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
Claims 1-2 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of Group II, claims 3-9 was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 22, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 7, 2025, December 18, 2024, October 4, 2024 and July 29, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claim(s) 3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by Kitahara et al. (WO2020129291, rejection based on English machine translation) cited by Applicants.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 6: Kitahara teaches the following gas barrier laminate.
PNG
media_image1.png
233
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The inorganic oxide layer is a metal oxide of SiOx or AlOx (see Pg. 3, par. 2, Pg. 7 bridged to Pg 8 and see SiOx used in the Examples) and the gas barrier coating has a hardness of 0.6-2, preferably 0.7-1.5, more preferably 0.8-1.2GPa (see Pg. 8-Pg. 9) and even 0.8GPa (see Examples 2 and 4) as measured by a nanoindentation method (see Pg. 8-9 and Examples).
Regarding claims 7 and 8: Kitahara also teaches a packaging film comprising the gas barrier laminate above (see Pg. 11 and Fig 2) and a sealant (see last line of page 3 and see discussion on Pg. 11 of #40 in Figure 2).
Kitahara also teaches a packaging bag (container) comprising the above packaging film (see Pg. 12).
2. Claim(s) 3-5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by Fukugami (JP2009006582, rejection based on English machine translation).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6: Fukugami teaches the following gas barrier laminate.
PNG
media_image2.png
124
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The substrate can be a polyester (PET) or polypropylene (0013 and see PET in Examples) and the inorganic oxide layer is a metal oxide of SiOx or AlOx (see 0009, 0015 and see SiOx used in the Examples).
The gas barrier coating has a hardness of 0.85GPa or more and a modulus of 7.6GPa or more (0025) as measured by a nanoindentation method (see 0024 and Examples) and Fukugami provides Examples with hardness and modulus both falling within the ranges claimed (see Examples 1,2, 6 and 6 in Table).
Regarding claim 5: Although not shown above, an anchor adhesive layer can be between the substrate and oxide layer (0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
3. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kitahara et al. (WO2020129291, rejection based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9: As discussed above, Kitahara teaches a packaging bag (container) comprising their packaging film.
While Kitahara may not provide an Example of a content filled bag as is required by claim 9, as Kitahara does teach that their bag (container) is to accommodate contents including food, medicine, etc., one skilled in the art would conclude Kitahara to anticipated with sufficient specificity, or at the very least render obvious, a packaging bag being filled with contents.
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.
4. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara et al. (WO2020129291, rejection based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 3 above in view of Fukugami (JP2009006582, rejection based on English machine translation).
As discussed above, Kitahara teaches the invention of claim 3
Regarding claim 4: While Kitara does not teach modulus of elasticity for their gas barrier coating, as Kitara does not place limits on the modulus, it would be well within the skill in the art to look to the prior art to determine suitable and desirable modulus values for such gas barrier coatings.
In the instant case, Kitara generally teaches a gas barrier laminate comprising a polyester containing substrate/an adhesive anchor layer/ a SiOx or AlOx layer/ gas barrier coating, wherein the barrier coating should have a hardness of 0.6-2, preferably 0.7-1.5, more preferably 0.8-1.2GPa.
As Fukugami, who similarly teaches a gas barrier laminate comprising a polyester containing substrate/an adhesive anchor layer (see 0018)/ a SiOx or AlOx layer/ gas barrier coating having a hardness of 0.85GPa or more overlapping that disclosed by Kitara, discloses that such gas barrier coatings should also be made to have a modulus of 7.6GPa or more for excellent gas barrier properties and desirable low water vapor permeability (see 0025-0026), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Kitara to include making their high hardness barrier coating with also a modulus of 7.6GPa or more (MPEP 2144.05) according to Fukugami for excellent gas barrier properties and low water vapor permeability.
5. Claim(s) 7-8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Fukugami (JP2009006582, rejection based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 3 above in view of Kitahara et al. (WO2020129291, rejection based on English machine translation).
As discussed above, Fukugami teaches the invention of claim 3.
Regarding claim 7: Fukugami does teach that their gas barrier laminate can be used for packaging materials (see 0002, 0006, 0011) but fails to teach specifically, a packaging film comprising both the laminate and an additional sealant.
However, Fukugami does not exclude such features and instead, only generally teaches a gas barrier laminate used for packaging wherein the laminate comprises a polyester containing substrate/an adhesive anchor layer (see 0018)/ a SiOx or AlOx layer/ gas barrier coating and wherein the barrier coating has a hardness of 0.85GPa or more.
As Kitara, who similarly teaches a gas barrier laminate for packaging wherein the laminate comprises a polyester containing substrate/an adhesive anchor layer/ a SiOx or AlOx layer/ gas barrier coating having a hardness of 0.6-2, preferably 0.7-1.5, more preferably 0.8-1.2GPa overlapping that disclosed by Fukugami, discloses that it is desirable to produce packaging films comprising such gas barrier laminates with a sealant for excellent gas barrier properties, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Fukutami to include packaging films comprising their gas barrier laminate with a sealant for excellent gas barrier properties .
Regarding claim 8: While Fukugami fails to teach specifically, the packaging film being used in a packaging container, as Kitahara also teaches it being desirable to form packaging bags (container) comprising the packaging film to protect food, medical, etc. contents to be accommodated therein (see Pg. 1, 4 and 12), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Fukugami to include packaging bags (container) comprising the packaging film to protect food, medical, etc. contents to be accommodated therein.
Regarding claim 9: As discussed above, Fukugami was modified above to teach a packaging bag (container) comprising their packaging film.
While an already content filled bag as is required by claim 9 is not explicitly mentioned, as the packaging bag (container) is to accommodate food, medical, etc. contents therein, one skilled in the art would conclude a packaging bag being filled with contents to be implicit, or at the very least rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784