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 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.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 5 recites “based on the total” in line 3. It appears that the claim should recite “based on a total” in line 3.
Claim 6 recites “based on the total” in line 3. It appears that the claim should recite “based on a total” in line 3.
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, 12, 13, 20, 23, 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Provost et al. (WO2017/084762).
Regarding claim 1, Provost et al. teach a paper based packaging film having a first major outer surface and a second major outer surface (page 2, lines 25-32, page 3, lines 1-5, 15-22), the paper based packaging film comprising a paper component (page 3, lines 15-22); a polymeric film (page 3, lines 15-22, page 11, lines 1-15); and a patterned sealable material (page 11, lines 1-15); wherein the first major outer surface comprises one or more first surface regions provided by the patterned sealable material and one or more second surface regions provided by the paper component (page 11, lines 1-15); the second major outer surface is a product contact surface and is provided by the polymeric film (page 11, lines 1-15), and wherein the polymeric film does not extend into the fiber network of the paper component (page 11, lines 1-15, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Provost et al. teach wherein the paper component is connected to the polymeric film (page 11, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 12, Provost et al. teach wherein the sealable material is a heat sealable material (page 9, lines 10-16, page 11, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 13, Provost et al. teach wherein the heat sealable material is a heat sealable lacquer (page 9, lines 10-16, page 11, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 20, Provost et al. teach wherein the paper component comprises a paper layer (page 3, lines 15-25, page 11, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 23, Provost et al. teach wherein the paper component has a mass per unit area of between 18 to 170 g/m2 which reads on Applicant’s claimed basis weight in a range of from 30 g/m2 to 360 g/m2 (page 3, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 28, Provost et al. teach wherein the film further comprises an adhesive located between the paper component and the polymeric film (page 11, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 38, Provost et al. teach a package formed from or including a paper based packaging film (page 11, lines 1-31) having a first major outer surface and a second major outer surface (page 2, lines 25-32, page 3, lines 1-5, 15-22), the paper based packaging film comprising a paper component (page 3, lines 15-22); a polymeric film (page 3, lines 15-22, page 11, lines 1-15); and a patterned sealable material (page 11, lines 1-15); wherein the first major outer surface comprises one or more first surface regions provided by the patterned sealable material and one or more second surface regions provided by the paper component (page 11, lines 1-15); the second major outer surface is a product contact surface and is provided by the polymeric film (page 11, lines 1-15).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost et al. (WO2017/084762).
Provost et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 5, Provost et al. do not disclose wherein the paper based packaging film has a paper content including greater than or equal to 80% paper by weight. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the paper content of Provost et al. in order to filter gases and/or vapour (Provost et al., page 3, lines 15-25).
Claims 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost et al. (WO2017/084762) in view of Tilton (US Patent Application No. 2014/0272352).
Provost et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 6, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the paper based packaging film has a recoverable content including greater than or equal to 80% by weight, based on the weight of the paper based packaging film. However, Tilton teaches a paper based packaging film comprising a paper component (page 4, paragraph [0072]) and a polymeric film (page 4, paragraph [0072], page 9, paragraph [0094], page 11, paragraph [0102]), wherein the paper based packaging film has a recoverable content of up to 98% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of greater than or equal to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the paper based packaging film (page 2, paragraph [0056], page 4, paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recoverable content of Tilton to the packaging film of Provost et al. in order to offer reusability and reprocess ability (Tilton, page 4, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the polymeric film is oriented. However, Tilton teaches a paper based packaging film comprising a paper component (page 4, paragraph [0072]) and a polymeric film (page 4, paragraph [0072], page 9, paragraph [0094], page 11, paragraph [0102]), wherein the polymeric film is oriented (page 11, paragraph [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the polymeric film of Provost et al. as that of Tilton in order to offer reusability and reprocess ability (Tilton, page 4, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the polymeric film comprises one or more materials selected from polypropylene (PP), polyester, polyethylene (PE), polyamide (PA) and polylactic acid. However, Tilton teaches a paper based packaging film comprising a paper component (page 4, paragraph [0072]) and a polymeric film (page 4, paragraph [0072], page 9, paragraph [0094], page 11, paragraph [0102]), wherein the polymeric film comprising polypropylene, polyester or polyethylene (page 9, paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polymeric film of Tilton in the packaging film of Tilton in order to offer reusability and reprocess ability (Tilton, page 4, paragraph [0072]).
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost et al. (WO2017/084762) in view of Iyengar et al. (US Patent Application No. 2007/0087212).
Provost et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 9, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the polymeric film has a thickness in a range of from 2 to 15 µm. However, Iyengar et al. teach a paper based packaging film (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising a paper component (page 1, paragraph [0007]) and a polymeric film (page 1, paragraph [0007], page 2, paragraph [0017]), wherein the polymeric film has a thickness ranging from about 5 microns to about 60 microns which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 2 to 15 µm (page 2, paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the polymeric film of Provost et al. to that of Iyengar et al. depending on the intended commercial application of the product (Iyengar et al., page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 24, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the paper component comprises calendered or supercalendered paper. However, Iyengar et al. teach a paper based packaging film (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising a paper component (page 1, paragraph [0007]) and a polymeric film (page 1, paragraph [0007], page 2, paragraph [0017]), wherein the paper component comprises calendered paper (page 2, paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a calendered paper in Provost et al. as that of Iyengar et al. in order to improve the printing surface and to enhance gloss properties (Iyengar et al., page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost et al. (WO2017/084762) in view of Buttner et al. (WO 2021/164913, see machine translated version).
Provost et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 14, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the packaging film further comprises a barrier material. However, Buttner et al. teach a paper based packaging film (paragraphs [0001], [0016]) comprising a paper component (paragraphs [0016], [0025]) and a barrier material (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the barrier material of Buttner et al. with the packaging film of Provost et al. in order to provide a barrier effect against water vapor, oxygen, and/or aroma (Buttner et al., paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 15, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the barrier material is located between the paper component and the polymeric film. However, Buttner et al. teach a paper based packaging film (paragraphs [0001], [0016]) comprising a paper component (paragraphs [0016], [0025]) and a barrier material (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the barrier material of Buttner et al. between the paper component and the polymeric film of Provost et al. in order to provide a barrier effect against water vapor, oxygen, and/or aroma (Buttner et al., paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the barrier material is selected from a metal, an oxide or a combination thereof, deposited by vapor deposition. However, Buttner et al. teach a paper based packaging film (paragraphs [0001], [0016]) comprising a paper component (paragraphs [0016], [0025]) and a barrier material (paragraph [0025]), wherein the barrier material is an oxide (paragraph [0019]) deposited by vapor deposition (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the barrier material of Buttner et al. with the packaging film of Provost et al. in order to provide a barrier effect against water vapor, oxygen, and/or aroma (Buttner et al., paragraph [0025]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost et al. (WO2017/084762) in view of Petersen et al. (US Patent Application No. 2007/0298196).
Provost et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 18, Provost et al. fail to teach wherein the packaging film comprises a combination of polymeric film and barrier material selected from SiOx coated OPET, SiOx coated BOPP, AlOx coated OPET, AlOx coated BOPP, aluminum metal coated OPET and aluminum metal coated BOPP. However, Peterson et al. teach a paper based packaging film comprising a paper component (page 1, paragraph [0001]); a polymeric film (page 1, paragraph [0001]) and a barrier material (page 2, paragraph [0015]) of aluminum metal coated OPET (page 2, paragraphs [0015], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the barrier material of Peterson et al. with the packaging film of Provost et al. in order to serve as a barrier against acidic compounds (Peterson et al., page 2, paragraph [0015]).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost et al. (WO2017/084762) in view of Borgers et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0217626).
Provost et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 41, Provost et al. fail to teach a packaged cuboid product comprising the paper based packaging film and a product having a cuboid shape; wherein the paper based packaging film is wrapped around the product such that the first major surface of the packaging film is facing away from the product. However, Borgers et al. teach a packaged cuboid product (page 3, paragraph [0027]) comprising a paper based packaging film (page 2, paragraph [0019]) and a product having a cuboid shape (page 3, paragraph [0027]); wherein the paper based packaging film is wrapped around the product such that the first major surface of the packaging film is facing away from the product (page 2, paragraph [0019], page 3, paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a packaged cuboid product in Provost et al. as that of Borgers et al. in order to allow packaging in high density and without risk of leakage (Borgers et al., page 3, paragraph [0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 9/25/2026
