DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: for proper antecedent basis, please amend the preambles of claims 1 and 23 to read “A laminated packaging material” and “A packaging container” respectively. Additionally for dependent claims 2-22, please amend the preamble to read “The laminated packaging material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “polyvinyl alcohol”, “ethylene vinyl alcohol”, “PVOH”, and “EVOH”, wherein “PVOH” is the same as “polyvinyl alcohol” and “EVOH” is the same as “ethylene vinyl alcohol”. Please put “PVOH” and “EVOH” in parentheses since the terms are initials for the polymer full names. Examiner notes that the above discussion is relevant to “NFC/MFC” and “NCC” which should also be in parentheses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “(10a; 10b)” which is in reference to specific elements in the figures. For consistency with the rest of the claims, please delete the limitation. 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.
Claims 6-7 and 21-22 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 6 recites the term “other latexes of acrylate polymer and copolymers”. It is not clear what would be considered “other latexes” since the term “latexes” is recited. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “selected from the group comprising”. The limitation is not clear if the group is open or closed. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “selected from the group consisting”.
Claim 7 further recites “one or more such bio-based polymer binder material”. The term “such” renders the limitation indefinite since it is not clear as to what bio-based polymer materials are within the scope disclosed in the instant specification.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the second innermost liquid tight, heat sealable layer" in second and third lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “but only optionally a further barrier deposition coating is further laminated to a pre-manufactured polymer film substrate having a barrier deposition coating”. It is not clear if the further barrier deposition coating is required since it appears to be optional or required with the term “but”. If it is required, Examiner suggests deleting the phrase “optional”. If it is optional, then the limitations of claim 22 do not further limit the limitations of claim 1. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitations for either scenario. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shamoto et al. (JP 2020-189489).
Shamoto discloses a barrier laminate with paper as a base material for packaging materials. Concerning claims 1 and 14, Shamoto discloses the barrier laminate comprises a paper (or cellulosic) base material having a water vapor barrier layer and gas barrier layer disposed in that order, wherein the water vapor barrier layer is considered to be equivalent to ductile base layer pre-coating and the gas barrier layer is equivalent to the claimed gas barrier layer (abstract; para. 0009-0057). The paper (or cellulosic) base material has a density of 1.0 g/cm3 (or 1000 kg/m3) and a grammage of 25 g/m2 to 320 g/m2 and specifically 30 g/m2 (para. 0022 and 0068). Further, the gas barrier layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 10 microns (or 100 nm to 10000 nm) (para. 0054). A sealant layer is disposed on the opposite side of the paper substrate having the above structure (para. 0061). With respect to the limitation of the coated substrate being suitable for providing gas barrier properties in packing materials and packages thereof, this limitation is not given any patentable weight.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the limitations are considered product-by-process limitations and since the structure is the same as that claimed and disclosed, the gas barrier coating is met by the disclosure of Shamoto since Shamoto discloses the materials are water soluble and are the same as that claimed (para. 0048-0054). Examiner also notes that there is no structural difference between “barrier dispersion coating” and “gas barrier coating” and as such, considered to be interchangeable. With respect to claim Concerning claims 6 and 7, the resins can include styrene-butadiene and isoprene-based materials in aqueous compositions (para. 0039-0043). In regards to claim 8 and 10, the water vapor barrier layer further comprises a layered inorganic filler such as kaolin or bentonite (para. 0024-0029).
With respect to claim 11, the water vapor barrier layer has a coating weight of 1 to 20 g/m2, specifically of 6 g/m2 (para. 0047 and Example 1). In regards to claim 12, Shamoto discloses the coating structure is disposed on “at least one surface” of the paper substrate which includes embodiments of coating structure disposed on both surfaces of the paper and as such, meet the limitations as claimed (abstract). Concerning claim 15 and 16, since the structure, materials, and grammage are the same and as such, have the claimed properties. With respect to claim 17, the paper substrate comprises at least 50% wood pulp which is a softwood pulp (para. 0017-0018). In regards to claim 18, the barrier laminate is on at least one surface of the paper substrate and as such, can include embodiments with the above barrier structure on both surfaces (para. 0055). Regarding claim 22, the above cited barrier laminate would meet the limitations given the further barrier coating is optional. Concerning claim 23, the material is formed into a packaging structure (para. 0066).
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US 20190270289).
Okamoto discloses paper barrier material and packaging thereof. Concerning claims 1-3 and 6-7, Okamoto discloses the paper barrier material comprises a paper substrate having a grammage of 20 to 500 g/m2, specifically of 60 g/m2, wherein a water vapor barrier layer and gas barrier layer having a grammage of 0.2 to 20 g/m2 are disposed in this order and the water vapor barrier layer comprises styrene-acrylate, starch, and the like and the gas barrier layer comprises polyvinyl alcohol and the like disposed by solution coating (para. 0031-0052). The paper barrier material has a laminate layer of polyolefin resin that can be disposed on at least one side of the paper barrier material, wherein this includes embodiments having the claimed order and such a material makes it easy to heat seal, which is the function of the sealant layer (para. 0053). Examiner notes that the grammage and materials of the paper substrate are the same and would therefore have the same density. Furthermore, the water vapor barrier layer is the same materials and structural position as that disclosed; as such, it is considered to be the claimed ductile base layer.
With respect to claims 4-6, a further vapor deposited metal or metal oxide can be attached to at least one side of the paper barrier material, which would include embodiments of the vapor deposited gas barrier layer disposed on the first gas barrier layer (para. 0056). Regarding claims 8 and 10, the water vapor barrier layer can contain an inorganic filler such as kaolin (para. 0040). Concerning claim 11, the water vapor barrier layer has a 3 to 50 g/m2, specifically 25 g/m2 (para. 0043 and 0069). With respect to claim 12, the barrier coatings are disposed on at least one surface of the paper substrate and as such, includes embodiments having barrier coatings on both surfaces and would meet the limitations as claimed (para. 0022). In regards to claims 13-16, given that the structure, materials, and processes are the same as that claimed, the properties as claimed would be within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 17, the paper substrate is a kraft pulp, which is considered to be a softwood cellulose and would meet the limitations as claimed (para. 0032; Example 1). With respect to claim 18, the limitations are considered product-by-process limitations but nevertheless, Okamoto discloses coating and drying each layer (para. 0069). Regarding claim 21, the laminate layer can be a multilayer, wherein the last layer would meet the limitations as claimed (para. 0053-0055). Regarding claim 22, the above cited barrier laminate would meet the limitations given the further barrier coating is optional. Concerning claim 23, the material is formed as part of a packaging container (para. 0058-0059).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamoto et al. (JP 2020-189489).
Shamoto discloses the above, including the binder in the water vapor barrier layer is found at a content of 20 to 80% by mass (para. 0045) and the layered inorganic filler is found at a content of 2 to 80% by mass (para. 0031), wherein the ranges overlap and include the claimed ranges as claimed in claim 9. Shamoto further discloses the composition for the water vapor barrier layer can further include a thickener and other additives for functional behavior can be added as well as a cationic resin (para. 0032-0037 and 0046). As such, for the desired functional behavior of the water vapor barrier layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the claimed thickener and crosslinking compound at the contents as claimed.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamoto et al. (JP 2020-189489) in view of Lorenzetti et al. (US 20190077132).
Shamoto discloses the above but is silent to the further structure as claimed.
Lorenzetti discloses a laminate packaging material and barrier film. Concerning claim 20, Lorenzetti discloses applying a barrier laminate to a bulk paperboard with a first barrier laminate and sealable layers, wherein such a structure is used to produce a specific form of container (para. 0013-0025). Lorenzetti further discloses the bulk paperboard is adhered by means of an adhesive that can include acrylic polymers (para 0025 and 0065). As such, for producing a specific packaging container, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the structure as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 20190270289).
Okamoto discloses the above, including the kaolin can be found from 5 to 200 parts by weight and can further include functional additives such as crosslinking agent and a thickening agent (para. 0042). As such, for the desired functional behavior of the water vapor barrier layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the claimed thickener and crosslinking compound at the contents as claimed.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 20190270289) in view of Lorenzetti et al. (US 20190077132).
Okamoto discloses the above but is silent to the further structure as claimed.
Lorenzetti discloses a laminate packaging material and barrier film. Concerning claim 20, Lorenzetti discloses applying a barrier laminate to a bulk paperboard with a first barrier laminate and sealable layers, wherein such a structure is used to produce a specific form of container (para. 0013-0025). Lorenzetti further discloses the bulk paperboard is adhered by means of an adhesive that can include acrylic polymers (para 0025 and 0065). As such, for producing a specific packaging container, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the structure as claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/710171 in view of Shamoto et al. (JP 2020-189489) and Lorenzetti et al. (US 20190077132). Both sets of claims are directed to a laminated packaging material having the claimed structure and materials. However, the ‘171 claims are silent to the claimed sealant layer and bulk layer.
Shamoto discloses a similar structure with a sealant layer for bonding laminates to form a packaging structure. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a sealant layer as claimed, in order to allow for formation of a packaging container. Lorenzetti discloses a laminate packaging material and barrier film. Concerning claim 20, Lorenzetti discloses applying a barrier laminate to a bulk paperboard with a first barrier laminate and sealable layers, wherein such a structure is used to produce a specific form of container (para. 0013-0025). Lorenzetti further discloses the bulk paperboard is adhered by means of an adhesive that can include acrylic polymers (para 0025 and 0065). As such, for producing a specific packaging container, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the structure as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, and 9-18 of copending Application No. 18/710076 in view of Shamoto et al. (JP 2020-189489) and Lorenzetti et al. (US 20190077132). Both sets of claims are directed to a laminated packaging material having the claimed structure and materials. However, the ‘076 claims are silent to the claimed sealant layer and bulk layer.
Shamoto discloses a similar structure with a sealant layer for bonding laminates to form a packaging structure. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a sealant layer as claimed, in order to allow for formation of a packaging container. Lorenzetti discloses a laminate packaging material and barrier film. Lorenzetti discloses a laminate packaging material and barrier film. Concerning claim 20, Lorenzetti discloses applying a barrier laminate to a bulk paperboard with a first barrier laminate and sealable layers, wherein such a structure is used to produce a specific form of container (para. 0013-0025). Lorenzetti further discloses the bulk paperboard is adhered by means of an adhesive that can include acrylic polymers (para 0025 and 0065). As such, for producing a specific packaging container, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the structure as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights