DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-18, 35-37 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-16, 36-37 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 17-18, 35 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, 19-34 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 of Species
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 05/06/2024 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 17-18, 21, 35 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/06/2024
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 36 is/are 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.
Regarding claim 36, the disclosure as originally filed only discloses the presence of the recited adhesion promoter and particulate additive in the EVOH/EAA barrier coating alone. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for the presence of the recited adhesion promoter and particulate additive in the coated film as a whole, or in other layers of the coated film.
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.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in the previous Office Action mailed 03/08/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments previously filed 03/17/2025 (entered 04/08/2025).
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, 3-4, 6, 8-16, 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• ECHT ET AL (US 2015/0275024),
in view of CHU ET AL (US 5,192,620),
and in view of ROGERS AGENT ET AL (US 2007/0036999),
and further in view of ILLSLEY ET AL (US 2010/0323189),
and further in view of KRAVITZ (US 2017/0183467),
and further in view of GRAH ET AL ‘675.
ECHT ET AL ‘024 discloses coated films comprising:
• a substrate (corresponding to the recited “polymer layer”) (e.g., films such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET); polypropylene; polyamide; etc.) which is optionally oriented and optionally surface-treated (e.g., with a primer (corresponding to the recited “primer coating layer”), etc.) for improved adhesion;
• a coating layer comprising a blend of:
• 1-99 wt% (e.g., 60 wt% or more; 70 wt% or more; or 80 wt% or more; etc.) of a poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVOH) homopolymers or copolymers with a viscosity (4 wt% at 20 °C) of 1-15 cps (for a hydrolysis level of about 85-93 mol%) or 25-30 cps (for a hydrolysis level of about 95-97%) or 27-33 (for a hydrolysis level of greater than about 99%);
• 99-1 wt% (e.g., 40 wt% or less; 30 wt% or less; 20 wt% or less; etc.) of a ethylene acid copolymer containing about 18-30 wt% of α,β-ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid comonomer (e.g., acrylic acid; methacrylic acid; etc.) -- e.g., ethylene / acrylic acid (EAA) copolymer; wherein about 50-70% of the carboxylic acid groups are neutralized (corresponding to the recited “neutralization degree”);
• optional additives known in the art (e.g., crosslinking agents; inorganic fillers; etc.);
wherein the coating layer can be used to provide barrier properties;
• optional additional layers (e.g., but not limited to, additional aqueous or solvent-based coatings; etc.);
(entire document, e.g., paragraph 0025-0033, 0048, 0052-0055, 0059-0063, 0065, 0069, 0073-0077, 0081-0082, 0093-0094, 0099, 0104, 0117-0121, 0123-0125, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss ethylene / vinyl alcohol (EVOH) copolymers or reductions in oxygen transmission rate (OTR).
CHU ET AL ‘620 discloses that it is well known in the art that to use polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) copolymers (e.g., ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) as the vinyl alcohol-based barrier polymer for coating compositions with barrier-improving properties and adhesion-promoting characteristics, wherein the coating composition further contains an ethylene / acrylic acid (EAA) copolymer. The reference further discloses vinyl alcohol (co)polymer/EAA coatings can substantially reduce (e.g., by over 50%) the oxygen transmission rates (OTR) and water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of vinyl alcohol (co)polymer/EAA-coated metallized films compared to metallized films without the vinyl alcohol (co)polymer/EAA coating, wherein the reduction of OTR and WVTR is generally better when the amount of vinyl alcohol copolymer is greater than the amount of EAA (e.g., 62:38 or 75:25) (line 65, col. 1 to line 3, col. 2; line 17-58, col. 2; Table; etc.)
ROGERS AGENT ET AL ‘999 discloses that is well known in the art to use alternative known crosslinking agents for EVOH (e.g., glyoxal, etc.) in typical amounts of 0.1-25 parts per 100 parts EVOH in order to produce crosslinked EVOH-containing gas barrier coatings which can substantially reduce (e.g., by over 50%) the oxygen transmission rates (OTR) of EVOH-coated metallized films compared to uncoated metallized films. (paragraph 0009, 0026-0029, 0031, etc.; Table 1, etc.)
ILLSLEY ET AL ‘189 discloses that it is well known in the art to use ethylene / vinyl alcohol (EVOH) can be used as an alternative binder resin instead of poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVOH) in gas (e.g., oxygen) barrier coatings. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate clay material with an aspect ratio of 20-10000 (e.g., kaolinite, montmorillonite, mica, etc.) as fillers in oxygen barrier coatings in order to reduce oxygen diffusion through said barrier coating, wherein the use of clay-containing, vinyl alcohol-based barrier coatings can substantially reduce the oxygen transmission rate (OTR) compared to uncoated films (e.g., by 1-2 or more orders of magnitude, etc.), wherein the clay-containing, vinyl alcohol-based barrier coatings have a typical thickness of 50 nm to 3 microns (preferably 200-2000 nm). The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art incorporate additional resins (e.g., polyethyleneimine (PEI), acrylic reins, etc.) into PVOH-based or EVOH-based oxygen barrier coatings. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize primer compositions (corresponding to the recited “primer coating layer”) comprising PEI to improve adhesion between a PVOH-based or EVOH-based oxygen barrier coating and adjacent layers or coatings. (paragraph 0012, 0014, 0018-0019, 0021-0024, 0027-0028, 0038, etc.; Table 2, etc.)
KRAVITZ ‘467 discloses that it is well known in the art that ethylene-vinyl alcohol (EVOH) is a well-known copolymer of polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) which is suitable as a binder for polymeric gas (e.g., oxygen) and water vapor barrier coatings, wherein the barrier coatings further contain crosslinking agents in typical amounts of 0.1-50 wt% based on the amount of polymer binder, and wherein the barrier coatings have a typical thickness of 0.5-1 microns. The reference further discloses that polymeric barrier coatings are combined with metallic or metal oxide coatings (e.g., formed by vapor vacuum deposition, etc.) to provide coated films with excellent oxygen and water vapor barrier properties. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to: (i) incorporate an adhesion-promoter into polymeric barrier coatings; and/or (ii) utilize a primer coating adjacent to polymeric barrier coatings; in order to improve interlayer adhesion in coated barrier films. (paragraph 0003, 0005, 0008, 0016-0022, 0034, 0036-0044, 0050-0052, etc.)
GRAH ET AL ‘675 discloses that it is well known in the art utilize coating composition comprising:
• layered silicate particles with an aspect ratio of about 10-30,000;
• one or more binders (e.g., ethylene / vinyl alcohol (EVOH); ionomers; etc., or mixtures thereof), wherein the ionomer comprises a partially neutralized copolymer of ethylene and 1-20 wt% of an ethylenically unsaturated monocarboxylic acid (e.g., acrylic acid, etc.), wherein 10-60% of the acid groups in the ionomer are neutralized;
to provide coating layers for packaging materials with barrier properties. (paragraph 0004, 0013-0018, 0060-0061, 0076-0077, 0109-0110, 0126-0134, etc.)
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 8-12, 15-16, 36-37, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known PVOH copolymer such as EVOH (as suggested in CHU ET AL ‘620 and ILLSLEY ET AL ‘189 and KRAVITZ ‘467 and GRAH ET AL ‘675) as the PVOH (co)polymer binder in the coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 in order to produce environmentally friendly coatings with desirable barrier properties.
Further regarding claims 1, 8, 13-15, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known oxygen barrier-improving inorganic fillers (e.g., phyllosilicates, talc, mica, etc.) with aspect ratios of 20 or more (as suggested in ILLSLEY ET AL ‘189 and GRAH ET AL ‘675) in the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH)-based coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 in order to increase the length of the permeation pathway through the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH)-based coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024, which in turn helps to improve the barrier properties (e.g., reduced OTR and WVTR values) of the coating(s), thereby facilitating the production of coated films with: (i) significantly reduced OTR (as represented by a reduction in OTR of 90% or more (50% relative humidity) as recited in claim 1; optionally a reduction in OTR of 50-60% or more (90% relative humidity) as recited in claims 13-14); and (ii) optionally significantly reduced WVTR values (as represented by a reduction in WVTR of 50% or more (90% relative humidity) as recited in claim 15); relative to the same films without the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH) / EAA coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 containing effective amounts of a barrier-improving filler.
Further regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized effective amounts of known crosslinking agents for EVOH (e.g., glyoxal, as suggested in ROGERS AGENT ET AL ‘999; etc.) in the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH) / EAA coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 in order to optimize various performance properties (e.g., durability, strength, moisture resistance, chemical resistance, surface friction properties, etc.) for specific product applications.
Further regarding claim 1, 11 one of ordinary skill in the art would have provided known functional layers (e.g., a metal or metallic barrier layer (corresponding to the recited “vacuum applied coating layer”) as suggested in CHU ET AL ‘620 and KRAVITZ ‘467) adjacent to the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH) / EAA coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 in order to provide
Further regarding claims 1, 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would have provided known functional layers (e.g., a known adhesion-promoting primer layer (corresponding to the recited “primer coating layer”) as suggested ECHT ET AL ‘024 and ILLSLEY ET AL ‘189 and KRAVITZ ‘467) adjacent to the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH) / EAA coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 in order to provide improved interlayer adhesion.
Regarding claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized effective amounts of known crosslinking agents (e.g., in typical amounts of 0.1-25 parts per 100 parts EVOH copolymer (i.e., EVOH to crosslinker weight ratio of 1:0.25 to 1:0.001), as suggested in ROGERS AGENT ET AL ‘999) in the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH) / EAA coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 in order to provide improved layer strength and/or abrasion resistance and/or water resistance for specific applications.
Regarding claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporate effective amounts of performance-enhancing additives (e.g., known adhesion-promoting resins commonly used in primer compositions such as polyethyleneimine, urethane, polyacrylic acid, etc.) in the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH) / EAA coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 in order to improve adhesion between coating layers and adjacent film or coating layers (as suggested in ILLSLEY ET AL ‘189 and/or KRAVITZ ‘467).
Regarding claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilize known and/or commercially available EAA copolymers with number-average molecular weights conventionally used for coating applications in the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH) / EAA coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 based on the specific mechanical properties and coating properties for specific applications.
Regarding claim 16, since: (i) the coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 do not require the use of PVOH homopolymers; (ii) the coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 can be formed using PVOH copolymers (e.g., EVOH, as suggested in CHU ET AL ‘620 and ILLSLEY ET AL ‘189 and KRAVITZ ‘467 and GRAH ET AL ‘675); the presence of PVOH homopolymers is not required (and therefore can be absent) in the coated films of ECHT ET AL ‘024.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• ECHT ET AL (US 2015/0275024), in view of CHU ET AL (US 5,192,620), and in view of ROGERS AGENT ET AL (US 2007/0036999), and further in view of ILLSLEY ET AL (US 2010/0323189), and further in view of KRAVITZ (US 2017/0183467), and further in view of GRAH ET AL ‘675,
as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-16, 36-37 above,
and further in view of STRANDBURG ET AL (US 2007/0243331).
STRANDBURG ET AL ‘331 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize ethylene / acrylic acid (EAA) copolymers with typical number-average molecular weights of 2,000 to 50,000 for coating applications. (paragraph 0020, etc.)
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known and/or commercially available EAA copolymers with number-average molecular weights conventionally used for coating applications (as suggested in STRANDBURG ET AL ‘331) in the PVOH (co)polymer (e.g., EVOH) / EAA coatings of ECHT ET AL ‘024 based on the specific mechanical properties and coating properties for specific applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/13/2025 (including Applicant’s assertions regarding “the claimed degree of neutralization of about 50% to about 70% provides unexpected results with respect to oxygen transmission ratio (OTR)”) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 11/13/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ECHT ET AL (US 2013/0225749) and ECHT ET AL (US 2013/0225750) and ECHT ET AL (US 2013/0224506) and ECHT ET AL (US 2013/0224505) disclose barrier coatings containing polyvinyl alcohol-based (co)polymers and neutralized ionomers.
TOUHSAENT (US 5,419,960) and TOUHSAENT ET AL (US 5,827,615) disclose coatings containing neutralized ethylene / acrylic acid copolymers.
ZHANG (US 2008/0281045) disclose EVOH-based coating compositions.
SCHINKEL ET AL (US 5,126,198) disclose hydrolyzed ethylene / vinyl-acetate 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.
March 10, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787