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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4, 17, and 24-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/11/2025.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/12/2022 are accepted.
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
With regards to claim 31, said claim is held to be indefinite because the claim does not specify how the K value is determined. Said value is known in the art to be dependent upon the method used to determine the value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 9, 11-16, 18-22 and 29-31 (all pending claims) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagrodia et al (US 2001/0008699) in view of Wrosch et al (US 2007/0135552) and in view of Compton et al US 2011/0223405.
Bagrodia teaches a film product (abstract), comprising a core layer between inner and outer layers (claim 3-said inner and outer layers read on the claimed “a cap layer positioned atop the core layer so that the cap layer forms a top layer”). The core layer (0024) and the inner and outer layers (claims 7) may comprise PVC (see also paragraph 0049 wherein it is taught the core and outer/inner layers may comprise the same resin). The core further comprises platelet particles (claim 1-herein understood to read on the claimed “a 2D filler”). Said particles are smaller than 7 microns (0055-herein understood to read on the claimed “micro- or nano- scale”). Bagrodia teaches the 2D filler may comprise clay, mica, montmorillonite, silicate clays or combinations thereof (0052+).
Bagrodia teaches the film has reduced oxygen permeability, but does not teach the film product has a water vapor permeance as measured by ASTM E96 of 0.030 perm or less. However, Wrosch teaches the inclusion of dispersed platelets or clay create improved polymeric barrier films with regards to both oxygen and water vapor (0037). The improvement in barrier properties is a result of the size, dispersion, and amount of platelet in the resin (see Bagrodia (all)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of platelet filler added to the core layer of Bagrodia in order to optimize the water vapor permeance of the film.
With regards to claims 6, 7, and 23, the limitation “processed to reduce any filler or additive that is hydrophilic” is understood to be a method limitation. The courts have held that a claimed method limitation does not patentably distinguish a claimed product from a product taught in the prior art unless the method of making the product inherently results in a distinct product. In the present application, no such showing has been made. Thus, said limitation is not understood to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the product disclosed in the prior art.
With regards to claim 9, Bagrodia teaches the 2D filler may be present in an amount from 0.01 wt.% to 50 wt.%, based on the total weight of the layer (claim 12).
With regards to claim 11, Bagrodia teaches the core layer may have a thickness of from 5 microns to 100 microns (table 1).
With regards to claim 12, Bagrodia teaches the cap layer may have a thickness of from 5 microns to 100 microns (table 1).
With regards to claim 13, , the limitation “recycled PVC” is understood to be a method limitation. The courts have held that a claimed method limitation does not patentably distinguish a claimed product from a product taught in the prior art unless the method of making the product inherently results in a distinct product. In the present application, no such showing has been made. Thus, said limitation is not understood to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the product disclosed in the prior art.
With regards to claim 14, Bagrodia teaches the core layer may further comprise a dispersing agent (0066).
With regards to claim 15, Bagrodia teaches the core layer further comprises a surfactant (0055).
With regards to claim 16, Bagrodia teaches the core layer further comprises a surfactant (0055). The skilled artisan at the time of filing would have at once envisaged (MPEP 2132.02) the use of a cationic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a zwitterionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, or combinations thereof.
With regards to claim 18 and 19, Bagrodia teaches the film has reduced oxygen permeability, but does not teach the film product has a water vapor permeance as measured by ASTM E96 of 0.030 perm or less. However, Wrosch teaches the inclusion of dispersed platelets or clay create improved polymeric barrier films with regards to both oxygen and water vapor (0037). The improvement in barrier properties is a result of the size, dispersion, and amount of platelet in the resin (see Bagrodia (all)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of platelet filler added to the core layer of Bagrodia in order to optimize the water vapor permeance of the film. When optimizing water vapor permeance as measured by perms, one would also necessarily optimize the water vapor permeability based upon perms / inch.
With regards to claim 20, Bagrodia teaches the 2D filler has an average particle size of less than 7um (0055)-herein understood to anticipate the claimed rage of “50 nm to 10 um.” Alternatively, Bagrodia teaches the size of the particles is a result effective variable effecting the haze and barrier properties of the composition (0004). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the size of the platelet materials disclosed in Bagrodia in order to optimize the haze and barrier properties of the composition.
With regards to claim 21, Bagrodia teaches the 2D filler has a thickness of less than 2nm and a diameter in the range of 10-10000nm (0052). Thus, said filler is understood to have an aspect ratio of 10 to 10,000, as measured by the ratio between the larger size and the smaller size.
With regards to claims 22 and 29, Bagrodia teaches a film product (abstract), comprising a core layer between inner and outer layers (claim 3-said inner and outer layers read on the claimed “a cap layer positioned atop the core layer so that the cap layer forms a top layer”). The core layer (0024) and the inner and outer layers (claims 7) may comprise PVC (see also paragraph 0049 wherein it is taught the core and outer/inner layers may comprise the same resin). The core further comprises platelet particles (claim 1-herein understood to read on the claimed “a 2D filler”). Said particles are smaller than 7 microns (0055-herein understood to read on the claimed “micro- or nano- scale”).
Bagrodia teaches the film has reduced oxygen permeability, but does not teach the film product has a water vapor permeance as measured by ASTM E96 of 0.030 perm or less. However, Wrosch teaches the inclusion of dispersed platelets or clay create improved polymeric barrier films with regards to both oxygen and water vapor (0037). The improvement in barrier properties is a result of the size, dispersion, and amount of platelet in the resin (see Bagrodia (all)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of platelet filler added to the core layer of Bagrodia in order to optimize the water vapor permeance of the film. When optimizing water vapor permeance as measured by perms, one would also necessarily optimize the water vapor permeability based upon perms / inch.
Bagrodia in view of Wrosch is relied upon as above, but does not teach the cap layer should also comprise a 2D filler incorporated at the micro or nano scale. However, Compton teaches that graphene-based nanosheets may be dispersed in a polymer for the reduction of gas permeability (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to disperse graphene nanosheet in the inner and outer layers of the film disclosed in Bagrodia in order to reduce the gas permeability of the film.
With regards to claim 20, Compton teaches the 2D filler has an average thickness of about 1nm and an aspect ratio of round 500; such particles are herein understood to anticipate the claimed rage of “50 nm to 10 um.”
With regards to claims 21 and 30, Compton teaches the 2D filler has an aspect ratio reading on the claimed. Alternatively, Compton teaches the aspect ratio is a result effective variable that effects diffusion. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the aspect ratio of the graphene in order to control the diffusion properties of the film. ).
With regards to claim 31, the examiner notes the viscosity of the PVC is known to be a result effective variable altering the processability properties of the composition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to optimize the viscosity (K-value) of the PVC layers in order to control processability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
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 KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
