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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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.
Claim 1 recites “the core layer not having voids that penetrate through the core layer.” There is no support in the originally filed disclosure for such a feature. In the applicant’s remarks (in the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6), it appears the applicant is of the position that the claimed core is a continuous, nonporous layer that provides structural strength and lamination integrity, which amounts to the core layer not having voids that penetrate through the core layer. However, the applicant has failed to provide adequate information for where this feature is located in the originally filed disclosure. Moreover, upon review of Figures 1 and 3, which the applicant referenced in the same remarks (on page 4), there is no information regarding the porosity of the core layer; specifically, whether or not the core layer has voids that penetrate therethrough.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Number 6,326,069 (hereinafter “Barnett”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0213527 (hereinafter “Nonaka”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0043656 (hereinafter “Song”), in view of United States Patent Number 5,118,743 (hereinafter “Yonezu”), and further in view of a chapter titled “41 Feedblocks and Dies” from the book titled “Extrusion: The Definitive Processing Guide and Handbook, 2nd edition” by John R. Wagner Jr., et al. (hereinafter “Wagner”).Regarding claim 1 Barnett teaches a method of making a sampler pouch (fiber-containing sheet) 10 comprising coextruding resin material into a flat film (extruding resin into sheet form) (abstract, column 5, lines 6-18, and Figure 1). Barnett teaches the sampler pouch (fiber-containing sheet) 10 includes a lower barrier layer (a second layer or skin layer) 20, an upper barrier layer (a third layer or skin layer) 30, and a core layer (first layer) 40 disposed therebetween (second layer 20 formed on one side of the first layer 40 and a third layer 30 formed on another side of the first layer 40 or a core layer and both skin layers on both sides of the core layer laminated together) (abstract, Figures 1-3, and column 3, lines 39-50), which corresponds to a composite resin material having three layers. Barnett teaches the core layer 40 is made of a first resin containing fiber material (first resin material containing fiber material) (column 5, lines 48-59). Barnett teaches the barrier layers 20, 30 comprise films made from a thermoplastic heat sealable material (both skin layers or second and third layers made of a second resin material not containing fiber material) (column 4, line 59 through column 5, line 34). Barnett teaches a sample material 50 is absorbed within the core layer 40 (sample material 50 and core layer 40, as taught by Barnett, corresponding to the claimed core layer), and a cavity 80 which is located between the barrier layers 20, 30, where said cavity 80: holds the core layer 40 and the sample material 50; and contains air which is eliminated (or removed) (column 3, lines 40-50, column 4, lines 33-47, and Figures 2-3), which corresponds to the limitation requiring the core layer not having voids that penetrate through the core layer. Barnett teaches the core layer (first resin material of the first layer or core layer) 40 and the barrier layers (second resin material of both skin layers or second and third layers) 20, 30 are together in one piece in a peelable state, thereby obtaining a molded body in an integrally laminated state (column 4, lines 33-35 and 59-63, and Figures 1-3). Claim limitation interpretation - The limitation “peeling at least one of the skin layers off from the molded body” requires the at least one of the skin layers to be completely removed from the molded body. This interpretation is based on the instant specification which requires “the molded body can be composed of only the core layer 25 by peeling off the skin layers 26, 26 from the surface of the produced sheet-like molded body.” See paragraph [0027] from the originally filed specification. Barnett teaches the partial peeling of at least one barrier layer (skin layer) 30 off from the sampler pouch 10 obtained in an integrally laminated state (Figures 1-3, column 3, lines 29-30, and column 4, lines 59-61). Barnett teaches upon peeling open the sampler pouch 10, a consumer may view or smell the sample material 50 before actual application, where the core 40 also functions as an applicator of the sample material 50 contained within the core 40. The core 40 may be rubbed on the skin, thereby releasing the sample material 50 in a well-controlled fashion (column 4, lines 40-47). Barnett does not explicitly teach the peeling of the at least one barrier layer (skin layer) 30 is completely removed from the sampler pouch 10. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to try and completely remove the at least one barrier layer (skin layer) 30 from the sampler pouch 10 to provide easier access to the core 40 to be removed and used as an applicator for the sample material 50 contained therein. Barnett teaches the barrier layers (both skin layers or second and third layers) 20, 30 comprise HDPE (second resin in the second resin material for forming both skin layers or second and third layers) (column 5, lines 11-14), and the core layer 40 comprises polypropylene (first resin in the first resin material for forming the core layer or first layer) (column 5, lines 48-59), which corresponds to the first resin being incompatible with the second resin. Barnett teaches at least one of the barrier layers (skin layers) 20, 30 may be a flexible layer, or one of the barrier layers may be a semi-rigid layer (column 3, lines 48-50). Nonaka teaches an intermediate layer that comprises HDPE (Table 1, Example 5). Nonaka teaches the thickness of the intermediate layer imparts strength to an article, where a smaller thickness of the intermediate layer imparts a flexible property to the intermediate layer, and a larger thickness of the intermediate layer imparts a high rigidity property to the intermediate layer (paragraph [0043]). The combination of Barnett and Nonaka does not explicitly teach the thickness of each skin layer is 50 µm or more. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness of the skin layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate thickness for each of the barrier layers (skin layers) 20, 30 through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired degree of flexibility or rigidity (Nonaka - paragraph [0043]) as taught by Barnett. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). Barnett does not explicitly teach the coextrusion is performed using a T-die having a first path, a pair of second paths, and a confluence connecting to the first path and each of the pair of second paths, where the first resin material and second resin material are supplied together to the confluence to form a composite resin material having three layers, the first resin material being supplied from the first path to the confluence, the second resin material being supplied from each of the pair of second paths to the confluence, and extruding the composite resin material from the T-die to form a molded body. Song teaches a multilayer film preferably constructed by coextrusion (abstract and paragraph [0061]). Song teaches the coextrusion process includes feeding raw materials, in a melted state, to an extruder, where the melt is then extruded through a flat-film die, such as a T-die (paragraph [0203]), which corresponds to the composite resin material is extruded from the T-die in a molten state. Yonezu teaches a well-known T-die co-extrusion method for forming multilayered sheets or films includes a multi-manifold confluence T-die method or a feed-block confluence T-die method (column 7, lines 46-62). Yonezu also teaches the well-known fact that materials which are co-extruded through a T-die confluence system is permitted to cool (and solidifies) to become a molded body (column 9, lines 51-58). Wagner teaches feedblocks are junctions where different melt streams are brought together prior to the die. The die is then attached to the feedblock to produce the coextruded structure. The advantage of a feedblock is that it allows the different melt streams to be brought together in a location before the die (T-die having a first path, a pair of second paths, and a confluence connecting to the first path and each of the pair of second paths, where a first resin material and a second resin material are supplied together to the confluence to form a composite resin material, the first resin material being supplied from the first path to the confluence, the second resin material being supplied from each of the pair of second paths to the confluence, and extruding the composite resin material from the T-die to form a molded body), allowing the die to be simpler and less expensive. Feedblocks are used principally in flat sheet and cast film processes (paragraph under the “41.1 Feedblocks” heading on page 467). Wagner teaches the polymer melt flow is laminar, meaning once the different layers are combined, they do not mix. Each layer maintains its individual identity through the rest of the process (first full paragraph on the right hand column on page 467). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Barnett with the flat-film forming feed-block confluence T-die process from the combination of Song, Yonezu, and Wagner motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of a process for making a coextruded flat multilayered film, and permitting the use of a simpler and less expensive die. The combination of Barnett, Song, Yonezu, and Wagner corresponds to the claimed limitations requiring the T-die having a first path, a pair of second paths, and a confluence connecting to the first path and each of the pair of second paths, where the first resin material and second resin material are supplied together to the confluence to form a composite resin material having three layers, the first resin material being supplied from the first path to the confluence, the second resin material being supplied from each of the pair of second paths to the confluence, and extruding the composite resin material from the T-die to form a molded body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued Barnett’s description (as highlighted by the applicant in the 2nd full paragraph on page 5 of the remarks) make it clear that Barnett’s core necessarily contains numerous voids or pores through which the liquid can be absorbed. However, it is a combination of the core layer 40 and the sample 50 from Barnett which meets the claimed core layer. Furthermore, Barnett explicitly states an embodiment that air is eliminated from the cavity which contains the core layer and sample; therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the combination of the core layer 40 and the sample 50 from Barnett meets the limitation in question requiring the core layer to not have voids that penetrate through the core layer. The applicant argued Song, Yonezu and Wagner relate to structures in which the layers are non-porous and filled with resin, so they are directed to entirely different types of material and manufacturing techniques from those of Barnett. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Song is directed to a porous film, where the co-extruded layers include pore-inducing materials and processes. Nevertheless, Song, Yonezu and Wagner are relied upon to teach conventional co-extrusion techniques and manifolds, and the well-known fact that co-extrusion processes involve providing resin in a molten state through a die and permitting the cooling and solidification thereof.
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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783