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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 3, 12-13, and 15-18 are currently pending. Claim 3 is amended and 14 has been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2025 and 01/14/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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 3, 12-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 5,885,721) in view of Wuest et al. (US 2004/0043238) in view of Viola et al. (US 3,949,114) in view of Grefenstein et al. (US 2018/0079188) and further in view of Winter (US 7,705,707).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Su discloses a laminate for packaging (column 5, lines 35-40) comprising a stretched base film (column 7, lines 15-25). The base film being a multilaminar HDPE film comprising a HDPE substrate (first layer) and an adhesion promoter layer (second layer) which includes medium density polyethylene (column 4, lines 5-20). Su further teaches that if desired a heat seal layer particularly of polyethylene may be included (column 13, lines 35-45).
Su does not disclose the heat seal layer laminated through an adhesive and being a heat-sealable laminate comprising a gas barrier resin layer, an adhesive resin layer and a heat seal layer, in this order, or, the adhesive resin layer and heat seal layer and being a co-extruded unstretched film.
Wuest, in the analogous field of multilayer packaging films (0002), discloses a packaging film comprising a heat-sealable laminate comprising an inner sealant layer (116), oxygen barrier layer (114), and second tie layer (120) (Fig. 1). The gas barrier, tie and heat sealant layer being coextruded (0027 and 0035) and unstretched (0038). The heat-sealable laminate being laminated through an adhesive (118) to an outer layer ( 112) (0026, 0035, Fig. 1). The inner sealant layer composed of polyethylene (0031) and the oxygen barrier layer formed of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, nylon (polyamide) and polyethylene terephthalate (polyester) (0032).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the multilaminar HDPE film of Su to be adhesively attached to the heat-sealable laminate as taught by Wuest, as the films of Wuest have excellent dimensional stability, hot tack property, oxygen barrier properties and peroxide resistance as well as register printability (0043).
Su in view of Wuest does not disclose that the thickness of the gas barrier resin layer is smaller than the thickness of the heat seal layer.
Viola, in the analogous field of packaging laminates (column 1, lines 5-10) discloses a laminate comprising a heat-sealable layer, oxygen barrier layer, and substrate layer. Viola teaches the minimum thickness for the heat-sealable layer being 0.012 mm and for the barrier layer being 0.0025 mm (column 2, lines 20-25).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious in the laminate of Su in view of Wuest for the gas barrier layer to have thickness smaller than the sealant layer, as taught by Viola, as these are typical minimum thickness in the field for a packaging material (column 2, lines 20-25).
Su does not disclose the content of polyethylene in the laminate for packaging material is 80% by mass or more.
Grefenstein, in the analogous field of packaging films (0002), discloses a film consisting of at least 80% polyethylene material (0010).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the laminate of modified Su to include a content of polyethylene in the laminate of 80 mass% or more, as taught by Grefenstein, so that the film is easy to recycle (0009-0010).
Lastly, while Wuest teaches that the tie layer includes a variety of polymeric materials and generally known in the art and dependent upon the layers to be joined (0035). Wuest does not expressly disclose the tie layer comprising a modified polyethylene.
Winter, in the analogous field packaging films (column 1, lines 5-10) teaching a tie layer of modified polyethylene as a bond between two layers (column 4, lines 45-50).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the tie layer of modified Su to include a modified polyethylene as taught by Winter, to promote adhesion between the heat seal and gas barrier layers (column 7, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 13, The gas barrier comprising a resin such as ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (0032).
Regarding claims 15-16, as can be seen from Fig. 1 of Wuest, the second adhesive layer (120) is between the barrier layer (114) and heat seal layer (114). The heat seal layer is the lowermost layer and the outer layer (112) is the upper most layer.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Wuest teaches the oxygen barrier layer comprising only the suitable oxygen barrier material (0032; i.e., 100%) thus teaching the resin overlapping 50% by mass or more and 75% by mass or more of the gas barrier resin layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that that Su discourages adhesively attaching its HDPE film to the oxygen barrier layer as taught by Wuest as Su teaches away from employing EVOH or similar materials.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that Su teaches away as argued by applicant as Su expressly teaches that the HDPE can be provided with other layers to provide desired functional properties including a heat seal layer or barrier properties (column 12, lines 60-66).
Applicant argues that Su fails to suggest multilayering the HDPE sheet (substrate) itself and thus claims to teach at least two specific layers as required by the claims.
Su teaches a multilayer film comprising a HDPE substrate and adhesion promoter layer which includes MDPE (column 4, lines 5-20) thus teaching a two layer substrate as claimed.
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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781