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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-20 are currently pending in the application. The rejections of record from the office action dated 29 October 2025 not repeated herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation comprising one or more components selected from biaxially oriented polyamide (BOPA), biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (BOPET), and biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP), and the claim also recites wherein the biaxially oriented film comprises BOPET which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation barrier film comprises a metal layer, silica-coated layer, or metalized film, and the claim also recites wherein the barrier film comprises a metallized film or aluminum foil, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-4, 6-9 and 11-20 are rejected as depending from rejected claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which limits the barrier film to metallized film or aluminum foil. However, claim 4 recites that the barrier layer comprises alternative materials. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 depends from claim 1, which limits the biaxially oriented film to BOPET. However, claim 20 recites that the biaxially oriented film comprises alternative materials. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 108016110 (Ge) in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 202079845 (Shandong), United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0009108 (Mitchell) and United States Patent Publication No. 5,830,545 (Frisk).
In regards to Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9, Ge teaches a package-sealing and easy-opening composite film including a printing layer, a barrier layer, and an inner layer heat-sealed with prefabricated packages of different materials, wherein the printed layer, barrier layer, and adjacent two layers in the inner layer are composited by an adhesive layer (Para. 6), wherein the inner layer is a modified PE film (Para. 9), wherein the film adopts one of biaxially stretched polyester or polypropylene (Para. 17), wherein additionally vacuum aluminum-plated biaxially stretched polyester or aluminum foil can be used as the barrier layer (Para. 18). Ge also teaches that for the printed layer, a biaxially stretched polyester, nylon, or polypropylene can be used as the printing layer (Para. 46), wherein the printing layer can print the desired content on demand (Para. 7), and refers to the inner layer as having adjacent two layers (Para. 6), and that the inner layer can be a modified PE film (Para. 28), wherein the film uses different types of PE for blow extrusion blow molding (Para. 29). Furthermore, Ge teaches that adhesive layers are located between the print layer and the barrier layer, and the barrier layer and the inner layer (Para. 46) – corresponding to a multilayer laminate comprising a biaxially oriented polypropylene or polyamide, a barrier film adhered to the biaxially oriented film, wherein the barrier film comprises a metal layer or metallized film (instant Claim 1), wherein the barrier film comprises aluminum foil (instant Claim 4), wherein the barrier film is a multilayer or monolayer film (instant Claim 6), wherein the barrier film comprises aluminum foil (instant Claim 7), wherein the multilayer PE film is a blown film (instant Claim 9). Given that Ge teaches that the printing layer can be printed as desired (Para. 7) and is in the field of package sealing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the printing layer of Ge would comprise ink as claimed in instant Claim 1. In various embodiments, Ge refers to the modified PE film having thicknesses exemplarily 60 microns, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the film would comprise multiple atoms thick of PE, and therefore correspond to the limitations of a multilayer polyethylene film adhered to the barrier film (instant Claim 1). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to duplicate the PE film. It is noted that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). However, Ge does not explicitly teach an oriented polyethylene film with the printing layer adhered thereto as claimed.
In the same field of multi-layer laminated packaging materials, Shandong teaches a multilayer laminate comprising an adhesive, barrier, and printing receiving layer, amongst others (Para. 8), and also teaches that a protective layer is bonded to the upper side of the print receiving layer, wherein the protective layer comprises polyethylene (Para. 12), wherein the protective layer is to protect the print receiving layer from being scratched or damaged (Para. 50) – corresponding to a polyethylene film and the printing layer adhered thereto (instant Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to have utilized the protective layer of Shandong on top of the printing layer of Ge. One skilled in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of protecting the printing layer of Ge from scratches or damage, as taught by Shandong, in order to improve performance, durability, and mechanical properties of the product of Ge.
Ge in view of Shandong teach a polyurethane adhesive but do not explicitly teach it is a solvent-based, solventless, or water-based adhesive (instant Claims 2-3), nor that the oriented polyethylene can comprise TF-BOPE.
In the similar field of multilayer components comprising polyethylene and featuring adhesives, Mitchell teaches a structure comprising layers of thermoplastic polymers and adhesive layers (Claim 1), wherein the film can be biaxially oriented through a tenter frame process, which creates different degrees of orientation in directions (Para. 159), wherein the first layer can be biaxially oriented (Para. 91), wherein the first layer can comprise a polymer selected from polyethylene (Para. 89). Mitchell also teaches that the adhesive layer may be comprised of solvent-based, solventless, or moisture-curing polyurethane (Para. 245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to have utilized a tenter frame biaxially-oriented polyethylene film, as taught by Mitchell, within the product of Ge in view of Shandong. One skilled in the art would have had the desire and motivation of improving degrees of orientation in different directions, as taught by Mitchell, within the product of Ge in view of Shandong for improved mechanical properties and performance. Furthermore, given that Mitchell also teaches that the adhesive layer may be comprised of solvent-based, solventless, or moisture-curing polyurethane (Para. 245), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have tried from a known list of varieties of the polyurethane adhesive, as taught by Ge, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at selecting at least one of the solvent-based, solventless, or moisture-curing polyurethane adhesive as taught by Mitchell for interlayer performance and adhesion of the product of Ge in view of Shandong – corresponding to the limitations of instant Claims 2-3 and 19.
Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Ge does not explicitly teach that the biaxially oriented film comprises BOPET, or that the multilayer PE film comprises at least one layer comprises LDPE and LLDPE (instant Claim 8).
In the similar field of multilayer laminates for barrier properties, Frisk teaches a laminate material comprising a first layer of biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate, a barrier layer, and a multilayer PE stack (Abstract), wherein the BOPET layer is advantageously transparent (Column 1, Line 60-61), and light transmitting properties (Column 2, Lines 54-56), and have the printed layer disposed on the surface of the biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (Column 2, Lines 57-59). Frisk also teaches that a second multilayer structure can comprise a first layer and second layer of polyethylene material (Claim 1), and various polyethylene materials may be used as the polyethylene material of the second multilayer structure, which can comprise low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene for packaging dry and wet materials (Column 3, Lines 49-57). Additionally, Frisk teaches that a modified polyethylene copolymer or a polyurethane adhesive can be used for joining the laminate structures (Column 4, Lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to have utilized the biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate layer of Frisk, within the printing polyethylene layer of Ge in view of Shandong and Mitchell. One skilled in the art would have had the desire and expectation of improving light transmitting properties and usability of supporting the printed ink, as taught by Frisk, within the structure of the product Ge in view of Shandong and Mitchell, in order to improve the optical properties and performance of the product of Ge in view of Shandong and Mitchell – corresponding to the limitations of the biaxially oriented film comprising BOPET. As Frisk teaches that the composition of the multilayer PE structure can comprise LDPE and LLDPE depending on application of packaging the condition of the materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize known alternative for the same purpose, especially given that Ge teaches that the modified PE film corresponding to the multilayer PE film as claimed can have two or more different types of polyethylene pellets for blend extrusion blow molding (Para. 29), to utilize a blend of LDPE and LLDPE for improved packaging range and performance as taught by Frisk within the product of Ge in view of Shandong. It is well-settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters of material selection is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 21 5 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05, Sec. II.
Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have arrived at the claimed limitations of the multilayer PE film comprising at least one layer comprising LDPE and LLDPE (instant Claim 8) for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claims 18-19, Mitchel discloses a draw ratio in the machine direction of 2-10 (i.e. overlapping 2:1 - 8:1)([0162]).
Regarding claim 20, Alternative, Ge also teaches that for the printed layer, a biaxially stretched polyester, nylon, or polypropylene can be used as the printing layer (i.e. BOPA)(Para. 46).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 108016110 (Ge) in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 202079845 (Shandong), United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0009108 (Mitchell) and United States Patent Publication No. 5,830,545 (Frisk) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0279833 (Wallander).
In regards to Claim 11, Ge in view of Shandong and Mitchell do not explicitly teach that the multilayer laminate can be comprised in a flexible package comprising a lap seal wherein the oriented polyethylene film is sealed to the multilayer PE film (instant Claim 11).
In the same field of multilayer films for sealing and packaging, Wallander teaches an end-sealed packaging bag that can comprise a multilayer non-heat shrinkable film and easy open lap seal (Abstract), wherein the sealing layers can comprise of LLDPE and LDPE (Claim 9), as well as an inner layer that can comprise polyethylene (Claim 19). Wallander teaches the need for a packaging bag including a lap seal readily openable (Para. 3), wherein the lap seal can be formable by heat (Para. 39), wherein the front or bag panel of the package comprises a lap seal connecting the inner to outer heat sealing layer of the film and extending between a first and second end of the bag (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to have utilized the structure of the flexible packaging structure of a lap-sealed multilayer film of Wallander for the packaging use of the polyethylene-based film of Ge in view of Shandong and Mitchell. One skilled in the art would have had the desire and motivation of providing packaging flexibility and usability, as taught by Wallander, within the product of Ge in view of Shandong and Mitchell. In particular, as Ge teaches that the inner layer can be heat sealed with prefabricated packages of different materials to broaden the scope of use (Para. 27), and has a heat sealing strength that can be heat-sealed and easily peeled off (Para. 35), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have looked to such features in the structure of lap seal of the flexible package structure as taught by Wallander. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the structure of the lap seal flexible package structure of Wallander within the film of Ge in view of Shandong.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 108016110 (Ge), Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 202079845 (Shandong), United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0009108 (Mitchell) and United States Patent Publication No. 5,830,545 (Frisk), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Eichbauer (US 5,998,017).
Regarding claims 12-17, modified Ge discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ge does not disclose that the oriented polyethylene film has a density of 0.900 g/cc to 0.950 g/cc, a melt index of 0.1 g/10 min to 10g/10 min, a melt flow ratio of less than 14, a clarity of greater than 75% and a gloss at 45° of greater than 25.
Eichbauer discloses polyethylene for use as an outer layer in multilayer packaging films having a density of from about 0.88 to about 0.94, a melt index from 0.5 to 10 g/10 min and a melt flow ratio from 12-22 (i.e. overlapping a density of 0.900 g/cc to 0.950 g/cc, a melt index of 0.1 g/10 min to 10g/10 min, a melt flow ration of less than 14)(abstract, C2/L35-45, claims 1, 17).
Eichbauer and Ge are analogous art because they both teach about multilayer packaging films. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polyethylene having the density, melt index and melt flow ratio of Eichbauer to make the protective layer of modified Ge because it amounts to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding the clarity and gloss, given that Ge in view of Shandong, Mitchell and Eichbauer teach a structure and composition identical to that claimed and set forth in the instant specification and is processed in an identical manner as claimed and set forth in the instant specification (i.e. oriented polyethylene film comprises a tenter frame biaxially oriented polyethylene (TF-BOPE) comprising polyethylene having identical density, melt index and melt flow ratio and having an identical stretch ratio) (see instant specification [0038]-[0039]), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect said film to have identical properties.
It is well-settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 offers unexpected results and points to Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification.
However, it is noted that Examples 1 and 2 are narrower than instant claim 1. Examples 1 and 2 use aluminum foil for the barrier layer and B-PE as set forth in instant Table 1 as the multilayer polyethylene (PE) film. Therefore, the data presented is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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.
/JAMES C YAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights