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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 January 2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a thickness ratio of the thicknesses of each of the first layer and the second layer to the thicknesses of each of the third and fourth layers.” Claim 19 thus claims a thickness ratio between layers, but does not state a value for the thickness ratios. It is thus unclear what the thickness ratio must be to satisfy the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 19 is interpreted as instead reciting “a thickness ratio of the thicknesses of each of the first layer and the second layer to the thicknesses of each of the third and fourth layers is 1/2 or less.” as supported by the previously presented claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 2017105197, herein English machine translation used for all citations) (previously cited) in view of Niedersuss et al. (US 20180370202 A1) (previously cited) and Ohlsson et al. (US 20120100356 A1) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a laminate configured for use as a packaging material comprising a substrate (base material layer) and a heat seal layer (sealant film) (Suzuki, Par. 0001 and Fig. 4). Suzuki teaches that the laminate comprises an adhesive layer between the substrate and the heat seal layer (Suzuki, Par. 0059). Suzuki teaches that the heat seal layer comprises a three layers of polyethylene such as LDPE and LLDPE, that the substrate comprises polyethylene, and that the adhesive layer may be a polyethylene such as LLDPE (Suzuki, Par. 0010, 0027-0039, 0052-0053, and 0059-0060). Suzuki thus teaches that each layer comprises polyethylene and does not state that other materials must be added and thus teaches that the amount of polyethylene contained in the whole laminate is 100 mass%, which lies within the claimed range of 90 mass% or more and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Suzuki teaches that the substrate is treated by stretching (Suzuki, Par. 0055), and does not teach that the heat seal layer is stretched and thus teaches that the heat-seal layer is unstretched. Suzuki teaches the heat seal layer is an innermost layer of the laminate (Suzuki, Par. 0001, 0010, and Fig. 4). Suzuki teaches the heat seal layer has a thickness of 20-150 µm (Suzuki, Par. 0026).
Suzuki is silent regarding the substrate being a multilayer structure with resin layers that comprise a first layer comprising a high-density polyethylene, a second layer comprising a high-density polyethylene and a single layer comprising a low-density polyethylene, a linear low-density polyethylene, or a super low-density polyethylene, and wherein the first layer and the second layer are the outermost resin layers of the substrate.
Niedersuss teaches a packaging laminate comprising a polyethylene sealing layer (second film, C) and a substrate (first film), wherein the substrate is a multilayer film having an outermost first layer (E) comprising HDPE, an outermost second layer (B) comprising HDPE, and a single layer comprising LDPE (A) between the first layer and the second layer (Niedersuss, Par. 0019-0029 and 0091-0104). Niedersuss teaches the substrate is stretched (Niedersuss, Par. 0126). Niedersuss teaches that each layer of the substrate comprises polyethylene and does not state that other materials are required in the layers (Niedersuss, Par. 0019-0029 and 0091-0104). Niedersuss teaches the substrate is coated with a metal coating with a thickness of 8-50 nm (Niedersuss, Abstract and Par. 0153-0154). Niedersuss teaches the substrate has a thickness of 10-50 µm (Niedersuss, Par. 0019-0025 and 0138).
Suzuki and Niedersuss are analogous art as they both teach laminates for packaging comprising a polyethylene sealant film and a substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the substrate of Niedersuss as the substrate of Suzuki. This would allow for good barrier properties (Niedersuss, Par. 0001, 0019-0026, and 0152-0155).
Modified Suzuki is silent regarding the substrate comprising third and fourth layers each comprising a medium-density polyethylene between the first and second layers, is silent regarding the single layer being between said third and fourth layers, and is silent regarding each of the first layer and the second layer having a thickness that is smaller than thicknesses of the third and fourth layers.
Ohlsson teaches a multilayer substrate for a packaging laminate comprising first and second outer layers (skin layers) comprising HDPE, third and fourth layers (intermediate sub layers) between the first and second layers, wherein the third and fourth layers each comprise copolymer of ethylene and an alpha olefin (see mPE) with a density of 0.910-0.945 g/cm3, and a single layer of LDPE (core sublayer) between the third and fourth layers (Ohlsson, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0013-0019, 0042, 0050, 0059-0061, and Fig. 2). Ohlsson teaches the copolymer in the third and fourth layers has a density of 0.910-0.945 g/cm3 (Ohlsson, Abstract, and Par. 0007), which lies within the range of MDPE given by Ohlsson of 0.930-0.945 g/cm3 (Ohlsson, Par. 0042) and thus the copolymer in the third and fourth layers satisfies the limitation of being MDPE. Alternatively, Ohlsson teaches the mPE in the third and fourth layers may be blended with MDPE and thus the third and fourth layers comprise MDPE (Ohlsson, Par. 0050 and 0059-0061). Ohlsson teaches the third and fourth layers are 1-2 times as thick as the first and second layers (skin layers) and thus teaches the first and second layers have a thickness that is smaller than thicknesses of the third and fourth layers (Ohlsson, Par. 0017). Ohlsson does not state that other materials are required for the third and fourth layers and thus teaches the third and fourth layers comprise 100 wt.% polyethylene. Ohlsson teaches the substrate is stretched (Ohlsson, Par, 0065-0069).
Modified Suzuki and Ohlsson are analogous art as they both teach multilayer substrates for packaging laminates comprising outer layers comprising HDPE and a core layer comprising LDPE. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the third and fourth layers (intermediate sublayers) of MDPE in the substrate of modified Suzuki. This would allow for improved strength and bending stiffness (Ohlsson, Par. 0017-0021). This would further result in a substrate that consists of first and second layers comprising HDPE, third and fourth layers that comprise MDPE and are between the first and second layers, and a single layer of LDPE between the third and fourth layers. This would further result in first and second layers that have a thickness that is less than the thicknesses of the third and fourth layers.
Regarding the limitation of the amount of polyethylene contained in the whole laminate being 90 mass% or more, modified Suzuki teaches the laminate comprises the heat seal layer made only of polyethylene, the substrate made only of polyethylene, and the metal coating comprising a metal as stated above. Modified Suzuki teaches the heat seal layer has a thickness of 20-150 µm (Suzuki, Par. 0026), the substrate has a thickness of 10-50 µm (Niedersuss, Par. 0019-0025 and 0138), and the coating has a thickness of 8-50 nm (Niedersuss, Par. 0153-0154). This results in a total thickness of the layers containing only polyethylene of 30-200 µm and a thickness of layers not containing polyethylene of 8-50 nm. This results in the polyethylene constituting 99.8-99.9% of the thickness of the laminated film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a laminate that comprises 99.8-99.9% polyethylene by thickness, would comprise an amount of polyethylene by mass that satisfies the claimed range of 90 mass% or more, see MPEP 2123, 2144.05, I, and 2143.
Regarding claim 5, modified Suzuki teaches that the heat seal layer comprises a biomass-derived polyethylene (Suzuki, Par. 0010 – see “plant-derived polyethylene”).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Suzuki teaches a packaging material using the laminate according to claim 1 (Suzuki, Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 17, modified Suzuki teaches that the substrate has a coextruded structure (Niedersuss, Par. 0116 and 0112).
Regarding claim 19, modified Suzuki teaches a ratio of the thicknesses of each of the first and the second layer to the thicknesses of each of the third and fourth layers is 1:2 (Ohlsson, Par. 0017), which lies within the claimed range of 1/2 or less and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. in view of Niedersuss et al. and Ohlsson et al. as stated above for claim 1, further in view of Itaba et al. (US 5006378) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, modified Suzuki teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Suzuki is silent regarding the substrate comprising an evaporated film on at least one face thereof as required by claim 2, and is silent regarding the laminate comprising an aluminum-evaporated film on the heat seal layer as required by claim 18.
Itaba teaches a polyethylene composite film suitable for packaging (Itaba, Abstract). The film comprises an oriented polyethylene film (BOPE) (Itaba, Col. 2 lines 30-39). Thus, a stretched film. The BOPE film is a substrate layer (Itaba, Col. 4 lines 1-4). The film comprises a sealant layer formed of low density polyethylene or linear low density polyethylene (Itaba, Col. 4 lines 11-14). The sealant layer is heat sealable (Itaba, Col. 5 lines 20-25). Itaba discloses that the BOPE film can be coated with aluminum by vapor deposition (Itaba, Col. 3 lines 19-21). Vapor deposition is a form of applying aluminum through evaporation.
Modified Suzuki and Itaba are analogous art as they both teach polyethylene composite films. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the coating of aluminum by vapor deposition as disclosed by Itaba on the substrate of modified Suzuki motivated by the expectation of forming a polyethylene film with enhanced barrier performance (Itaba, Col. 3 lines 19-61). This would further result in an aluminum-evaporated film that is on a face of the substrate and on the heat seal layer as required by claims 2 and 18.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. in view of Niedersuss et al., Ohlsson et al., and Itaba et al. as stated above for claims 1-2, further in view of Xie et al. (US 20200181467) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, modified Suzuki teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1-2. Modified Suzuki teaches the first layer faces the heat seal layer (Suzuki, Par. 0052; Niedersuss, Par. 0019-0029 and 0091-0104). Modified Suzuki teaches the laminate comprises an aluminum-evaporated film between the first layer and the adhesive layer as stated above for claims 1-2.
Modified Suzuki is silent regarding the adhesive being composed of a cured product of a resin composition comprising a polyester polyol, an isocyanate compound, and a phosphoric acid-modified compound.
Xie discloses an adhesive composition that comprises an isocyanate component and a polyester polyol (Xie, Abstract). The composition further comprises phosphoric acid modified compound (Xie, Par. 0084). The adhesive composition is cured (Xie, Par. 0039). The adhesive composition is used to form films of a polymer film and metal-coated polymer film that are used for food packaging (Xie, Par. 0003).
Modified Suzuki and Xie are analogous art as they both teach laminates that comprise a polymer film and a metal-coated film with an adhesive composition wherein the laminates are used to form packaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the adhesive layer of the cured product of Xie for the adhesive layer of modified Suzuki motivated by the expectation of forming a laminate that has enhanced temperature and chemical resistance (Xie 0009-0010).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered.
On pages 5-6 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Suzuki in view of Ambroise does not teach the claimed substrate structure of amended claim 1. This is found moot.
The rejections in view of Suzuki and Ambroise have been withdrawn due do the present claim amendments.
Secondly, on pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Suzuki in view of Niedersuss does not teach the substrate structure of amended claim 1. This is found moot.
The rejections in view of Suzuki and Niedersuss have been updated in view of the amendments to claim 1. In the new grounds of rejection, newly cited Ohlsson is utilized in combination with previously cited Niedersuss to render obvious the claimed substrate structure as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782