DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-4, the disclosure as originally filed provides support for films which display “a gradient peel force between the layer packets throughout the stack of polymer layers, wherein the peel force becomes successively greater from the interface between the first layer packet and the second layer packet to the interface between the next to last ((n−1)th layer packet) and the last (nth layer packet)”, wherein “the peel force at each successive packet interface increases by at least 0.5 percent... from the previous packet interface”, wherein the “previous packet interface” is the lower numbered layer packet and the “successive” sequence is in increasing order (i.e., the peel strength between packets 1/2; peel strength between packets 2/3;... peel strength between packets n-1/n). However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for the recited percentage of peel force increase between successive packet interfaces when the “successive” sequence is in decreasing order (i.e., peel strength between packets n/n-1;... peel strength between packets 3/2; peel strength between packets 2/1).
Regarding claims 1-4, the disclosure as originally filed provides support for films wherein the thickness of the conformable layers (for example, combined layers B and C) “successively increase throughout the stack from the first layer packet to the nth layer packet” with “the thickness of the conformable layer of each successive layer packet increases by... at least 20 percent”, wherein the “successive” sequence is in increasing order (i.e., “thickness of layers B and C” for packet 1; “thickness of layers B and C” for packet 2;... “thickness of layers B and C” for packet n-1; “thickness of layers B and C” for packet n). However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for the recited percentage increase in the “thickness of layers B and C” for successive layer packets when the “successive” sequence is in decreasing order (i.e., “thickness of layers B and C” for packet n; “thickness of layers B and C” for packet n-1;... “thickness of layers B and C” for packet 2; “thickness of layers B and C” for packet 1).
Claims 5-8 are dependent on one or more of the above claims and therefore incorporate the above-described new matter.
Applicant should clearly set forth the direction of the “successive” sequence, consistent with the disclosure as originally filed, in particular with respect to which layers are being removed first in the sequence (e.g., starting with the first layer packet, etc.).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/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.
Claims 1-4 are vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the term “successive” in the phrase “each successive packet interface” refers to: (i) a “successive” sequence in ascending order (i.e., 1, 2,... n-1, n); or (ii) a “successive” sequence in descending order (i.e., n, n-1,... 2, 1). As noted in the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, specific numerical increases in: (i) peel force; and (ii) combined B+C layer thickness; for layer packets in a “successive” sequence in descending order is not adequately supported by the disclosure as originally filed.
Claims 1-4 are vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “the thickness of layers B and C” requires: (i) an increase in the individual thicknesses of both layers B and C; or (ii) an increase in the combined thickness of layers B and C.
Claims 2, 4 are vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the nth layer packet” in the claims in relation to the newly added limitation “successive layer packet”, particularly in view of the lack of clarity regarding the direction of the “successive” sequence.
Claims 5-8 are dependent on one or more of the above claims and therefore incorporate the above-described indefinite subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 based in the previous Office Action mailed 01/28/2026 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 04/21/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/21/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
JOHNSON ET AL (US 2015/0202847) and DRAKE ET AL (US 8,292,347) and JP 2005-125575 (TOYOIZUMI-JP ‘575), individually or in combination, do not specifically disclose or suggest the recited percentage increases in both: (i) peel force; and (ii) combined thickness of B+C; between “successive” packet interfaces.
Therefore, the rejection (s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the previous Office Action mailed 01/28/2026 has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Claim Amendments filed 04/21/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WILSON ET AL (US 2022/0040956) and TW 201414578 and TW 201418035 disclose multilayer films with successive variation in layer and/or laminate thicknesses.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
June 23, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights