DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 22, 24 & 27-30 are pending as amended on 01/28/26,
claims 8-15, 22, 24 & 27-30 being withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed on January 28, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended; the rejections of the claims have been redone accordingly.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn et al., US 2015/0298439 in view of Borse et al., US 2015/0132593 and further in view of Kashiba et al., US 6,391,407 and Lawrence et al., US 2017/0334176.
With regard to claim 1, Osborn teaches a variety of useful thermoformable laminate films for blister packs or the like which may comprise at least three polyethylene layers, wherein the outermost surface layers may comprise common inert polymers such as HDPE & LDPE [0033] (where “LD” may refer to a density less than 0.92 g/cm3 [0029]), as well as interior HDPE layers with common inorganic fillers like talc/CaCO3 [0030], as well as a core layer which comprises HDPE and a hydrocarbon resin (throughout, e.g. [0010-0012 & FIG. 1]). While this reference does not appear to expressly list all of these particular elements combined in a single, exemplary embodiment, the simple assembly of at least these A/B/C/B/A layers would have been obvious to arrive at via the simple instructions to form a thermoformable, inert, impermeable laminate film which is easily manufactured using these art-conventional components.
While Osborn does not expressly disclose whether the above low-density polyethylene may be a linear LDPE, it was also well-known in this art to form barrier layers from HDPE/LLDPE, as taught for example by Borse [0049], said LLDPE having a density of 0.916 g/cc [0050]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select this alternate blend as a skin layer in order to predictably improve strength/anti-curl properties of the multilayer film using a known alternative with predictable success.
While Osborn does not expressly disclose that its inorganic filler should be present in concentrations of 10% or more (it teaches examples up to 3.5%), it was also well-known in this art to add colored interior layers comprising HDPE or the like with >10% inorganic CaCO3 or the like as a coloring additive, as taught for example by Kashiba (throughout, e.g. [Col. 5, 35 – Col. 6, 13 & FIGS. 1-3]), and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such an inner layer with the teachings of Osborn & Borse, in order to predictably modify a visual appearance of a composite film using a known compatible interior layer composition with predictable success.
While these references do not expressly disclose whether the laminate films have an overall density of less than 1.0 g/cm3, Osborn does primarily discuss such lighter-than-water polymer layers as noted above, and further, designing for such an overall value was also a known technique in this art, as taught for example by Lawrence (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0027]), which would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to combine with the teachings of Osborn, Borse & Kashiba, in order to yield a thermoformable laminate film which can be separated by floating for easier recycling in a known manner.
With regard to claim 2, inasmuch as the claimed layers are present above, they would be expected to have substantially similar properties as claimed.
With regard to claim 3, inasmuch as these excluded materials are not required in the film of the prior art, this limitation is considered to be met by the above.
With regard to claim 6, while Osborn does teach the use of barrier materials such as oxygen barriers [0026], it does not expressly disclose the use of a barrier comprising EVOH; however, these were also well-known in this art, as taught for example by Borse [0004], and would have been obvious to incorporate anywhere desired within the laminate in order to predictably improve gas barrier properties in a known manner.
With regard to claim 7, while Osborn does teach the formation of simple palindromic film structures which resist curl [0035, 0059], it does not expressly disclose the use of a barrier comprising EVA; however, these were also well-known in this art, as taught for example by Borse [0004], and would have been obvious to incorporate anywhere desired within the laminate in order to predictably improve curl-resistant gas barrier properties in a known manner.
Examiner also cites US 2020/0165045 as relevant to the pending claims
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see response, “Remarks,” filed January 28, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are primarily drawn toward the claims as amended but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Whereas Applicants’ amendment has added an overall film density limitation, this was also a known feature in this art at the time of invention, as shown for example by Lawrence above, which taught making its composite thermoformable polymer films such that they are less dense than water and can be used in a common float separation recycling process. Thus, the pending claims as written still are not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
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 JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights