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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: both claims use a “,” (e.g., 0,45) instead of a “.” (i.e., 0.45) as the decimal place indicator. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim must only refer back in the alternative. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-14 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 14 recite preferably rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 7, 10, and 11 recites as the only limitation an optional one. As such it is unclear what the claims are attempting to define.
All other claims depend from claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites multiple conjunctions: the vapor passage barrier agents are selected from acrylic copolymer emulsions, styrenated copolymers, polyurethanes, amine and phenolic-based polymers, vegetable resins and waxes and/or mixtures thereof.
The plain meaning of the claim is: the agents are selected from:
acrylic copolymer emulsions,
styrenated copolymers,
polyurethanes,
amine and phenolic-based polymers,
vegetable resins and waxes and/or
mixtures thereof.
Should applicant desire otherwise, and have support for other interpretations, the claim should be amended.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azerraf (US 2021/0206150).
Azerraf teaches a multilayer structure with layers A, B, and C (see Figures, especially 3D). Layer A and C may be kraft paper (see ¶48 and 51). All or some of the layers (A,B,C) may be coated with a polymer such as a water vapor battier (¶56). Azerraf teaches layer B may include PVAc (¶¶75, 260). Azerraf teaches as the water vapor barrier styrene-butadiene (¶295). Azerraf teaches as the properties of the package a water vapor passage rate of 0.01-20 g/(m2*d) (¶240). The kraft paper is from 30-50 gsm (¶139) and the water vapor barrier is from 3-20 gsm (¶139).
Although not taught in a single embodiment it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings above to arrive at packaging where:
Kraft paper (¶48) weighing 30-50 gsm (¶139) is coated (¶56) with a vapor barrier comprising SB (¶295) on one or both sides in an amount from 3-20 (¶139) so as to produce a WVTR of 0.1-20 (¶240). It would have been obvious to include a PVAc containing layer between the kraft paper (¶260). Figure 3D in particular includes every layer required in the position required.
Although the WVTR is tested according to a different method, it is reasonable to conclude the WVTR would at least overlap the claimed range if tested according to the method of claim 4 in that the prior art teaches the same features as claimed and the specification provides no instruction on how to achieve the WVTR aside from having the claimed polymers and substrates in the amount disclosed.
Azerraf renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azerraf (US 2021/0206150) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Marsik (US 4863287).
Azerraf teaches the packaging of claim 1. Azerraf teaches the packaging can be folded but fails to teach there is a portion free of the vaper barrier at the edge.
Marksi is directed to a package with a wax free area at the edge which can be used to facilitate folding and adhering of labels and the such (see Figures and 2:30-50). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to leave a portion near the edge of the Azerraf bag free of coating as taught by Marksi to facilitate folding and attachment of labels. Although Marksi fails to teach the size of the region is 10-20 mm it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of the uncoated region based on the desired to ensure a large enough region for label attachment yet not detract from the benefits of the coatings as taught by Azerraf.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azerraf (US 2021/0206150) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Smith (GB 1604830).
Azerraf teaches the packaging of claim 1. Azerraf teaches the package can be used for food but does not teach perforations as optionally required by claims 7 and 8.
Smith teaches a laminate for packing flour (i.e., a food) where the laminate has perforations to allow the flour to breath (1:10-25, 2:55-75). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use perforations in the packaging of Azerraf because as taught by Smith some food types, e.g., flour, need perforations to prevent accelerated deterioration.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azerraf (US 2021/0206150) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Makinen (WO2023156368A1, US 2025/0153902 relied upon for citations) and Preston (EP 0924342).
Azerraf teaches the packaging of claim 11. Azerraf fails to teach the water absorption or static friction coefficient. Azerraf teaches the importance of water impermeability (¶94) but fails to teach the value according to ISO 535.
Makinen teaches for packaging acceptable Cobb 600 values are of up to 5gsm (ISO 535) (¶39). As Azerraf teaches the importance of water impermeability and food packaging, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have formed the packaging with a value of less than 5.
Preston teaches cellulosic anti slip sheets of increased COF for packaging, in particular those made of kraft paper (¶¶1,4). Preston teaches the object of the invention is a coating composition, applied in an amount from 5-3 gsm which increases the COF for the benefit of a more effective package (¶3,4,16). Preston teaches the COF ranges from 0.433-0.741 (see Tables) and is dependent upon the amount of coating applied.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply a COF coating as taught by Preston to the Azerraf packaging for the benefit of reduction in sliding during handling and transport.
Although Preston fails to teach specific COF values to achieve, they do teach the value is a result effective variable which can be optimized depending on the amount of coating applied. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J VINEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Greg Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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.
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights