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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 1 (e.g., first line on page 15). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to because they do not end with periods. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor 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). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation of an oxygen transmission rate of a maximum of 3 cm3/m2 per day, and the claim also recites maximal of 1 cm3/m2 per day and 0.2 cm3/m2 per day which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim 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.
Additionally, claim 2 is rendered indefinite because the amendment to the claim has left its wording grammatically obtuse. In particular, the phrase "wherein the layered structure, the barrier layer, comprises an oxygen transmission rate of a maximum of 3 cm3/m2 per day at 23oC and a relative humidity of 50%, maximal 1 cm3/m2 per day at 23oC and a relative humidity of 50%, maximal 0.2 cm3/m2 per day at 23oC and a relative humidity of 50%" does not make sense.
As with claim 2, the amendment to claim 3 has rendered it indefinite by reciting broad and narrow limitations. Claim 3 recites a broad water-soluble polymer - a polymer with a plurality of vinyl alcohol groups - as well as a narrower polymer - polyvinyl alcohol.
As with claims above, the amendment to claim 4 has left it reciting broad and narrow limitations. In particular, the broad limitation "bio-degradable and compostable" and the narrower limitation "home compostable."
As with claims above, the amendment to claim 5 has rendered it indefinite by reciting broad and narrow limitations. In particular, the broad limitation "paper recycling process" and the narrower limitation "paper recycling process according to EN 13430 (as of the end of 2021)."
The term "high" in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "high" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term renders the barrier properties of the high barrier paper indefinite.
As with claims 2-5 above, the amendment to claim 10 has rendered it indefinite by reciting broad and narrow ranges. In particular, the broad range "40 mm to 150 mm" and the narrower ranges "50 mm to 130 mm" and "60 mm to 120 mm."
As with claims 2-5 and 10 above, the amendment to claim 11 has rendered it indefinite by reciting broad and narrow limitations. In particular, the broad limitation "a salt of at least one of alkali metals, earth alkali metals, aluminum comprising salt and/or mixtures thereof" and the narrower limitation "NaCl, Na-citrate, and the respective potassium analogues."
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams et al. (US 2022/0064860).
Williams is directed to a cellulosic substrate coated with polyvinyl alcohol for use as food packaging (paragraphs 0002 and 0056). The coated substrate can be recycled in a conventional paper mill (paragraph 0041).
In the embodiment of Example 3, the cellulosic substrate is kraft paper having a basis weight of 45 g/m2 (paragraph 0106) and the polyvinyl alcohol composition contains sodium benzoate (paragraph 0095).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of this claim are taken to be satisfied since one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize both paper and polyvinyl alcohol as bio-degradable and compostable.
The limitations of claim 8 are taken to be met since the coated substrate is described as having barrier properties (e.g., paragraphs 0026 and 0043).
The limitations of claim 11 is met since sodium benzoate is a salt of an alkali metal.
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.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Williams et al. (US 2022/0064860).
Williams teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 14, as outlined above, except that the reference is silent regarding (i) the oxygen transmission rate at 23oC and a relative humidity of 50% and (ii) the particular food to be packaged.
Regarding claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the oxygen transmission rate at 23oC and a relative humidity of 50% to be a property of the barrier layer. Since the coating layer of Williams is formed of the same materials as the barrier layer of the claims (i.e., polyvinyl alcohol and an alkali salt), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to intrinsically satisfy the limitations of claim 2, particularly since the coating is designed to have superior barrier properties to oxygen (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 14, since the coated substrate of Williams is intended to be used as food packaging, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged packing coffee, as it is a well-known food item. Alternatively, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to package any food item, including coffee.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Heiskanen et al. (WO 2021/090192).
Heiskanen is directed to a barrier material comprising a microfibrillated cellulose substrate and a barrier layer formed by applying a water-soluble polymer and crosslinker to the cellulose substrate (page 2, lines 12-18). The barrier material improves at least two barrier properties, such as water vapor and oxygen transmission rates (page 3, line 30-page 4, line 3). The barrier material is used for packaging of food (page 4, lines 4-7). The cellulose substrate in the form of a free standing film may be attached to a carrier substrate of paper (page 7, lines 4-12). The crosslinker may be a metal salt of an organic acid, preferably a sodium salt such as sodium citrate (page 9, lines 20-26). The water-soluble polymer may be polyvinyl alcohol (page 9, lines 29-33).
The carrier substrate of paper corresponds to the paper base layer of the claims; the microfibrillated cellulose substrate coated with water-soluble polymer and crosslinker corresponds to the barrier layer of the claims.
Regarding claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the oxygen transmission rate at 23oC and a relative humidity of 50% to be a property of the barrier layer. Since the barrier layer of Heiskanen is formed of the same materials as the barrier layer of the claims (i.e., polyvinyl alcohol and sodium citrate), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to intrinsically satisfy the limitations of claim 2, particularly since the coating is designed to have superior barrier properties to oxygen (page 3, line 30-page 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of this claim are taken to be satisfied since one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that paper, cellulose, and polyvinyl alcohol are bio-degradable and compostable.
The limitations of claim 5 are taken to be satisfied since the paper and polyvinyl alcohol are known to be recyclable by a paper recycling process and the microfibrillated cellulose sheet is also formed in a papermaking process (page 5, line 31-page 6, line 9).
Regarding claim 7, the layer formed from the water-soluble polymer and crosslinker corresponds to the first sub-layer while the microfibrillated cellulose layer corresponds to the second sublayer, particularly since the barrier material as a whole is designed to have both oxygen and water vapor resistance and the claim does not quantify the amount of oxygen and water/humidity barrier provided by the barrier layer.
The limitations of claim 8 are taken to be met since the barrier material is described as having barrier properties (page 3, line 30-page 4, line 3).
The limitations claim 13 are taken to be met since the free standing film to be attached to the paper carrier substrate corresponds to a "foil like element."
Regarding claim 14, since the coated substrate of Williams is intended to be used as food packaging, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged packing coffee, as it is a well-known food item. Alternatively, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to package any food item, including coffee.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiskanen et al. (WO 2021/090192) in view of Williams et al. (US 2022/0064860).
Heiskanen teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, except for the basis weight of the paper carrier substrate. However, the paper may be kraft paper (page 7, lines 8-12) and the resulting laminate is intended to be used as packaging for food (page 4, lines 4-7).
Williams is directed to a cellulosic substrate coated with polyvinyl alcohol for use as food packaging (paragraphs 0002 and 0056). In the embodiment of Example 3, the cellulosic substrate is kraft paper having a basis weight of 45 g/m2 (paragraph 0106)
That is, Williams teaches that kraft paper having a basis weight of 45 g/m2 may be used as food packaging. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use kraft paper having a basis weight of 45 g/m2 as the paper of Heiskanen since the courts have held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights