DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 17/293,278 filed 12 October 2021, which is a national stage entry of PCT/GB2019/053208 filed 12 November 2019, which claims priority to GB1818422.6 filed 12 November 2018. Claims 1-24 are pending
Amendments to the claims, filed 1 December 2025, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior art rejections, made of record in the previous Office action, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See MPEP §2173.05(i).
Claim 1 recites the limitation that the lidding film “does not include metal” in line 6. Applicant’s original disclosure does not explicitly provide support for the negative limitation/exclusionary proviso. Though Applicant’s original disclosure discusses that lidding films often comprise layers of metal foil (see page 1, lines 16-18), this appears to be a discussion of the state of the art and not an alternative element of Applicant’s invention that may be explicitly in the claims.
Claims 2-22 do not remedy the deficiency of the parent claim and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 16, 18-20, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps et al. (US Patent Application Publication No US 2013/0068769 A1) (Sharps) in view of Lohwasser (US Patent No. US 6,277,496) (Lohwasser).
Regarding instant claim 1:
Sharps discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer (paragraph Claim 1).
Sharps further discloses that the adhesive layer is an ethylene homopolymer (paragraph [0019]).
Sharps does not disclose the inclusion of a metal necessary for the lidding film to adequately perform its intended use; therefore, Sharps meets the claimed lidding film that does not include a metal.
Sharps does not disclose the structure of oriented and non-oriented polyethylene layers.
However, Lohwasser discloses a packaging or packaging aid that contains a substrate and processes for manufacturing such forms of packaging or packing aids (col. 1, lines 3-5).
Lohwasser further discloses that the packaging aid can be applied to bottles of blown plastics and used as a closure or a lid (col. 6, lines 8-12).
Lohwasser further discloses that the substrates comprise laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes (col. 2, lines 17-20).
Lohwasser further discloses that the individual layers of the substrate are joined together by means of adhesives, laminating agents, bonding agents and/or by extrusion coating, co-extrusion or laminating, etc. (col. 2, lines 13-16).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the substrate comprising comprise laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes of Lohwasser as the polymeric base of Sharps. The motivation for doing so would have been that the substrate of Lohwasser meets the desire of Sharps for a generic polymer film. Furthermore, The substrate of Lohwasser, already comprising multiple layers of an ethylene-based polymer meet the desire of Sharps for a layer comprising an ethylene homopolymer that serves an adhesive layer.
As to the limitation “recyclable”, the prior art combination discloses all the positively recited structural and compositional elements of the claim. It is the Examiner’s position that the term “recyclable” does not necessarily imply any additional structural or compositional limitations; therefore, Lohwasser meets all the limitations of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lohwasser with Sharps to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Regarding instant claim 3:
Lohwasser further discloses that the substrates comprise laminates of biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes (col. 2, lines 17-20).
Regarding instant claim 4:
The laminating adhesive of claims 1 and 4 is optional. As Lohwasser discloses extrusion coating, Lohwasser meets the optional limitation of the claim.
Regarding instant claim 16:
Lohwasser further discloses that the substrate comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented films based on polyethylenes (col. 2, lines 17-20), which is construed to encompass an embodiment of a substrate comprising the amount of oriented polyethylene layers of the claim.
Regarding instant claim 18:
Sharps discloses a container including a container body including a lid sealant surface of a polymer composition and a lid including the multilayer film including a polymeric base layer, and adhesion layer, and a heat seal layer (paragraph [0013]).
Said container including a lid sealant surface of a polymer composition is construed to meet the claimed polymer tray having at least a top edge and a recess.
The limitation “wherein the lidding film is heat sealed to the top edge of the polymer tray via the non-oriented polyethylene, thereby enclosing a product within the recess”, Sharps in view of Lohwasser is construed to encompass an embodiment wherein a non-oriented polyethylene layer is adjacent to heat seal layer; thereby heat-sealing said non-oriented polyethylene to the container. Further, heat sealing the is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding instant claims 19-20:
Lohwasser discloses a packaging or packaging aid that contains a substrate and processes for manufacturing such forms of packaging or packing aids (col. 1, lines 3-5).
Lohwasser further discloses that the individual layers of the substrate are joined together by means of adhesives, laminating agents, bonding agents and/or by extrusion coating, co-extrusion or laminating, etc. (col. 2, lines 13-16).
Regarding instant claim 23:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses the lidding film comprising polyethylene layers as cited in the rejection above.
While it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that any additional ingredients in the prior art would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the Applicant' s invention, See MPEP § 2111.03.
Therefore, the lidding film of the prior art combination meets the limitations of the claim.
Regarding instant claim 24:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses the lidding film comprising polyethylene layers as cited in the rejection above.
Lohwasser further discloses that the individual layers of the substrate are joined together by means of adhesives, laminating agents, bonding agents and/or by extrusion coating, co-extrusion or laminating, etc. (col. 2, lines 13-16), i.e., the adhesives and laminating agents obviate the claimed laminating adhesive.
While it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that any additional ingredients in the prior art would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the Applicant' s invention, See MPEP § 2111.03.
Therefore, the lidding film of the prior art combination meets the limitations of the claim.
Claims 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps and Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Holmes et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0019112 A1) (Holmes).
Regarding instant claims 2 and 22:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Sharps in view of Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose the polyethylene content of the lidding film.
However, Holmes discloses multilayer films made from branched polyethylenes that are particularly useful in making articles having heat-seal properties (paragraph [0001]).
Holmes further discloses that the multilayer films comprise a first layer of a branched polyethylene that is hermetically heat-sealable and pressure-reclosable (paragraph [0027]).
Holmes further discloses that said branched polyethylene is a homogenous ethylene homopolymer (paragraph [0031]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the heat-sealable branched polyethylene of Holmes as the heat seal layer of Sharps in view of Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been that said branched polyethylene is hermetically heat-sealable while also being pressure-reclosable.
The combination of Sharps in view of Lohwasser in view of Holmes encompasses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base of an oriented and non-oriented polyethylene, a polyethylene layer that acts as an adhesive layer, and a heat seal layer composed of an ethylene homopolymer. Therefore, the prior art combination encompasses an embodiment wherein the entirety of the of the lidding film is composed of polyethylene (i.e., no more than 5% polyethylene as required by claim 22).
Alternatively, in the case where the claim does not encompass 0 wt.% of polymers other than polyethylene, Lohwasser further discloses that the substrates may also comprise other plastic films based on polyolefins such as polypropylenes, polyamides, polyvinylchloride, and polyesters (col. 2, lines 17-23).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific selection and amounts of the polymer layers are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the intended use and effect of the substrate are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the type and content of the polymer layers, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the contend and amount of the polymer layers in Lohwasser to obtain the desired properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Holmes with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps in view of Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jud (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2001/0048178 A1) (Jud).
Regarding instant claims 5 and 7-8:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above. Sharps in view of Lohwasser is construed to encompass, within its scope, an embodiment wherein the oriented polyethylene is the exterior layer.
Lohwasser further discloses that the individual layers of the substrate are joined together by means of adhesives, laminating agents, bonding agents and/or by extrusion coating, co-extrusion or laminating, etc., as cited above.
Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose the lidding film comprising an ink applied to the oriented polyethylene. Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose a lacquer.
However, Jud discloses lids for closing off containers (Title). Jud discloses that the lid material serves as a substrate for information and advertising, wherein the lid material is provided with printing on its outside; further, Jud discloses that a protective lacquer is applied to the print layer (paragraph [0005]). Said “printing” is construed to meet the claimed “ink”.
Jud further discloses that the substrate material can be a multilayer composite made up of two or more layers of plastic layers inclusive of polyethylenes (paragraph [0014]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed, invention, it would have been obvious to include the printing layer of Jud onto an exterior oriented polyethylene layer of Sharps in view of Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been to display information and advertising on a lid structure. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to include the lacquer of Jud to the material of Sharps in view Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the printed layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jud with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps in view of Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Huffer et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0159547 A1) (Huffer).
Regarding instant claims 5-6:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above. Sharps in view of Lohwasser is construed to encompass, within its scope, an embodiment wherein the oriented polyethylene is the exterior layer.
Lohwasser further discloses that the individual layers of the substrate are joined together by means of adhesives, laminating agents, bonding agents and/or by extrusion coating, co-extrusion or laminating, etc., as cited above.
Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose the lidding film comprising an ink applied to the oriented polyethylene.
However, Huffer discloses a lidding member (paragraph [0001]).
Reference is made to FIG. 7 of Huffer, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
443
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7 of Huffer discloses a lidding member <20> comprising an ink layer <90> disposed on between inner surface <82> of layer <80> (i.e., an outward facing layer) and adhesive layer <45>. Huffer teaches that the ink layer includes colors, designs, and/or printed indicia that can be viewed by a consumer, such as to provide information on the item contained inside the package and/or to make the package more desirable for purchase by a potential consumer (paragraph [0038]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the ink layer of Huffer below an exterior oriented polyethylene layer of Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide information on the item contained inside the package and/or to make the package more desirable for purchase by a potential consumer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Huffer with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps in view of Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Newman et al. (US Patent No. 4,810,541) (Newman).
Regarding instant claims 9-11:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Sharps in view of Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose that the non-oriented layers comprise additives inclusive of a gas barrier EVOH copolymer and tie layers.
However, Newman discloses multilayer sheet structures having gas barrier properties that are particularly suitable for the packaging of oxygen sensitive food products, wherein the structures are constructed of an inner ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) gas barrier that is bonded to first and second adhesive tie layers, and said tie layers are bonded to an outer polyethylene layer (col. 1, lines 34-44).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to add the EVOH gas barrier and tie layers of Newman to at least the non-oriented polyethylene layers of Sharps in view of Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the packaging aid particularly suitable for packaging oxygen sensitive products.
As to the claimed “ethylene methacrylic acid tie layers”, those specific tie layers are optional. As Lohwasser in view of Newman disclose the broadly claimed “tie layers”, the prior art combination meets the limitations of the claims.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Newman with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps in view of Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schwark et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0234797 A1) (Schwark).
Regarding instant claims 9 and 12:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Sharps in view of Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose that the non-oriented layers comprise additives inclusive of sorbitan ester.
However, Schwark discloses packaging films composed of polymers inclusive of polyethylenes, wherein a sorbitan ester is incorporated as an antifog agent (paragraphs [0039-0040]).
Schwark teaches that antifog properties prevent excessive moisture buildup on the interior surface of a package (paragraph [0004]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the sorbitan ester of Schwark into at least the non-oriented polyethylene of Sharps in view of Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide anti-fogging properties to the packaging materials, which prevents excessive moisture buildup.
As to the claimed “UV filter” function recited by the claim, said function is an intended use of the claimed sorbitan ester. The sorbitan ester of Schwark is construed to be identical to that of the claim and capable of performing the intended use limitation, absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Schwark with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps in view of Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0266257 A1) (Lee).
Regarding instant claims 9 and 13:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Sharps in view of Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose that the non-oriented layers comprise additives inclusive of fluorescent whitening agent.
However, Lee discloses compositions that can be used to form seals in packages (paragraph [0002]).
Lee discloses that the said compositions comprise ethylene-based polymers (paragraph [0014]).
Lee further discloses that said ethylene-based polymer compositions comprise convention ingredients inclusive of fluorescent whitening agents (paragraph [0033]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the fluorescent whitening agents of Lee into at least the non-oriented polyethylene of Sharps in view of Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been that fluorescent whitening agents are known additives for polyethylene-based polymers used in packaging materials. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007). See MPEP § 2143(A).
As to the claimed “anti-fogging” function recited by the claim, said function is an intended use of the claimed fluorescent whitening agent. The fluorescent whitening agents of Lee are construed to be identical to that of the claim and capable of performing the intended use limitation, absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps in view of Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Engelaere (US Patent No. US 6,511,723 B1).
Regarding instant claim 14:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Lohwasser further discloses that the substrates comprise laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes (col. 2, lines 17-20).
Lohwasser further discloses that the individual layers of the substrate are joined together by means of adhesives (col. 2, lines 13-16).
Lohwasser is construed to encompass an embodiment comprising at least 2 layers of non-oriented polyethylene joined together by means of an adhesive.
Sharps in view of Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose a pressure sensitive adhesive.
However, Engelaere discloses a multilayer structure comprising an extrudable central pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, a first extrudable layer interposed on one outermost side of the central pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, and a second extrudable layer interposed on the opposite side of the central pressure-sensitive layer (Claim 1). Engelaere further discloses that outermost layers are polyethylenes (Claims 4-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Engelaere as the adhesive used to join the at least wo layers of non-oriented polyethylene of Sharps in view Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Engelaere with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps in view of Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US Patent No. 5,725,958) (Matsuda).
Regarding instant claims 15 and 21:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Sharps in view of Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose oriented polyethylene layers coated with a gas barrier material.
However, Matsuda discloses gas barrier films comprising a plastic film inclusive of polyethylene and a thin film formed on at least one surface of the plastic film (col. 3, lines 16-20). Matsuda further discloses that the thin film is inclusive of silicon oxide and aluminum oxide (col. 3, lines 36-42).
Matsuda teaches that said films are used in in wrapping materials required to be air tight such as wrapping materials for food, medicine, and electronic components (col. 1, lines 7-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to apply the thin aluminum oxide or silicone oxide coatings of Matsuda to at least the oriented polyethylene layers of Sharps in view of Lohwasser. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce airtight packaging aids useful in packaging food, medicine, and electronic components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsuda with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps in view of Lohwasser as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Murray (US Patent No. 5,443,866) (Murray).
Regarding instant claim 17:
Sharps in view of Lohwasser discloses a multilayer lidding film comprising a polymeric base layer, an adhesive layer comprising an ethylene-based polymer, and a heat seal layer, wherein the polymeric base layer comprises laminates of two or more non-oriented or singly or biaxially oriented plastic films based on polyethylenes, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Lohwasser is construed to encompass an embodiment comprising the number of non-oriented polyethylene layers recited by the instant claim.
Sharps in view of Lohwasser does not explicitly disclose that these layers are blown polyethylene.
However, Murray discloses thermoplastic products produced by the commonly known “blown film” process, which owes its popularity to the fact that it can be quickly and readily adapted to the production of different widths and thicknesses (col. 1, lines 22-27). Murray teaches that an example of said thermoplastic is a polyethylene (col. 1, lines 65-67).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to produce at least some of the non-oriented polyethylene layers of Lohwasser by the blown film process of Murray. The motivation for doing so would have been that such a blown film process is popular in the art due to its adaptability to the production of films having different widths and thicknesses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Murray with Sharps in view of Lohwasser to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendments the previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn and replaced by the new grounds of rejection set forth in the action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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 at (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 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 12/04/2025
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788