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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 depends upon itself. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the moisture barrier" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation are not readily understood.
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, 3-6, 8-10, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toft et al. (US 2011/0143070 A1; hereinafter Toft).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 12, 14, and 17, Toft discloses a thermos-mechanically stable, heat sealable film, a barrier coated such film, a packaging laminate comprising the film, and a packaging container formed from the packaging laminate, the laminate comprising a cut extending partway through the sheet material from an outside surface thereof, along which cut the sheet material is configured to be broken along the cut during a first opening (53; see Par. 0082; Examiner considers the dispensing opening to be defined by a cut in the packaging material) of the container revealing an opening in the container the sheet material comprising as layers of a layer sequence, in a direction from an external side to an internal side of the sheet material, a paperboard layer (21a), a polymeric intermediate layer (24; see Par. 0073), a tie layer (11; Examiner considers layer 11 to be a tie layer) and a polymeric barrier layer (12/13; see Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 10, Toft discloses a composite wherein the sheet material
further comprises a vacuum deposited layer between the polymeric barrier layer and the
polymeric intermediate layer (see Par. 0031).
Regarding claims 13 and 15-16, Toft discloses a composite wherein a moisture barrier layer comprises mLLDPE (see Par. 0022).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toft in view of Kieser (EP 1786618 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Toft discloses the claimed invention except for the barrier layer being made of EVOH. Kieser teaches a composite wherein a polymeric barrier layer is made of EVOH (see Par. 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Toft’s barrier layer to be made of EVOH in order to preserve the shelf life of products held within the container made of Toft’s composite sheet, as taught by Kieser.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 3-5, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, 8-9, 11, and 14 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Kieser have been fully considered and are persuasive. Kieser lacks a composite with a tie layer between a polymeric intermediate layer and a polymeric barrier layer. 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)--Toft.
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