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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 and 16-20, in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the unelected method is specifically designed to prepare the product of elected claims. This is not found persuasive because although the inventions are related as a process of making and a product made, the inventions are distinct because the product can be made by a materially different process. See paragraphs 1-2 of the Restriction Requirement mailed 11/5/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is indicated as “Withdrawn” with no text provided in the amendment filed 12/18/2025. 37 CFR 1.121(c) requires that each amendment document “must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims”. Future amendments should include the full text of any withdrawn claim, including claim 15; otherwise, the amendments will be subject to a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment. See MPEP 714 at sections (C) and (F).
Claim 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 4, “sulphopolyesters” should be “sulfopolyester”.
Claim 12, line 3, “a PPS roughness” should be “a Parker Print Surf (PPS) roughness”. (Although claim 11 describes the meaning of PPS, claim 12 does not depend from the claim.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4, 7-9, 13, and 16 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “one to three intermediate polymeric coating layers”, and the claim also recites “preferably two, and more preferably three” such layers which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “thickness from 20 to 80 nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 30 to 60 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. This is treated similarly to the phrases “for example” and “such as”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “one or two inner polymeric coating layers”, and the claim also recites “preferably two” such layers which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 recites the broad recitation “a COBB index from 2 to 20 g/m2”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 2 to 6 g/m2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 16 recites the broad recitation “amount from 1 to 3.75 g/m2”, and the claim also recites “preferably, between 1 to 3 g/m2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-9, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (WO 2022/009608) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (WO 2022/229337).
Note: US 2023/0242314 is used as an English equivalent of WO ‘608. Citations refer to US ‘314.
Regarding claims 1 and 14:
Ishii discloses a gas barrier laminate for packaging comprising a paper substrate, an anchor coat layer including a first polyolefin having a polar group; a layer comprising PVA; a vapor-deposited layer; and an overcoat layer including a second polyolefin having a polar group [abstract; 0001; 0008]. The vapor-deposited layer comprises metal and is formed by vacuum deposition [0050-0053]. The overcoat layer’s second polyolefin having a polar group comprises acrylic acid ester copolymers and/or copolymers comprising vinyl acetate, polyurethane, etc. [0054-0058]. The overcoat layer can further comprise other polymers, including polyacrylic, polyester, polyurethane, etc. [0060].
Ishii is silent with regard to the grammage of the paper substrate.
Paper having a grammage within the claimed range was known in the art to have utility. For example, Bhattacharya discloses multilayer metallized paper-based packaging (abstract; 1:20+; 5:1+). The reference teaches the paper has a grammage of 40-120 g/m2 to provide flexibility without breaking (5:20; 10:13+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a paper substrate having a grammage of 40-120 g/m2 to provide a flexible packaging material that resists breaking as taught by Bhattacharya.
Regarding claim 2:
Ishii teaches the anchor layer’s first polyolefin having a polar group comprises acrylic acid ester copolymers and/or copolymers comprising vinyl acetate, polyurethane, etc. [0036-0040]. The anchor layer can further comprise other polymers, including polyacrylic, polyester, polyurethane, etc. [0041].
Regarding claim 3:
Ishii teaches polyvinyl alcohol [0046].
Regarding claim 4:
Ishii teaches at least one layer of PVA.
Regarding claim 5:
Ishii teaches a further coat layer between the paper and the anchor coat layer that comprises styrene-acrylic copolymer, ethylene-vinyl acetate, etc. [0033].
Regarding claims 6-7:
Ishii teaches the vapor-deposited layer comprises aluminum, etc. [0051]. The thickness of the layer is 30-80 nm [0052].
Regarding claim 8:
Ishii teaches an acrylic copolymer dispersion for the overcoat layer [0089]. Additionally, it is noted the present claim is drawn to a final product (i.e., dried). The examiner submits the final product of Ishii’s disclosure would be indistinguishable from the final product of the present claim.
Regarding claim 9:
Ishii teaches at least one overcoat layer.
Regarding claim 16:
Ishii teaches the thickness of the PVA layer can be adjusted as needed [0049]. Although Ishii is silent with regard to the basis weight (g/m2) of the layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the basis weight and the thickness are directly related. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the PVA layer, including over values within the presently claimed range of basis weights, to provide the barrier and other properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claim 17:
Ishii teaches the thickness of the anchor layer can be adjusted as needed [0043]. Although Ishii is silent with regard to the basis weight (g/m2) of the layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the basis weight and the thickness are directly related. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the anchor layer, including over values within the presently claimed range of basis weights, to provide the adhesion and other properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claim 18:
Ishii teaches the thickness of the overcoat layer can be adjusted as needed [0062]. Although Ishii is silent with regard to the basis weight (g/m2) of the layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the basis weight and the thickness are directly related. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the anchor layer, including over values within the presently claimed range of basis weights, to provide the heat-seal and other properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claim 19:
See the rejections of claims 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (WO 2022/009608) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (WO 2022/229337) as applied above, and further in view of Vishtal et al. (WO 2022/023077).
Note: US 2023/0242314 is used as an English equivalent of WO ‘608. Citations refer to US ‘314.
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
Ishii in view of Bhattacharya disclose a laminate for packaging as explained above. Ishii teaches the overcoat layer’s second polyolefin having a polar group comprises acrylic acid ester copolymers and/or copolymers comprising vinyl acetate, polyurethane, etc. [0054-0058]. The overcoat layer can further comprise other polymers, including polyacrylic, polyester, polyurethane, etc. [0060].
Ishii and Bhattacharya are silent with regard to multiple layers of material.
The use of additional coating layers was known in the art to have utility. For example, Vishtal discloses paper-based multilayer packaging (abstract; 1:19+). The reference teaches that using multiple coatings for a layer provides improved planarization, reduced pinholes, and processability (8:6+; 9:1+; 13:8-14:14).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple coating layers that would correspond to the presently claimed intermediate polymeric coating layers and inner polymeric coating layers, including in configurations as presently claimed, to provide improved planarization, reduced pinholes, and processability as required for a given end use.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (WO 2022/009608) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (WO 2022/229337) as applied above, and further in view of Koenig et al. (US 2016/0348318).
Note: US 2023/0242314 is used as an English equivalent of WO ‘608. Citations refer to US ‘314.
Regarding claim 11-12:
Ishii in view of Bhattacharya disclose a laminate for packaging as explained above. Ishii teaches the surface of the paper substrate can be coated to improve unevenness [0033], but is silent with regard to a PPS roughness value. Bhattacharya discloses a paper layer preferably has a low surface roughness to provide uniform coatings (11:12-12:2), but is silent with regard to a PPS roughness value.
Values within the claimed range were known in the art to have utility. For example, Koenig teaches paper substrates for use in packaging [0001-0002; 0101]. The reference teaches paper smoothness can be measured in terms of PPS, and that a coating layer can be applied to a paper to provide a PPS of less than about 3 [0009; 0056; 0095; 0098].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the PPS of the paper substrate, including over values falling within the presently claimed range, to provide a smooth surface for further coating layers to prevent defects.
Regarding claim 13:
Ishii is silent with regard to a COBB index of the paper substrate. Bhattacharya teaches its multilayer packaging material has a COBB value of less than 10 g/m2 after 30 days (16:1+).
Koenig further teaches COBB values measure the water absorptiveness of the paper and its coatings can provide a COBB value of less than 50 g/m2 (gsm), particularly 10-40 g/m2 over 2 minutes [0009; 0055; 0097].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the COBB index of the paper substrate, including over values falling within the presently claimed range, to provide the desired degree of resistance to water absorption desired for a given end use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787