DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-22, 24-33 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 18-22, 24-27 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 14-17, 28-33 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 12, 23 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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.
Response to Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-28) in the reply filed on 07/22/2024 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (a)(i) (claims 11-13) and Species (b) (iii) (claim 27) in the reply filed on 07/22/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 28-33 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/22/2024.
Claims 14-17 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/22/2024.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/06/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent issuing from Application No. 18/102,091 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
The provisional rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting based on Application No. 18/102,091 (CARUSO ET AL) (US 2023/0234096) have been withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 02/06/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 18-22, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• BOSWELL ET AL (US 2018/0369859),
in view of URIAN ET AL (US 2008/0182937),
and in view of EBINA ET AL (US 2007/0027248),
and in view of MILLER (US 2005/0042443).
BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 discloses multilayer water-soluble films comprising multiple water-soluble (and/or water-dispersible) film layers (e.g., three, five, seven or more water-soluble layers; etc.), wherein each water-soluble (and/or water-dispersible) film layers individually comprises:
• a water-soluble polymer (e.g., polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) or PVOH copolymers; etc., optionally mixed with other water-soluble polymers and/or other water-insoluble polymers; etc.) having:
(i) a weight average molecular weight between 1,000 to 1,000,000 (e.g., 20,000 to 150,000; etc.); and
(ii) a degree of hydrolysis of 60% to about 100%;
• an optional plasticizer (e.g., water; glycerin (also known as glycerol); propylene glycol; sorbitol; etc.) (corresponding to the recited “water-soluble plasticizer);
• an optional gas-barrier additive which improves the barrier properties of the water-soluble layer (e.g., nanoclays, etc.), wherein the gas-barrier additive is preferably used in an inner (i.e., non-surface) layer (e.g., to minimize possible detrimental effects from the gas-barrier additive, such as interference with sealing properties; etc.), wherein the gas-barrier additive can be incorporated in any suitable quantity that does not cause determents to the film;
• optional additives (e.g., crosslinking agents; surfactants; fillers; pigments; etc.).
The overall thickness of the multilayer films generally selected to provide suitable barrier properties and/or solubility (e.g., but not limited to, 5-300 microns, etc.). The multilayer water-soluble and/or water-dispersible films further contain one or more additional organic barrier coatings and optionally one or more inorganic barrier coatings, where the films can exhibit a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of 7.57-248 g/(m2-day) (measured at about 40 ºC at about 50% relative humidity). (entire document, e.g., paragraph 0044, 0056, 0074-0078, 0080-0085, 0087, 0091-0093, 0097, 0103, 0109, 0131, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss multilayer water-soluble films comprising a water-dispersible barrier layer between two water-soluble layers.
URIAN ET AL ‘937 discloses that it well-known in the art to form multilayer water-dissolvable and/or water-disintegrable polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH)-based films wherein the layers in the multilayer films fall within three general categories with a typical arrangement comprising:
• an outermost structural or abuse layer;
• an inner or interior barrier layer;
• an innermost contact layer compatible with package contents and having sealing properties;
in order to produce packaging for materials used in aqueous medium (e.g., detergents; agricultural chemicals; cleaning chemicals; dyes and/or pigments; additives; etc.) and/or packaging which is compostable and/or plantable. (paragraph 0040-0041, 0044, etc.)
EBINA ET AL ‘248 discloses that it is well known in the art to form water-soluble composite barrier layers and/or coatings with excellent water vapor and oxygen barrier properties, wherein the composite barrier layer comprise:
• at least 90 wt% of a natural or synthetic, swellable, laminar silicate (e.g., smectite or other clays which are hydrophilic; etc.) with a particle size of up to 1 micron (corresponding to the recited “hydrophilic nanoplatelets”) and a typical aspect ratio of up to 300;
• 10 wt% or less of a water-soluble polymer (e.g., polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), etc.);
wherein the composite barrier layer has a typical thickness of 3-100 microns (preferably 3-30 microns), and exhibit excellent barrier properties against gas (e.g., helium, air, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc.) and moisture (e.g., a water permeability which can be as low as about 0.1 cc/m2∙24 hr∙atm; water permeability coefficients of 2x10-10 cm/s or less; etc.). The composite barrier layer can be combined with one or more additional layers to form multilayer films with effective barrier properties (e.g., multilayer films with three or more layers, wherein the composite barrier layer is sandwiched between two plastic film layers, etc.). (Figure 24, etc.; paragraph 0001, 0021-0028, 0030, 0035, 0042, 0045, 0049-0056, 0058, 0065, 0068, 0092, 0203, etc.)
MILLER ‘443 discloses that it well-known in the art to apply multiple polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH)-based film layers on a substrate by using curtain coating to simultaneously apply multiple layers of one or more PVOH-containing liquid composition or solution (which can be the same or different) on said substrate in order to form articles with multiple PVOH-based coatings in a single pass. (paragraph 0011-0014, 0017, 0019, 0034, etc.)
Regarding claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13, 18-19, 24-27, 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 water-soluble (and/or water-dispersible) film layer compositions of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 to form each layer of a known multilayer packaging film structure containing at least:
(i) an outermost structural / abuse layer;
(ii) at least one interior barrier layer;
(iii) an innermost contact / seal layer;
(as suggested by URIAN ET AL ‘937), wherein the water-soluble (and/or water-dispersible) film layer compositions containing water-soluble polymers and gas-barrier additive in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 exhibit barrier properties (corresponding to the recited “barrier layer”).
Further regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known water-soluble composite barrier layer compositions containing water-soluble polymers (e.g., PVOH, etc.) and known clay-type barrier additives (e.g., hydrophilic smectite clays, etc.) in amounts of 90 wt% or more (as suggested in EBINA ET AL) as an interior water-soluble (and/or water-dispersible) barrier layer in a three-layer water-soluble multilayer film in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 -- for example:
(a) an outermost structural / abuse layer (as suggested by URIAN ET AL ‘937) made from a water-soluble layer (e.g., PVOH-based) in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 (corresponding to the recited “first water-soluble polymeric layer having a surface”);
(c) at least one interior barrier layer (as suggested by URIAN ET AL ‘937) made from a water-soluble layer (e.g., PVOH-based) in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 which further contains known clay-type barrier additives (e.g., hydrophilic smectite clays, etc.) in amounts of 90 wt% or more (as suggested in EBINA ET AL) (corresponding to the recited “water-dispersible barrier layer”);
(b) an innermost contact / seal layer (as suggested by URIAN ET AL ‘937) made from a water-soluble layer (e.g., PVOH-based) in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 (corresponding to the recited “second water-soluble polymeric layer having a surface”);
in order to produce water-soluble (and/or water-dispersible) films with excellent gas and water barrier properties combined with excellent interlayer adhesion during usage.
Further regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized a known method of forming a multilayer film containing multiple PVOH-based layers (e.g., using curtain coating of to simultaneously apply multiple layers of one or more PVOH-containing liquid composition or solution on a substrate, as suggested in MILLER ‘443) to form the water-soluble multilayer film of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 containing multiple water-soluble (and/or water-dispersible) (e.g., PVOH-based) film layers in a single coating pass.
Further regarding claim 1, since adjacent liquid composition(s) containing similar and/or miscible solvents (e.g., water, alcohols, etc.) and/or having similar viscosities which are subjected to flow conditions would generally experience at least some degree of interfacial mixing or mingling, the Examiner has reason to believe that a multilayer film containing multiple PVOH-based layers formed by simultaneously curtain coating multiple layers of PVOH-containing liquid composition(s) or solution(s) on a substrate (as suggested in MILLER ‘443) would exhibit at least some degree of interfacial mixing or mingling between the individual PVOH-based layers, thereby forming a relatively thin (as represented by a thickness of 2 microns or less) interfacial zone consisting of a mixture of the adjacent layers (corresponding to the recited “boundary layer”) as recited in claim 1, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 -- for example:
(a) an outermost structural / abuse layer (as suggested by URIAN ET AL ‘937) made from a water-soluble layer (e.g., PVOH-based) in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 (corresponding to the recited “first water-soluble polymeric layer having a surface”);
• a relatively thin (as represented by a thickness of 2 microns or less) zone consisting of a mixture of the outermost structural / abuse layer and the adjacent interior barrier layer (corresponding to the recited “boundary layer consists of the barrier layer and a water-soluble polymeric layer”);
(c) at least one interior barrier layer (as suggested by URIAN ET AL ‘937) made from a water-soluble layer (e.g., PVOH-based) in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 which further contains known clay-type barrier additives (e.g., hydrophilic smectite clays, etc.) in amounts of 90 wt% or more (as suggested in EBINA ET AL) (corresponding to the recited “water-dispersible barrier layer”);
• a relatively thin (as represented by a thickness of 2 microns or less) zone consisting of a mixture of the interior barrier layer and the adjacent innermost contact / seal layer (corresponding to the recited “boundary layer consists of the barrier layer and a water-soluble polymeric layer”);
(b) an innermost contact / seal layer (as suggested by URIAN ET AL ‘937) made from a water-soluble layer (e.g., PVOH-based) in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 (corresponding to the recited “second water-soluble polymeric layer having a surface”);
Further regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have formulated or permitted the one (or more) interior barrier layers to be only partially water-soluble (corresponding to the recited “water-dispersible”) using known techniques to reduce or slow water-solubility (e.g., by incorporation of crosslinking agents and/or water-insoluble polymers into said barrier layers; etc.) in order to: (i) allow the barrier layer(s) compositions to be fully optimized for specific barrier properties; and/or (ii) tailor the overall rate of dissolution and/or disintegration of the overall multilayer film for specific aqueous medium conditions (e.g., pH, temperature, immersion time, etc.) and/or (iii) to prevent premature loss of barrier properties (e.g., to allow for timed release of package contents, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the individual formulations of the outermost structural / abuse layer, optional intermediate layers, the barrier layer(s), and the innermost contact / seal layer in a water-soluble multilayer films in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 in order to obtain the dissolution and disintegration rates of the individual layers and the overall multilayer film for specific usage conditions.
Regarding claims 4-6, 22, one of ordinary skill in the art would have: (i) selected the individual formulations and/or thicknesses of the outermost structural / abuse layer, barrier layer(s), and/or innermost contact / seal layer; and/or (ii) incorporated additional barrier layers and/or barrier coatings; in water-soluble multilayer films in accordance with BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 in order to provide (or retain) the desired WVTR values for specific conditions (e.g., high humidity (claim 4); exposure to mechanical stress (claim 5); variations in humidity (claim 6)).
Regarding claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would have: (i) selected the thickness of the outermost structural / abuse layer in the water-soluble multilayer films of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 in order to obtain the durability, strength, and/or solubility characteristics for specific handling and/or usage conditions; and/or (ii) selected the thickness of the innermost contact / seal layer in the water-soluble multilayer films of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 in order to obtain the sealing characteristics (e.g., seal strength, etc.) and/or durability, strength, and/or solubility characteristics for specific applications and specific package contents.
Regarding claim 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilize different water-soluble layer formulations (e.g., different water-soluble polymers, etc.) in the outermost structural / abuse layer and the innermost contact / seal layer in the water-soluble multilayer films of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 in order to allow each layer to be independently optimized for its desired function (e.g., the composition for the outermost layer can be formulated to emphasize mechanical properties (e.g., tensile and/or tear strength, penetration resistance, durability, etc.), while the composition for the innermost layer can be tailored for high chemical resistance to specific packaged contents and/or to provide good sealing properties; etc.)
Regarding claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated additional intermediate water-soluble (sub)layers in the water-soluble multilayer films of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 in order to obtain specific performance properties (e.g., durability, strength, dissolution and/or disintegration characteristics under certain conditions, visual and/or aesthetic appeal, etc.).
Regarding claim 20, since: (i) known methods of simultaneously forming multilayer coating layers (e.g., the multilayer curtain coating method disclosed in MILLER ‘443) are generally designed to allow the bulk of each coating layer to remain separate and distinct (i.e., unmixed with adjacent coating layers), the Examiner has reason to believe that the various water-soluble (and/or water-dispersible) film layer compositions of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 forming each layer of a known multilayer packaging film structure containing at least:
(i) an outermost structural / abuse layer;
(ii) at least one interior barrier layer;
(iii) an innermost contact / seal layer;
(as suggested by URIAN ET AL ‘937) would -- aside from the presence of relatively thin interfacial regions or zones of intermixing (corresponding to the recited “boundary layer”) --generally remain structurally and chemically distinct (corresponding to the recited “water-dispersible barrier layer is distinct from the water-soluble polymeric layers when observed via optical microscopy or scanning electron microscopy”) as recited in claim 1 when formed using a known multilayer coating method (e.g., the multilayer curtain coating method disclosed in MILLER ‘443), therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would have: (i) selected the thickness of the barrier layer(s) containing gas-barrier additive in the water-soluble multilayer films of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 in order to obtain the required barrier properties for specific applications, package contents, and usage conditions.
Regarding claim 22, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated multiple interior barrier layers (comprising water-soluble polymer and gas-barrier additive) in the water-soluble multilayer films of BOSWELL ET AL ‘859 in order to obtain the required barrier properties for specific applications, package contents, and usage conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 03/12/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KOEPKE ET AL (US 4,384,015) and MILLER (US 2006/0099410) disclose methods of forming multilayer coatings using a curtain containing multiple layers of liquid coating compositions.
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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
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.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
May 19, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights