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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugawa (JP 2010143624 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sugawa discloses a laminated film (Fig. 1) comprising: a coextruded film (1, Page 4, 3rd paragraph of the translation) in which polyethylene resin layers are adjacently laminated through coextrusion on at least a single surface of a barrier resin layer (Page 4, 3rd paragraph of the translation) formed from an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) (Page 4, 4th paragraph of the translation); and a sealant layer (2) that is laminated on the coextruded film. Sugawa further discloses the sealant layer laminated on the inner surface of the base material of the coextruded film via an adhesive layer through dry lamination (3rd to last paragraph on Page 7 of the translation).
Regarding claim 2, Sugawa discloses the polyethylene resin layers are adjacent to both surfaces of the barrier resin layer in the coextruded film through coextrusion (Page 4, 4th paragraph of the translation).
Regarding claim 7, Sugawa does not disclose stretching of the coextruded film.
Regarding claim 8-9, Sugawa discloses a package formed from the laminated film according to claim 1 (Fig. 2) in the form of a standing pouch.
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.
Alternatively, claim(s) 1-2, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawa (JP 2010143624 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sugawa applied as above, but to the degree that Sugawa further discloses the sealant layer laminated on the inner surface of the base material of the coextruded film via an adhesive layer through dry lamination (3rd to last paragraph on Page 7 of the translation) on a package using different chosen base layer materials, and therefore would be on a different embodiment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Sugawa and apply the sealant layer to the base layer (of the embodiment comprising EVOH) via an adhesive layer through dry lamination because such a change would have required the mere choice of using one known layer attaching method over another and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Sugawa discloses the polyethylene resin layers are adjacent to both surfaces of the barrier resin layer in the coextruded film through coextrusion (Page 4, 4th paragraph of the translation).
Regarding claim 7, Sugawa does not disclose stretching of the coextruded film.
Regarding claim 8-9, Sugawa discloses a package formed from the laminated film according to claim 1 (Fig. 2) in the form of a standing pouch.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugawa (JP 2010143624 A) in view of Hayashi (JP 2021160267 A).
Regarding claim 3, Sugawa applies to claim 1 as noted above, but does not specifically disclose the barrier resin layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 µm.
Hayashi teaches a similar laminated film including a barrier layer resin, the barrier resin layer (18) has a thickness of 1 to 5 µm (Page 10, 3rd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Sugawa and use the teaching of Hayashi and make the barrier resin layer with a thickness of 1 to 5 µm because such a change would have required a mere finding of an optimum range, or a mere change in size of a component. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S594927 Y2 in view of Sugawa (JP 2010143624 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, JP S594927 Y2 demonstrates a pouch having a bottom made of a separate and distinct material from the other materials of the bag.
JP S594927 Y2 does not specifically disclose a laminated film comprising: a coextruded film in which polyethylene resin layers are adjacently laminated through coextrusion on at least a single surface of a barrier resin layer formed from an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH); and a sealant layer that is laminated on the coextruded film.
Sugawa discloses a laminated film (Fig. 1) comprising: a coextruded film (1, Page 4, 3rd paragraph of the translation) in which polyethylene resin layers are adjacently laminated through coextrusion on at least a single surface of a barrier resin layer (Page 4, 3rd paragraph of the translation) formed from an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) (Page 4, 4th paragraph of the translation); and a sealant layer (2) that is laminated on the coextruded film, as well as the ability to attach a sealant layer to a base layer via an adhesive layer through dry lamination (3rd to last paragraph on Page 7 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of JP S594927 Y2 and make a bottom out of the material layers taught by Sugawa because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabatabaei et al. (US 2014/0370212 A1)(Tabatabaei) in view of Fujimura (JP 2013028061 A).
Regarding claim 11, Tabatabaei discloses a laminated film (Fig. 1) comprising: a coextruded film (Paragraphs 0020-0021) in which polyethylene resin layers (41/45) are adjacently laminated through coextrusion on at least a single surface of a barrier resin layer formed from an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH); a sealant layer (50) that is laminated on the inner surface of the coextruded film; and a base material (20/30, Paragraph 0025) that is laminated on the outer surface of the coextruded film.
Tabatabaei does not specifically disclose the base material made of a polyethylene resin.
Fujimura teaches a similar film and packaging material and teaches a base material (10) can be made of many suitable materials including polyethylene.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Tabatabaei and use the teaching of Fujimura and make the base material out of polyethylene resin because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, modified Tabatabaei discloses the polyethylene resin layers are adjacent to both surfaces of the barrier resin layer in the coextruded film through coextrusion (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tabatabaei does not disclose that the coextruded film is stretched.
Regarding claim 15, modified Tabatabaei discloses a package formed from the laminated film (Paragraph 0009).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabatabaei et al. (US 2014/0370212 A1)(Tabatabaei) in view of Fujimura (JP 2013028061 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP 2021160267 A).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tabatabaei does not specifically disclose the barrier resin layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 µm.
Hayashi teaches a similar laminated film including a barrier layer resin, the barrier resin layer (18) has a thickness of 1 to 5 µm (Page 10, 3rd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tabatabaei and use the teaching of Hayashi and make the barrier resin layer with a thickness of 1 to 5 µm because such a change would have required a mere finding of an optimum range, or a mere change in size of a component. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S594927 Y2 in view of Tabatabaei et al. (US 2014/0370212 A1)(Tabatabaei) and Fujimura (JP 2013028061 A).
Regarding claims 11 and 16-17, JP S594927 Y2 demonstrates a standing pouch having a bottom made of a separate and distinct material from the other materials of the bag.
JP S594927 Y2 does not specifically disclose a laminated film comprising: a coextruded film in which polyethylene resin layers are adjacently laminated through coextrusion on at least a single surface of a barrier resin layer formed from an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH); and a sealant layer that is laminated on the coextruded film, or a base material made of polyethylene resin that is laminated on the outer surface of the coextruded film.
Tabatabaei discloses a laminated film (Fig. 1) comprising: a coextruded film (Paragraphs 0020-0021) in which polyethylene resin layers (41/45) are adjacently laminated through coextrusion on at least a single surface of a barrier resin layer formed from an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH); a sealant layer (50) that is laminated on the inner surface of the coextruded film; and a base material (20/30, Paragraph 0025) that is laminated on the outer surface of the coextruded film.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of JP S594927 Y2 and make a bottom out of the material layers taught by Tabatabaei because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Modified JP S594927 Y2 does not specifically disclose the base material made of a polyethylene resin.
Fujimura teaches a similar film and packaging material and teaches a base material (10) can be made of many suitable materials including polyethylene.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of JP S594927 Y2 and use the teaching of Fujimura and make the base material out of polyethylene resin because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, modified JP S594927 Y2 and specifically Tabatabaei discloses the polyethylene resin layers are adjacent to both surfaces of the barrier resin layer in the coextruded film through coextrusion (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 14, modified JP S594927 Y2 and specifically Tabatabaei does not disclose that the coextruded film is stretched.
Regarding claim 15, modified JP S594927 Y2 and specifically Tabatabaei discloses a package formed from the laminated film (Paragraph 0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sugawa does not teach or disclose a sealant layer bonded to the coextruded film through an adhesive layer by dry lamination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sugawa teaches a coextruded base layer, as well as the ability to attach a sealant layer to a base layer through dry lamination 3rd to last paragraph on Page 7 of the translation. To the degree that it can be argued that dry lamination is not used on the package embodiment with the base layer of coextruded polyethylene and EVOH, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to use the teaching of the example material as discussed by Sugawa and attach the sealant layer by a known bonding method.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Hayashi as a base reference have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 11 and Sugawa and Hayashi references are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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 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.
/M.T.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights