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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/05/2024, 11/18/2025, 12/24/2025, 02/12/2026 are considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clare (EP 3256317; cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5, Clare teaches a laminated structure and stand up pouch comprised of the laminated structure ([0001]). The laminated structure (package bag laminate) is comprised of an outer web (base layer) and an inner web comprising a first B layer and a second B layer (together corresponding to the intermediate layer) and a third B layer (sealant layer) comprising a sealant polyethylene composition ([0010-0022, 0027-0072, 0095-0098]). The outer web is a multilayer extruded film comprised of at least one layer of HDPE and at least one layer of a lower density polyethylene such as MDPE or LDPE, wherein the multilayer extruded film is subjected to machine direction orientation (i.e. stretching) ([0010-0022, 0053-0061]).
The inner web is comprised of a multilayer extruded film comprised of one skin layer (support layer) of a polyethylene composition, a barrier layer of EVOH, a core layer (support layer) of HDPE composition and a polyethylene sealant layer (claims 5 and 6; [0091-0098]).
Regarding claim 4, Clare teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that low amounts of EVOH, such as less than 10 weight %, are used in the overall laminated structure in order to maintain recyclability ([0093], claim 6), therefore, greater than 90 weight % of the overall laminated structure would be comprised of polyethylene material.
Regarding claim 6, Clare teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the laminated structure is used to make a stand up bag (packaging bag) ([0001, 0018-0022]).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Clare teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches that the tope of the stand up back (packaging bag) can be equipped with a straw for liquids or a spout for pastes, emulsions, purees and the like ([0018-0022]).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clare (EP 3256317; cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Clare teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, and while the reference does not expressly teach that the spout includes a gas barrier layer, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Clare teaches the use of a gas barrier layer to provide barrier properties and performance for the laminated structure and resultant stand up bag. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include gas barrier materials in the spout as well, to further enhance the gas barrier properties of the overall stand up bag to protect the contents within.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clare (EP 3256317; cited on IDS) in view of Sugiyama et al. (JP H11-320739, cited on IDS, Machine Translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 3, Clare teaches all the limitation of claim 2 above, however, the reference does not expressly teach that the ethylene vinyl alcohol comprising the barrier layer has an ethylene unit content of 20 mol% or more and 70 mol% or less as presently claimed.
Sugiyama et al. teaches a barrier film used for heat sealable bags, wherein EVOH is used as a gas barrier layer ([0001]). Sugiyama et al. teaches that the gas barrier layer comprises EVOH with an ethylene content of 25 to 50 mol%, wherein materials having an ethylene content less than 25 mol% have poor flexibility in the barrier layer making it difficult to avoid a decrease in barrier performance due the occurrence of pinholes ([0008, 0010, 0013-0015]). The ethylene content range taught by Sugiyama et al. of 25-50mol% falls completely within the claimed range of 20-70 mol%.
As both Clare and Sugiyama et al. are in the same field of endeavor (i.e. packaging films with gas barrier layers), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the EVOH gas barrier layer of Clare to have an ethylene content of 25 to 50 mol% as taught by Sugiyama et al. to ensure the layer maintains barrier properties as well as flexibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights