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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 5/1-10/1, 5/3-10/3, 5/4-6/4, 8/4-10/4, 16/1-17/1, 16/3-17/3, and 16/4-17/4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 20160024326 A1) (newly cited) in view of Hayashida et al. (JP H08252890 A) (previously cited) as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers (MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers, 2024, Perkinelmer, Page 1) (previously cited) and Freire et al. (Freire T, Thermal, Mechanical and Chemical Analysis of Poly(vinyl alcohol) Multifilament and Braided Yarns, 21 October 2021, Polymers, Pgs. 1-21) (previously cited). Claims 3-4, 5/1, 5/3, 5/4, 8/1, 8/3, and 8/4 are further evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, 2004, World Health Organization, Pages 1-2) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Khan teaches a packaging film comprising a substrate layer that includes polyethylene and a coating layer that includes a resin (PVOH) and is provided in contact with one surface of the substrate layer (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015-0018, 0021, 0036-0039, 0046, 0061, and 0090). Khan teaches the substrate is a polyethylene (Khan, Par. 0046, 0061, and 0090), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgs, of -130°C to -125°C as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers (MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers, Page 1). Khan teaches the coating layer resin comprises PVOH as the only polymeric component (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015, 0021, 0039, 0045, 0067, 0069, Tables 1, 3, and Claim 1), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgc, of 76°C as evidenced by Freire (Freire, Page 1). This results in a value of Tgc – Tgs of 201°C to 206°C. Khan’s Tgc value lies within the claimed range of -25°C to 120°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Khan’s Tgc-Tgs value overlaps the claimed range of 203°C to 245°C and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Khan is silent regarding a melt flow rate (MFR) of the polyethylene being 0.5 g/10 minutes or more and 30 g/10 minutes or less.
Hayashida teaches a barrier packaging film comprising a polyethylene layer and a barrier layer, wherein the polyethylene has a melt flow rate of 1 to 100 g/10 min for processability (Hayashida, Par. 0001, 0007-0008, and 0023), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 g/10 minutes or more and 30 g/10 minutes or less and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Khan and Hayashida are analogous art as they both teach barrier film comprising a polyethylene layer and a barrier 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 used a polyethylene with a melt flow rate within the claimed range as the polyethylene of Khan. This would allow for improved processability (Hayashida, Par. 0023).
Regarding claim 3, Khan teaches a packaging film comprising a substrate layer that includes polyethylene and a coating layer that includes a resin different from polyethylene (PVOH) and is provided in contact with one surface of the substrate layer (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015-0018, 0021, 0036-0039, 0046, 0061, and 0090). Khan does not state that additional layers are provided on the coating layer and thus teaches a part or an entirety of a surface of the coating layer is an exposed surface. Khan teaches the coating layer is coated in an amount of 0.36-0.4 g/m2 dry (Khan, Par. 0067-0068 and Table 2), and polyvinyl alcohol has a density of 1.19-1.31 g/cm3 as evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, Page 2). This results in a coating layer thickness of 0.27-0.33 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 4.5 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Khan teaches the substrate is a polyethylene (Khan, Par. 0046, 0061, and 0090), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgs, of -130°C to -125°C as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers (MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers, Page 1). Khan teaches the coating layer resin comprises PVOH as the only polymeric component (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015, 0021, 0039, 0045, 0067, 0069, Tables 1, 3, and Claim 1), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgc, of 76°C as evidenced by Freire (Freire, Page 1). This results in a value of Tgc – Tgs of 201°C to 206°C. Khan’s Tgc value lies within the claimed range of -25°C to 120°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Khan’s Tgc-Tgs value overlaps the claimed range of 203°C to 245°C and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Khan is silent regarding a melt flow rate (MFR) of the polyethylene being 0.5 g/10 minutes or more and 30 g/10 minutes or less.
Hayashida teaches a barrier packaging film comprising a polyethylene layer and a barrier layer, wherein the polyethylene has a melt flow rate of 1 to 100 g/10 min for processability (Hayashida, Par. 0001, 0007-0008, and 0023), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 g/10 minutes or more and 30 g/10 minutes or less and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Khan and Hayashida are analogous art as they both teach barrier film comprising a polyethylene layer and a barrier 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 used a polyethylene with a melt flow rate within the claimed range as the polyethylene of Khan. This would allow for improved processability (Hayashida, Par. 0023).
Regarding claim 4, Khan teaches a packaging film comprising a substrate layer that includes polyethylene and a coating layer that includes a resin that is polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and is provided in contact with one surface of the substrate layer (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015-0018, 0021, 0036-0039, 0046, 0061, and 0090). Khan teaches the coating layer is coated in an amount of 0.36-0.4 g/m2 dry (Khan, Par. 0067-0068 and Table 2), and polyvinyl alcohol has a density of 1.19-1.31 g/cm3 as evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, Page 2). This results in a coating layer thickness of 0.27-0.33 µm. Khan teaches the substrate layer has a thickness of 40 microns (Khan, Par. 0060-0061), and thus teaches a thickness of the coating layer is less than a thickness of the substrate layer. Khan teaches the substrate is a polyethylene (Khan, Par. 0046, 0061, and 0090), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgs, of -130°C to -125°C as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers (MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers, Page 1). Khan teaches the coating layer resin comprises PVOH as the only polymeric component (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015, 0021, 0039, 0045, 0067, 0069, Tables 1, 3, and Claim 1), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgc, of 76°C as evidenced by Freire (Freire, Page 1). This results in a value of Tgc – Tgs of 201°C to 206°C. Khan’s Tgc value lies within the claimed range of -25°C to 120°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Khan’s Tgc-Tgs value overlaps the claimed range of 203°C to 245°C and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Khan is silent regarding a melt flow rate (MFR) of the polyethylene being 0.5 g/10 minutes or more and 30 g/10 minutes or less.
Hayashida teaches a barrier packaging film comprising a polyethylene layer and a barrier layer, wherein the polyethylene has a melt flow rate of 1 to 100 g/10 min for processability (Hayashida, Par. 0001, 0007-0008, and 0023), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 g/10 minutes or more and 30 g/10 minutes or less and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Khan and Hayashida are analogous art as they both teach barrier film comprising a polyethylene layer and a barrier 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 used a polyethylene with a melt flow rate within the claimed range as the polyethylene of Khan. This would allow for improved processability (Hayashida, Par. 0023).
Regarding claims 5/1, 5/3, and 5/4, modified Khan teaches the coating layer is coated in an amount of 0.36-0.4 g/m2 dry (Khan, Par. 0067-0068 and Table 2), and polyvinyl alcohol has a density of 1.19-1.31 g/cm3 as evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, Page 2). This results in a coating layer thickness of 0.27-0.33 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 2.0 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 6/1, 6/3, and 6/4, modified Khan teaches a substrate layer thickness of 40 microns (µm) (Khan, Par. 0060-0061), which lies within the claimed range of 10 to 150 µm, and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 7/1 and 7/3, modified Khan teaches the coating layer includes polyvinyl alcohol (Khan, Abstract, and Par. 0015).
Regarding claims 8/1, 8/3, and 8/4, modified Khan teaches an oxygen permeability measured at a temperature of 23°C and a humidity of 0-65% RH is 1.2 cc/(m2 X day X MPa) (1.2 mL/(m2 X day X MPa)) (Khan, Par. 0059-0060, 0067, and Table 1), which lies within the claimed range of lower than 1X105 mL/(m2 X day X MPa) and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Furthermore, modified Khan teaches a packaging film that is substantially the same as the instant invention as stated above for claims 1 and 3-4. Modified Khan teaches the coating layer is coated in an amount of 0.36-0.4 g/m2 dry (Khan, Par. 0067-0068 and Table 2), and polyvinyl alcohol has a density of 1.19-1.31 g/cm3 as evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, Page 2). This results in a coating layer thickness of 0.27-0.33 µm. Modified Khan teaches a substrate layer thickness of 40 µm (Khan, Par. 0060-0061). These thickness ranges overlap or lie within the ranges of the instant invention per the instant claims 3 and 5-6, see MPEP 2144.05 &1 2131.03. Modified Khan further teaches the substrate layer is polyethylene and the coating layer is polyvinyl alcohol, which is the same material as the instant invention as discussed above for claims 1 and 3-4 (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015, and 0060). Further, the instant specification states that the oxygen permeability is a result of the materials used for the substrate and coating layers (See the instant specification Par. 0061-0062). The instant specification does not specify that anything else is specifically done to achieve the claimed oxygen permeability. Modified Khan thus teaches a packaging film that is substantially identical to the instant invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01 (I), (II), and MPEP 2112(V). Therefore, absent any objective evidence to the contrary, the coating layer of modified Khan, formed of the same material as the instant invention with an overlapping thickness range, would inherently exhibit the claimed oxygen permeability.
Regarding claims 9/1, 9/3, and 9/4, modified Khan teaches the substrate layer is formed of polyethylene (Khan, Par. 0046, 0061, and 0090), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgs, of -130°C to -125°C as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers (MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers, Page 1), which lies within the claimed range of -130°C to -120°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 10/1, 10/3, and 10/4, modified Khan teaches the coating layer is polyvinyl alcohol (Khan, Abstract, and Par. 0015), which has a melting point of 210°C as evidenced by Freire (Freire, Page 1), which lies within the claimed range of 120°C to 230°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 16/1-17/1, 16/3-17/3, and 16/4-17/4, modified Khan teaches the a package that is formed of the packaging film, wherein the coating layer is present on an outer surface (Khan, Par. 0021 and 0036-0038).
Claims 1-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. in view of Hayashida et al. and Sugawara (US 20200247965 A1) (previously cited) as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers and Freire et al., and PolyVinyl Alcohol.
To note, the following rejections to claims 1, 3-4, 6/1-10/1, 6/3-10/3, 6/4, 8/4-10/4, 16/1-17/1, 16/3-17/3, and 16/4-17/4 are given as alternative rejections to the rejections to claims 1, 3-4, 6/1-10/1, 6/3-10/3, 6/4, 8/4-10/4, 16/1-17/1, 16/3-17/3, and 16/4-17/4 above.
Regarding claim 2, Khan teaches a packaging film comprising a substrate layer that includes polyethylene and a coating layer that includes a resin different from polyethylene (PVOH) and is provided in contact with one surface of the substrate layer (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015-0018, 0021, 0036-0039, 0046, 0061, and 0090). Khan does not state that additional layers are provided on the coating layer and thus teaches a part or an entirety of a surface of the coating layer is an exposed surface. Khan teaches the substrate is a polyethylene (Khan, Par. 0046, 0061, and 0090), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgs, of -130°C to -125°C as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers (MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers, Page 1). Khan teaches the coating layer resin comprises PVOH as the only polymeric component (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015, 0021, 0039, 0045, 0067, 0069, Tables 1, 3, and Claim 1), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgc, of 76°C as evidenced by Freire (Freire, Page 1). This results in a value of Tgc – Tgs of 201°C to 206°C. Khan’s Tgc value lies within the claimed range of -25°C to 120°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Khan’s Tgc-Tgs value overlaps the claimed range of 203°C to 245°C and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Khan teaches the substrate is corona treated (Khan, Par. 0060-0061).
Khan is silent regarding a melt flow rate (MFR) of the polyethylene being 0.5 g/10 minutes or more and 30 g/10 minutes or less.
Hayashida teaches a barrier packaging film comprising a polyethylene layer and a barrier layer, wherein the polyethylene has a melt flow rate of 1 to 100 g/10 min for processability (Hayashida, Par. 0001, 0007-0008, and 0023), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 g/10 minutes or more and 30 g/10 minutes or less and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Khan and Hayashida are analogous art as they both teach barrier film comprising a polyethylene layer and a barrier 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 used a polyethylene with a melt flow rate within the claimed range as the polyethylene of Khan. This would allow for improved processability (Hayashida, Par. 0023).
Modified Khan does not specifically disclose that a ten point average roughness SRz of the exposed surface obtained by three-dimensional surface measurement is 0.5 µm or more.
Sugawara teaches a packaging film (housings for products) comprising a thermoplastic substrate layer and a layer (low-friction layer) disposed on the thermoplastic substrate layer (Sugawara, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0047, 0082-0083, and 0165). Sugawara teaches a surface of the layer disposed on the thermoplastic substrate has a surface roughness kurtosis (Rku) of greater than or equal to 2, a total height surface roughness (Rt) of greater than or equal to 1 µm, and a dynamic coefficient of friction of less than or equal to 0.3 (Sugawara, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0010-0015, 0024-0037, and 0135-0139). Sugawara teaches the substrate layer is corona treated (Sugawara, Par. 0090).
Modified Khan and Sugawara are analogous art as they both teach packaging films comprising a thermoplastic substrate layer that has been corona treated and a layer disposed on the thermoplastic substrate layer. Sugawara is further analogous to the claimed invention as Sugawara is directed towards the same problem as the inventor of increasing the roughness of a surface of a film to improve blocking properties and handling properties of the film (Sugawara, Par. 0001, 0010-0015 and 0082 – see “low-friction” and “improving the slidability”) (See the instant specification Par. 0010, 0013, 0037-0038, and 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Sugawara and corona treat the substrate of modified Khan to create the coating to have a surface roughness kurtosis SRku of greater than or equal to 2, a total height surface roughness (Rt) of greater than or equal to 1 µm, and a dynamic coefficient of friction of less than or equal to 0.3. This would allow for improved handling and slidability (Sugawara, Par. 0001, 0010-0015 and 0082).
Regarding the ten point average roughness SRz of the exposed surface, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01 (I), (II), and MPEP 2112(V). Modified Khan teaches the substrate layer is formed of polyethylene and the coating layer is formed of PVOH (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015, 0046, 0060-0061, and 0090), which is the same material as the instant invention as stated above. Modified Khan teaches the coating layer is coated in an amount of 0.36-0.4 g/m2 dry (Khan, Par. 0067-0068 and Table 2), and polyvinyl alcohol has a density of 1.19-1.31 g/cm3 as evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, Page 2). This results in a coating layer thickness of 0.27-0.33 µm. Modified Khan teaches the substrate has a thickness of 40 microns (µm) (Khan, Par. 0060-0061). Modified Khan’s thickness ranges lie within or overlap the thickness ranges of the instant invention per the instant claims 3 and 5-6, see MPEP 2131.03 & 2144.05, I. Modified Khan teaches a packaging film that is substantially the same as the instant invention with the same substrate layer material, substrate thickness, coating layer material, coating layer thickness and coating thickness as stated above. Modified Khan further teaches the coating layer has a surface roughness kurtosis (SRku) of greater than or equal to 2 (Sugawara, Abstract and Par. 0013), which overlaps the range of 25 or higher of the instant invention per the instant claim 12, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modified Khan further teaches a total height surface roughness of greater than or equal to 1 µm (Sugawara, Abstract and Par. 0013), which overlaps the claim 2 ten point average surface roughness SRz of 0.5 µm or more. While these values measure different properties (total height surface roughness versus ten point average surface roughness), the range in modified Khan is open ended including greater than 1 µm, similar to the instant claim which is open ended including greater than or equal to 0.5 µm. Modified Khan thus teaches a packaging film that is substantially the same as the instant invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the coating layer of modified Khan would have inherently exhibited the claimed ten point average surface roughness SRz.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, the embodiment of Khan in view of Hayashida and Sugawara, set forth above in the grounds of rejection of claim 2, and in view of the teachings of Khan in view of Hayashida set forth/cited above in paragraphs 5-16 (incorporated herein by reference entirely), reads on each packaging film as defined by claims 1, 3, and 4. Thus, claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected over Khan in view of Hayashida and Sugawara.
Regarding claim 5, modified Khan teaches the coating layer is coated in an amount of 0.36-0.4 g/m2 dry (Khan, Par. 0067-0068 and Table 2), and polyvinyl alcohol has a density of 1.19-1.31 g/cm3 as evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, Page 2). This results in a coating layer thickness of 0.27-0.33 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 2.0 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 6, modified Khan teaches a substrate layer thickness of 40 microns (µm) (Khan, Par. 0060-0061), which lies within the claimed range of 10 to 150 µm, and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 7, modified Khan teaches the coating layer includes polyvinyl alcohol (Khan, Abstract, and Par. 0015).
Regarding claim 8, modified Khan teaches an oxygen permeability measured at a temperature of 23°C and a humidity of 0-65% RH is 1.2 cc/(m2 X day X MPa) (1.2 mL/(m2 X day X MPa)) (Khan, Par. 0059-0060, 0067, and Table 1), which lies within the claimed range of lower than 1X105 mL/(m2 X day X MPa) and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Furthermore, modified Khan teaches a packaging film that is substantially the same as the instant invention as stated above for claims 1 and 3-4. Modified Khan teaches the coating layer is coated in an amount of 0.36-0.4 g/m2 dry (Khan, Par. 0067-0068 and Table 2), and polyvinyl alcohol has a density of 1.19-1.31 g/cm3 as evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, Page 2). This results in a coating layer thickness of 0.27-0.33 µm. Modified Khan teaches a substrate thickness of 40 µm (Khan, Par. 0060-0061), which is lies within or overlaps the thickness ranges of the instant invention per the instant claims 3 and 5-6, see MPEP 2131.03 & 2144.05, I. Modified Khan further teaches the substrate layer is polyethylene and the coating layer is polyvinyl alcohol, which is the same material as the instant invention as discussed above for claims 1 and 3-4 (Khan, Abstract, Par. 0015, and 0060). Further, the instant specification states that the oxygen permeability is a result of the materials used for the substrate and coating layers (See the instant specification Par. 0061-0062). The instant specification does not specify that anything else is specifically done to achieve the claimed oxygen permeability. Modified Khan thus teaches a packaging film that is substantially identical to the instant invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01 (I), (II), and MPEP 2112(V). Therefore, absent any objective evidence to the contrary, the coating layer of modified Khan, formed of the same material as the instant invention with an overlapping thickness range, would inherently exhibit the claimed oxygen permeability.
Regarding claim 9, modified Khan teaches the substrate layer is formed of polyethylene (Khan, Par. 0046, 0061, and 0090), which has a glass transition temperature, Tgs, of -130°C to -125°C as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers (MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers, Page 1), which lies within the claimed range of -130°C to -120°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 10, modified Khan teaches the coating layer is polyvinyl alcohol (Khan, Abstract, and Par. 0015), which has a melting point of 210°C as evidenced by Freire (Freire, Page 1), which lies within the claimed range of 120°C to 230°C and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, modified Khan teaches that the coating layer is present on the substrate and does not state that any other layers are disposed on the coating layer and thus teaches the coating layer is present on an outermost surface of the packaging film (Khan, Abstract). Modified Khan teaches a packaging film that is substantially the same as the instant invention as stated above for claims 1-4. Modified Khan teaches the coating layer is coated in an amount of 0.36-0.4 g/m2 dry (Khan, Par. 0067-0068 and Table 2), and polyvinyl alcohol has a density of 1.19-1.31 g/cm3 as evidenced by Polyvinyl Alcohol (Polyvinyl Alcohol, Page 2). This results in a coating layer thickness of 0.27-0.33 µm. Modified Khan teaches a substrate thickness of 40 µm (Khan, Par. 0060-0061), which is lies within or overlaps the thickness ranges of the instant invention per the instant claims 3 and 5-6, see MPEP 2131.03 & 2144.05, I. Modified Khan further teaches that the substrate layer is corona treated (Khan, Par. 0060-0061; Sugawara, Par. 0090). Further, the instant specification states that the surface roughness is obtained from a sufficiently thin coating layer and by corona treating the substrate layer (See the instant specification Par. 0043 and 0054-0056). The instant specification does not specify that anything else is specifically done to achieve the claimed kurtosis. The instant specification states that corona treatment can be performed to achieve the claimed static friction (See the instant specification Par. 0040). Modified Khan thus teaches a packaging film that is substantially identical to the instant invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01 (I), (II), and MPEP 2112(V). Therefore, absent any objective evidence to the contrary, the coating layer of modified Khan would inherently exhibit the claimed roughness SRz (claim 11) and static friction (claim 13).
Regarding claim 12, modified Khan teaches that the coating layer is present on the substrate and does not state that any other layers are disposed on the coating layer and thus teaches the coating layer is present on an outermost surface of the packaging film (Khan, Abstract). Modified Khan further teaches the coating layer as a surface roughness kurtosis (SRku) of greater than or equal to 2 (Sugawara, Abstract and Par. 0010-0015), which overlaps the claimed range of 25 of higher and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 16-17, modified Khan teaches the a package that is formed of the packaging film, wherein the coating layer is present on an outer surface (Khan, Par. 0021 and 0036-0038).
Claims 14/1-15/1, 14/3-15/3, and 14/4-15/4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. in view of Hayashida et al. as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers and Freire et al., and PolyVinyl Alcohol. as applied to claims 1 and 3-4 above, further in view of Kuroda (JP H11309818 A; herein English machine translation used for all citations) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 14/1-15/1, 14/2-15/2, and 14/3-15/3, modified Khan teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 3-4. Modified Khan is silent regarding a surface resistivity of the coating layer being 1 X 1012 to 1 X 1015 Ω as required by claim 14. Modified Khan is further silent regarding the coating layer including a surfactant, a proportion of the surfactant in the coating layer being 0.8 to 7.5 mass%.
Kuroda teaches a packaging film comprising a substrate layer (base resin, 1) that includes polyethylene (Kuroda, Par. 0001, 0007, 0016, 0089, and Fig. 1) and a gas barrier coating layer (Gas barrier layer, 3) that includes polyvinyl alcohol (Kuroda, Par. 0007, 0016, 0062-0065, and Fig. 1). Kuroda teaches the coating layer comprises a surfactant in an amount of 0.001 to 5 wt.% (Kuroda, Par. 0011-0015, 0024, 0096, and 0122-0125), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.8 to 7.5 mass%, and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Modified Khan and Kuroda are analogous art as they both teach packaging films comprising a polyethylene base film and a polyvinyl alcohol gas barrier coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the surfactant of Kuroda in the coating layer of modified Khan. This would allow for improved adhesion of the coating layer (Kuroda, Par. 0018 and 0023-0024).
Regarding the limitation of the surface resistivity, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01 (I), (II), and MPEP 2112(V). Modified Khan teaches a packaging film that is substantially the same as the instant invention as stated above for claims 1, 3-4 and 11-13, with the same coating layer material, substrate material, surface roughness, and thickness that overlaps that of the claimed invention. Modified Khan further teaches that the coating layer includes a surfactant in an amount of 0.001 to 5 wt.% (Kuroda, Par. 0011-0015, 0024, 0096, and 0122-0125), which overlaps the claim 15 range of 0.8 to 7.5 mass%. Further the instant specification states that the surface resistivity of the coating layer is a result of the amount of surfactant used (see the instant specification Par. 0083-0084). Therefore, absent any objective evidence to the contrary, the coating layer of modified Khan would inherently exhibit the claimed surface resistivity.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. in view of Hayashida et al. and Sugawara et al. as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers and Freire et al., and PolyVinyl Alcohol. as applied to claims 1-4 above, further in view of Kuroda.
Regarding claims 14-15, modified Khan teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1-4. Modified Khan is silent regarding a surface resistivity of the coating layer being 1 X 1012 to 1 X 1015 Ω as required by claim 14. Modified Khan is further silent regarding the coating layer including a surfactant, a proportion of the surfactant in the coating layer being 0.8 to 7.5 mass%.
Kuroda teaches a packaging film comprising a substrate layer (base resin, 1) that includes polyethylene (Kuroda, Par. 0001, 0007, 0016, 0089, and Fig. 1) and a gas barrier coating layer (Gas barrier layer, 3) that includes polyvinyl alcohol (Kuroda, Par. 0007, 0016, 0062-0065, and Fig. 1). Kuroda teaches the coating layer comprises a surfactant in an amount of 0.001 to 5 wt.% (Kuroda, Par. 0011-0015, 0024, 0096, and 0122-0125), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.8 to 7.5 mass%, and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Modified Khan and Kuroda are analogous art as they both teach packaging films comprising a polyethylene base film and a polyvinyl alcohol gas barrier coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the surfactant of Kuroda in the coating layer of modified Khan. This would allow for improved adhesion of the coating layer (Kuroda, Par. 0018 and 0023-0024).
Regarding the limitation of the surface resistivity, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01 (I), (II), and MPEP 2112(V). Modified Khan teaches a packaging film that is substantially the same as the instant invention as stated above for claims 1-4 and 11-13, with the same coating layer material, substrate material, surface roughness, and thickness that overlaps that of the claimed invention. Modified Khan further teaches that the coating layer includes a surfactant in an amount of 0.001 to 5 wt.% (Kuroda, Par. 0011-0015, 0024, 0096, and 0122-0125), which overlaps the claim 15 range of 0.8 to 7.5 mass%. Further the instant specification states that the surface resistivity of the coating layer is a result of the amount of surfactant used (see the instant specification Par. 0083-0084). Therefore, absent any objective evidence to the contrary, the coating layer of modified Khan would inherently exhibit the claimed surface resistivity.
Claims 14/1, 14/3, and 14/4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. in view of Hayashida et al. as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers and Freire et al., and PolyVinyl Alcohol. as applied to claims 1 and 3-4 above, further in view of Nakamura (JP-2016088964-A; herein English machine translation used for all citations) (previously cited).
To note, the following rejection is given as an alternative to the rejection to claims 14/1, 14/3, and 14/4 in view of Modified Khan and Kuroda above.
Regarding claims 14/1, 14/2, and 14/3, modified Khan teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 3-4. Modified Khan is silent regarding the surface resistivity of the coating layer being between 1 x 1012 to 1 x 1015 Ω.
Nakamura teaches a packaging film comprising a polyethylene substrate and a gas barrier coating (Nakamura, Par. 0002, 0008, 0012, 0022, 0030, 0034, 0055, and Fig. 2). Nakamura teaches that the coating layer has a surface resistivity of 1.0X1014 Ω or less (Nakamura, Par. 0008 and 0065), which overlaps the surface resistivity range of 1.0X1012 Ω to 1.0X1015 Ω, and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Modified Khan and Nakamura are analogous art as they both teach packaging films comprising a polyethylene substrate and a gas barrier coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the coating layer of modified Khan to have a surface resistivity within the claimed range. This would allow for improved printing characteristics of the coating layer (Nakamura, Par. 0019-0020).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. in view of Hayashida et al. and Sugawara et al. as evidenced by MP, TG, and Structure of Common Polymers and Freire et al., and PolyVinyl Alcohol. as applied to claims 1-4 above, further in view of Nakamura.
To note, the following rejection is given as an alternative to the rejection to claim 14 in view of Modified Khan and Kuroda above.
Regarding claim 14, modified Khan teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1-4. Modified Khan is silent regarding the surface resistivity of the coating layer being between 1 x 1012 to 1 x 1015 Ω.
Nakamura teaches a packaging film comprising a polyethylene substrate and a gas barrier coating (Nakamura, Par. 0002, 0008, 0012, 0022, 0030, 0034, 0055, and Fig. 2). Nakamura teaches that the coating layer has a surface resistivity of 1.0X1014 Ω or less (Nakamura, Par. 0008 and 0065), which overlaps the surface resistivity range of 1.0X1012 Ω to 1.0X1015 Ω, and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Modified Khan and Nakamura are analogous art as they both teach packaging films comprising a polyethylene substrate and a gas barrier coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the coating layer of modified Khan to have a surface resistivity within the claimed range. This would allow for improved printing characteristics of the coating layer (Nakamura, Par. 0019-0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 07 October 2025 have been fully considered.
On pages 10-13 of the remarks, Applicant first argues that Markiewicz does not teach the instant claim 1. This is found moot.
The previous grounds of rejection in view of Markiewicz have been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments. New grounds of rejection in view of newly cited Khan have been made above.
Secondly, on pages 12-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Markiewicz utilizes a PVOH coating whereas Hayashida utilizes a vinylidene chloride-based resin and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Markiewicz with Hayashida. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
To note, the previous grounds of rejection in view of Markiewicz have been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
However, to the extent that this argument may be made towards the newly cited art, it is noted that the combination of Khan and Hayashida above does not include modifying the coating of Khan. Instead, the rejection as stated above relies upon Hayashida to use a polyethylene substrate with a specific melt flow rate for improved processability (Hayashida, Par. 0023). Applicant has not shown any evidence that the effect of improved processability of a polyethylene with a specific melt flow rate would not be achieved when used as the substrate of Khan which utilizes a PVOH substrate.
In view of the above, Khan in view of Hayashida render obvious the claimed substrate and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thirdly, on pages 13-15 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the instant invention achieves an effect not considered by the prior art. This is found moot.
To note, the previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
However, to the extent that this argument may be made towards the newly cited art, in response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not discuss the technical effects achieved by the present invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As stated above, the prior art of record renders obvious each and every limitation of the instant claims. Therefore, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782