DETAILED ACTION
In response to Amendments/Arguments filed 8/13/2026. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 16-18 and 21-22 are withdrawn without traverse. Claims 1-15 are examined thusly. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, and 11 were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamoto et al. (JP 2020-189489) in view of Nuruddin et al. (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces).
Shamoto discloses a barrier laminate with paper as a base material for packaging materials. Concerning claim 1, 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 water vapor barrier layer has a thickness of 1 to 30 microns (or 1000 nm to 30000 nm) (para. 0047). Examiner considers to the limitation “for use as a gas barrier sheet in a laminated packaging material for oxygen-sensitive products” as a statement of intended use and not given patentable weight since the laminate as set forth by Shamoto is the same as that claimed and would function in the same manner. However, Shamoto is silent to the nanocrystalline cellulose.
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 such as polyvinyl alcohol is 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. Concerning claims 4 and 5, the resins can include styrene-butadiene and isoprene-based materials in aqueous compositions (para. 0039-0043).
In regard to claims 6 and 9, the water vapor barrier layer further comprises a layered inorganic filler such as kaolin or bentonite (para. 0024-0029). 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 7. Regarding claim 8, Shamoto 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.
With respect to claim 10, 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 regard to claim 11, 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 claims 12-14, since the structure, materials, and grammage are the same and as such, have the claimed properties. With respect to claim 15, the paper substrate comprises at least 50% wood pulp which is a softwood pulp (para. 0017-0018). However, Shamoto is silent to the nanocrystalline cellulose.
Nuruddin discloses a gas barrier coating comprising polyvinyl alcohol and a nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) used as a gas barrier coating in packaging, wherein the nanocrystalline cellulose added to polyvinyl alcohol improves the barrier performance due to the synergistic effect of the alignment of the nanocrystalline cellulose and lower free volume (abstract; pp. 12474-12475). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the NCC to the polyvinyl alcohol gas barrier layer of Shamoto.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/710019 in view of Nuruddin et al. (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a barrier-coated cellulose-based substrate for packaging, wherein the substrate has the same density and grammage and the gas barrier material includes and encompasses the claimed materials with a ductile-base layer pre-coating comprising the same or similar materials. The resulting laminate has the same or similar properties in at least overlapping ranges. While it is noted that the instant claims do not recite a packaging container, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a packaging since that is the intended use. The ‘019 claims are silent to the NCC in the gas barrier layer and the PVOH. Nuruddin discloses a gas barrier coating comprising polyvinyl alcohol and a nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) used as a gas barrier coating in packaging, wherein the nanocrystalline cellulose added to polyvinyl alcohol improves the barrier performance due to the synergistic effect of the alignment of the nanocrystalline cellulose and lower free volume (abstract; pp. 12474-12475). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the NCC to the polyvinyl alcohol gas barrier layer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to objection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the amendments as overcoming the previous objection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-8, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the amendments as overcoming the previous rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-10, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection under Shamoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. However, it is noted that Shamoto is still applicable as a primary reference in an obviousness rejection as shown above. To that end, Applicant asserts that the water vapor barrier layer as recited by Shamoto is not the same as the claimed ductility base layer and cites the explanation within the specification for the ductility base layer and that the ductility layer “does not need to contribute with inherent gas barrier properties”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the materials for the ductile base layer are the same as that claimed in the dependent claims. Namely, an inorganic filler and an aqueous dispersion of a styrene-butadiene. Examiner notes an aqueous dispersion would form a latex for the resin. As such, the materials are the same as that claimed. Applicant has not shown how the resins and inorganic filler, both of which are claimed, differ from that of Shamoto. Examiner also notes that the instant claims do not define a specific composition to form the ductile base layer that would exclude the particular materials recited by Shamoto. As such, the structure is the same as that claimed. Examiner also notes that gas barrier properties are considered different from water vapor barrier properties given that the size of water vapor versus gas molecules of oxygen and a such, the ductile base layer does not necessarily differ from the water vapor barrier layer of Shamoto given that there is no disclosure that the layer cannot be a water vapor barrier as well. Examiner notes that the disclosure “does not need to contribute” does not mean “does not at all” and is open to interpretation. As such, Shamoto is still applicable as shown above.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 10, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection over the claims of 18/710076 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner notes that the ‘076 claims recite the gas barrier layer specifically does not include NCC and as such, differs from the instant claims. However, the double patenting rejection over the claims of 18/710019 is still applicable as shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
