, see machine translated version) in view of Dragner et al. (US Patent No. 5,795,932), in further view of Fike et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0065235).
Miyake et al. and Dragner et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 76, Miyake et al. teach a paper (paper based blank) comprising a layer of a combination of wax and styrene-acrylate (a hydrophobic material) (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0025]).
Miyake et al. fail to teach wherein paper based blank comprises a sheet of a dry pulp composition and the at least one hydrophobic material, wherein the at least one hydrophobic material present in the pulp composition. However, Fike et al. teach a paper (paper based blank) (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising a dry pulp composition (page 1, paragraph [0007]) and one or more polymers and waxes (a hydrophobic material) (page 10, paragraph [0091], page 11, paragraph [0092]), wherein the hydrophobic material present in the pulp composition and the at least one hydrophobic material in the layer are different (Miyake et al., paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0025]; Fike et al., page 11, paragraphs [0091], [0092]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use composition of Fike et al. in the paper of Miyake et al. in order to reduce the required amount of additives while maintaining desired physical properties (Fike et al., page 1, paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 3/20/2026