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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 claims dependency upon a canceled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, and 12-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochat et al. (US 2012/0171453 A1; hereinafter Rochat) in view of Collaud et al. (US 2018/03544690 A1; hereinafter Collaud) and Johansen et al. (US 2023/0311458 A1; hereinafter Johansen).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6-7, 13-15, and 23-26, Rochat discloses a barrier coated thermos-mechanically stable, heat sealable film, a packaging laminate comprising the film, and a packaging container formed from the packaging laminate comprising a paper or paperboard base layer (21a), a tie layer (24), a metallized film layer (13), and a heat-sealing layer (12), wherein the base layer has an inner side and an outer side, the metallized film layer attached to the inner side of the base layer by the tie layer, and the heat-sealing layer attached to the metallized film layer (see Fig. 2a), wherein the tie layer and the heat-sealing layer are each formed of a polyethylene independently selected from a group consisting of a low-density polyethylene (LDPE), a linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), a polyethylene ionomer, a polyethylene plastomer, and combinations thereof (see Par. 0067 and 0074), and wherein the metallized film layer comprises a metallization layer formed on a substrate film comprising a polyethylene selected from a group consisting of medium-density polyethylene (MDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and combinations thereof (see Par. 0034 and 0036).
Rochat discloses the claimed invention except for teaching that the base layer comprises at least 10% by weight of recycled fibers; or the tie layer being formed of a polyethylene functionalized with acid or anhydride groups.
Collaud teaches a laminated packaging material and packaging containers manufactured therefrom wherein a base layer comprises at least 10 wt of recycled fibers, based on a total fiber weight of the base layer; and a tie layer being formed of a polyethylene functionalized with acid or anhydride groups (Par. 0040-0041 and 0070-0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Rochat’s composite to include recycled fibers in the base layer as a known substitution of materials in the art of laminated packaging materials, as taught by Collaud. Rochat in view of Collaud is silent as to the content by weight of the tie layer being formed of a polyethylene functionalized with acid or anhydride groups.
Johansen teaches a heat-sealable packaging laminate comprising a metallized film layer (see Par. 0047-0048), paperboard base layer, and a tie layer; said tie layer is formed of a polyethylene functionalized with acid or anhydride groups, and, wherein the polyethylene functionalized with acid or anhydride groups has a content of acid or anhydride groups of 15 wt% or less (see Par. 0079-0080). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Rochat’s composite to include a tie layer with polyethylene functionalized with acid or anhydride groups having a content of 15 wt% or less in order to have sufficient adherence and avoid undesired delaminating (Johansen; see Par. 0075).
Regarding claims 4-5, Rochat, as modified above, discloses a composite comprising a barrier coating layer arranged between the base layer and the tie layer, wherein said barrier coating layer comprises a water-soluble polymer in an amount of at least 50 wt%, based on a dry weight of the barrier coating layer (Rochat; Par. 0051).
Regarding claim 8, Rochat, as modified above, discloses a composite wherein the tie layer and the heat-sealing layer are each formed of a polyethylene independently selected from the a group consisting of: low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), polyethylene ionomer, etpolyethylene plastomer, and combinations thereof (Rochat; see Par. 0067 and 0074).
Regarding claims 16, 18, and 20, Rochat, as modified above, discloses a composite wherein only one of the surfaces of the substrate film is metallized (Rochat; see Par. 0067-0069).
Regarding claims 22 and 27, Rochat, as modified above, discloses a composite further comprising a moisture barrier layer arranged on the an outer side of the paper or paperboard base layer, which wherein the moisture barrier layer comprises a dispersion barrier layer or an extrusion coated polyolefin layer, preferably a dispersion barrier layer (Rochat; see Par. 0071).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-12, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-8, 13-16, 18, 20, and 22-27 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Rochat have been fully considered and are persuasive. Rochat lacks disclosure of the claimed tie layer composition. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Rochat in view of Collaud and Johansen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights