DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2023/0087185, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 30 October 2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 30 July 2025 (hereinafter “NFOA”) has been entered. Claim 8 has been canceled, new claim 23 has been added, and claims 1, 15, and 18-19 have been amended. As such, claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-23 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 13-16, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kitahara [NFOA, ¶9-30]; the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-19, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Arai in view of Miyake (further evidenced by Sepe, Port, and Sugiyama) [NFOA, ¶31-67]; and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Arai in view of Miyake, further in view of Clare and Niedersüss [NFOA, ¶68-74], previously set forth. As such, the 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth herein, necessitated by the amendments to the claims and made in view of newly cited prior art identified as a result of additional search/consideration completed by the undersigned Examiner.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2018/0147814; “Sato”) (newly cited), in view of:
(i) Ishii (US2016/0017479; “Ishii”) and Shoda et al. (US 2019/0039349; “Shoda”) (both newly cited), and
(ii) Arai et al. (US 2009/0176103; “Arai”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a laminate (10A) exhibiting gas barrier properties, said laminate suitable for use as a packaging bag for foods [Abstract; Fig. 1; 0001, 0003, 0041-0043, 0073, 0091-0092]. The laminate (10A) [Fig. 1] includes the following layers, in the order stated: 11/21/13/22/12/22/14, wherein the sub-sequence 11/21/13 is pertinent/corresponds to the claimed invention and is discussed hereinbelow.
Layer 11 is a (first) gas barrier layer formed from a transparent resin film, including an inorganic vapor deposition layer, e.g. alumina (aluminum oxide) formed on the inner surface thereof (in direct contact with layer 21) [0043-0045]. The resin forming layer 11 is suitably, inter alia polypropylene (PP), and may be biaxially stretched [0045], i.e. oriented polypropylene.
Layer 21 is an adhesive layer (“adhesive layer (X) 21” therein) [0043] formed from an adhesive composition including a polyepoxy resin (main component) and a polyamine resin (curing component) [0043, 0058-0064]. In particular, the adhesive composition is a two-component solvent-based composition under the tradename Maxive™ manufactured by Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co., Inc. [0061] – specifically, the polyepoxy resin (main component) is Maxive™ M-100, and the polyamine resin (curing component) is C-93T [Table 1 – Adhesive (X)], with methanol and ethyl acetate constituting the solvents [Table 1]. The adhesive layer 21 exhibits a coat weight of 0.5-7.0 g/m2, preferably 1.0-5.0 g/m2 [0064].
Layer 13 is a base layer which is suitably an unstretched, uniaxially stretched, or biaxially stretch film formed from, inter alia polyethylene (PE) or PP [0052-0053], wherein layer 13 is in direct contact with adhesive layer 21.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the aforesaid sub-sequence of the laminate of Sato includes the following layers/materials summarized below, each layer/material being in contact with the respectively adjacent layer/material. The italicized text in parentheses indicates the claimed layer to which the noted layer corresponds.
Layer 11 – PP resin film (base material layer including a polyolefin)
Inorganic vapor deposition layer (hereinafter “VD” or “VD layer”), e.g. alumina (inorganic oxide layer)
Layer 21 – adhesive formed from Maxive™ M-100 and C-93T, coat weight 0.5-7.0 g/m2 (gas barrier adhesive layer; single layer)
Layer 13 – base film formed from PE or PP (resin layer including a polyolefin; resin layer in direct contact with gas barrier adhesive layer)
In short, the laminate (10A) of Sato set forth/cited above comprises the following layer [sub]sequence in the order stated: 11/VD/21/13, corresponding to the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 1 as indicated above.
With respect to the difference(s) relative to the claimed gas barrier laminate, Sato is silent regarding (i) layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) having a Tg of 20-180° C; (ii) the presence of an undercoat layer, including an acrylic urethane-based resin, disposed between layer 21 and the VD layer (inorganic oxide layer); (iii) a difference in Tg between the undercoat layer and layer 21 being less than or equal to 50° C; and (iv) the OTR of layer 21 being 50 cc/m2·day·atm or lower (30° C, 70% RH) determined in accordance with JIS K-7126 Method B (as claimed). Further, Sato does not explicitly disclose the (v) thickness of layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) being from 1-5 µm.
Ishii, directed to gas barrier laminates suitable for use as packaging materials for food products [Abstract; 0003-0004, 0009, 0014-0015], teaches provision of an anchor coat layer interposed between an oriented polypropylene base film and a vapor-deposited aluminum oxide thin film layer, in order to enhance adhesiveness between the vapor-deposited oxide and oriented PP film, and to improve the surface flatness/uniformity of the PP film to reduce defects, e.g. cracks in the vapor-deposited film formed thereon [0014-0015, 0021, 0030, 0051-0055, 0097]. Further, Ishii teaches that the anchor coat layer is suitably formed from an acrylic urethane-based resin [0054, 0104], e.g. formed from a coating (liquid, solvent-based) composition containing an acrylic polyol, an isocyanate compound, and a silane coupling agent [0104]; the anchor coat layer suitably exhibits a thickness of 5 nm to 5 µm, e.g. 0.3 µm [0055, 0104].
Shoda teaches an anchor coat layer (solvent-based) composition comprising an acrylic polyol, toluene diisocyanate (TDI), and β-(3,4-epoxycyclohexyl)trimethoxysilane (“silane coupling agent”), wherein the amount of NCO groups of the TDI is equivalent to the number of OH groups of the acrylic polyol; wherein ethyl acetate is utilized as solvent to dilute the TDI and acrylic polyol to 5 mass% solids; and wherein the silane coupling agent is added to the aforesaid diluted solution in an amount of 5 mass% [0119]. The aforesaid anchor coat layer composition is suitable for forming anchor coat layers on polyolefin-based substrates, such as PP substrates which are oriented [0045], to increased adhesion between said substrate and an overlying inorganic thin-film deposited layer, e.g. vapor deposited metal oxide layer such as aluminum oxide or silicon oxide [0044-0045, 0047, 0050-0052, 0097]. Shoda is directed to multilayer gas barrier laminates [Abstract; 0002, 0009].
Arai – previously set forth/cited in the NFOA [id., ¶0032-0035] and incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) – teaches that the gas barrier (adhesive) layer, which is in direct contact with the underlying deposited inorganic oxide layer, and which is suitably formed from Maxive™ epoxy-based resins and polyamine curing agents, [NFOA, ¶32, ¶35], exhibits a thickness of 0.1-5 µm [0061]. The aforesaid layer thickness provides for sufficient gas barrier properties, increased coating processability, reduction in layer defects, e.g. cracks which negatively affect the gas barrier, allows for low curing temperatures and times, and prevents film-curling upon cure [0061].
In view of the aforecited disclosures/teachings, it is readily evident that Sato, Ishii, Shoda, and Arai each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laminate of Sato by (A) having formed an anchor coat layer on the PP resin film (layer 11) prior to deposition of the alumina VD layer thereon so as to be interposed therebetween, in order to have enhanced the adhesiveness of the VD layer to the PP resin film and reduced defect/crack formation in the VD layer; by (B) having utilized the anchor coat layer composition of Shoda to form said anchor coat layer, based on both the teachings/recognitions of Ishii and Shoda (MPEP 2144.07); and by (C) having formed the adhesive layer 21 to a thickness of 0.1-5 µm, in order to have imparted sufficient gas barrier properties to the laminate, reduced layer defects, and/or prevented film-curling upon cure of said layer, and/or to have reduced the temperature and/or time required for cure of said layer 21.
In accordance with modifications (A)-(C) above, the sub-sequence of the laminate (10A) of Sato (hereinafter “modified Sato”) would have comprised the following layers in the order stated: 11/anchor/VD/21/13, wherein – in addition to exhibiting the elements/features set forth above – the anchor layer would have been formed from the composition of Shoda set forth/cited above, i.e. would have been formed from the acrylic urethane-based resin, and the adhesive layer 21 would have been formed to a thickness of 0.1-5 µm.
The anchor layer reads on the claimed undercoat layer of the base material layer including an acrylic urethane-based resin (deficiency (ii) noted above); and the thickness of 0.1-5 µm encompasses, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed thickness of the gas barrier adhesive layer of 1 to 5 µm (MPEP 2144.05(I)) (deficiency (v) noted above).
Regarding deficiencies (i), (iii), and (iv) noted above – that is, layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) exhibiting a Tg of 20-180° C, the difference in Tg between the anchor layer (undercoat layer) and layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) being less than or equal to 50° C, and the OTR of layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) being 50 cc/m2·day·atm or lower (30° C, 70% RH) determined in accordance with JIS K-7126 Method B, respectively – it is noted that layer 21 of modified Sato is substantially identical to the disclosed gas barrier adhesive layer, and the anchor layer is substantially identical to the disclosed undercoat layer.
Specifically, layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) of modified Sato is formed from the solvent-based composition including polyepoxy component Maxive™ M-100 and polyamine curing agent C-93T, wherein the solvent is a mixture of methanol and ethyl acetate, to a thickness of 0.1-5 µm. The spec indicates that the claimed gas barrier adhesive layer is formed from M-100 and C-93T, to thicknesses including 3.0 µm, 1.5 µm, and 5.0 µm [0131-0132; Table 1 – Ex. 1-4]. The thicknesses are substantially identical, and the polyepoxy component and polyamine curing component are identical.
Further, the anchor layer (undercoat layer) of modified Sato is formed from an acrylic polyol, toluene diisocyanate (TDI), and β-(3,4-epoxycyclohexyl)trimethoxysilane (“silane coupling agent”), wherein the amount of NCO groups of the TDI is equivalent to the number of OH groups of the acrylic polyol; wherein ethyl acetate is utilized as solvent to dilute the TDI and acrylic polyol to 5 mass% solids; and wherein the silane coupling agent is added to the aforesaid diluted solution in an amount of 5 mass%. The anchor layer of modified Sato is identical to that disclosed in Applicant’s spec [0129].
Given that each of layer 21 and the anchor layer of modified Sato, respectively, are formed from compositions which are identical to the disclosed gas barrier adhesive layer and undercoat layer compositions, respectively, it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that (i) layer 21 would have necessarily exhibited a Tg of 20-180° C, that (iii) the difference in Tg between layer 21 and the anchor layer would have necessarily been less than or equal to 50° C, and that (iv) layer 21 would have necessarily exhibited an OTR of 50 cc/m2·day·atm or less (30° C, 70%RH) in accordance with JIS K-7126 Method B, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the laminate (10A) of modified Sato comprising layers (in the following stated order) 11/anchor/VD/21/13/22/12/22/14 – and in particular the sub-sequence 11/anchor/VD/21/13 – reads on the gas barrier laminate defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Sato is silent regarding the thickness of the VD layer. However, Ishii teaches that a thickness of the VD, e.g. aluminum oxide vapor-deposited thin film layer is suitably from about 5-300 nm, preferably from about 10-300 nm, allowing for formation of a uniform thin film which also exhibits flexibility while providing for the requisite degree of gas barrier properties [0051]. Shoda also teaches a thickness of the VD layer ranging from 10-300 nm [0051-0053].
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laminate of modified Sato (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1) by forming the VD layer to a thickness of 5-300 nm, in order to impart flexibility to the VD layer while maintaining the required degree of gas barrier properties thereof imparted to the laminate as a whole.
In accordance therewith, the VD layer of the laminate (10A) of modified Sato would have exhibited a thickness of 5-300 nm (0.005-0.3 µm), wherein as set forth above, the thickness of layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) ranges from 0.1-5 µm. Through simple calculation, modified Sato encompasses embodiments of laminate (10A) where layer 21 may be up to (maximum) 1,000 times the thickness of the VD layer (5/0.005) – that is, modified Sato implicitly defines that the thickness of layer 21 may be 0.33-1,000 times the thickness of the VD layer. The aforesaid overlaps with, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of the gas barrier adhesive layer being at least 50 times larger than a thickness of the inorganic oxide layer (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 4. That is, layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) of the laminate of modified Sato is identical to the claimed/disclosed gas barrier adhesive layer in terms of thickness thereof and in terms of the epoxy-based adhesive forming said layer being the reaction product of Maxive™ M-100 and C-93T. Absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason, and there is a strong/reasonable expectation, that layer 21 would have necessarily exhibited a logarithmic decrement on a surface thereof of 0.1 or smaller, as claimed. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, the VD layer of the laminate of modified Sato is formed from alumina (inorganic metal oxide) [Sato, 0044]. However, Sato is not explicitly limited to the inorganic VD layer being formed specifically from alumina – that is, Sato discloses “…formed of alumina or the like” [0044]. As such, Sato does not explicitly disclose the inorganic VD layer being formed from or comprising a silicon oxide as claimed.
Ishii teaches that it was recognized in the art that silicon oxide can be utilized as an alternative to aluminum oxide [0006]. Shoda teaches that the VD layer is suitably formed from, inter alia aluminum oxide or silicon oxide, and preferably silicon oxide (SiOx, wherein x is in the range of 1.0-2.0) [0050-0053, 0076], i.e. encompassing both silicon oxide and silicon dioxide [0051]. In view of at least Shoda, if not also Ishii, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably and/or readily recognized silicon oxide as a functionally equivalent alternative to aluminum oxide as the inorganic metal oxide suitable for forming the inorganic VD layer of the gas barrier laminate (MPEP 2144.06(II); MPEP 2144.07).
In view of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laminate of modified Sato by utilizing silicon oxide in place of aluminum oxide as the inorganic oxide forming the VD layer, as an express suggestion to substitute one functionally equivalent component for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06(II)), and/or because silicon oxide would have been readily recognized as suitable for the intended use of forming the inorganic VD layer in addition to constituting a functionally equivalent alternative to aluminum oxide (MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the VD layer of the laminate of modified Sato would have been formed from silicon oxide, thereby reading on the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 7, i.e. wherein the inorganic oxide layer includes a silicon oxide.
Regarding claim 7, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, layer 11 (base material layer including a polyolefin) is formed from PP, and layer 13 (resin layer including a polyolefin, in direct contact with gas barrier adhesive layer) is suitably formed from PE – that is, layer 13, which is suitably formed from polyethylene, reads on the resin layer of the gas barrier laminate defined in claim 1.
In view thereof, it is noted that Applicant’s spec [0084] states: “The first resin layer 5 may be a sealant layer. A sealant layer is a layer for imparting sealing properties through heat sealing in a gas barrier laminate. A sealant layer may be constituted of a polyolefin film. A polyolefin may be a polyethylene.” As such, the spec does not explicitly define the “sealant layer” as being an outermost layer of the laminate or as having at least one of its surfaces exposed to render the gas barrier laminate capable of heat-sealing to itself or to another article/layer/material. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “sealant layer”, in view of Applicant’s spec (MPEP 2111; MPEP 2111.01(II)) is any layer which, formed from a polyolefin, exhibits heat-sealability, i.e. exhibits a heat fusion/melting temperature. It is also noted that the spec indicates that PE or PP are suitable for forming the sealant layer, wherein the heat fusion temperature of PE is preferably 130° C or lower, and for PP is preferably 160° C or lower [0103].
Given that layer 13 (resin layer) is formed from polyethylene, and in view of the spec set forth/cited above, it reads on the claimed resin layer that is a sealant layer. Further, it stands to reason that the melting temperature of layer 13, formed from PE, would have necessarily been less than or equal to about 135° C, such as 115-135° C; and that the melting temperature of layer 11 (base material layer), formed from PP, would have been a maximum of about 170° C, e.g. 130-170° C. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the maximum melting temperature of PE is generally about 135° C, and the maximum melting temperature of PP is generally 170° C. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized, and thereby found prima facie obvious, that the difference in melting temperatures between layer 13 (sealant layer) formed from PE and layer 11 (base material layer) formed from PP would have been, or necessarily encompassed, e.g. 35° C, or greater or lesser, depending on the species of PE utilized (potentially lower melting temperature than 135° C) and/or the species of PP utilized (melting temperature as low as 130° C), thereby rendering the claimed difference of 10° C or greater prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Sato discloses that a print layer may be located on the surface of layer 11 (base material layer) of the laminate [0044], i.e. print/11/(anchor)/VD/21/13. The aforesaid print layer reads on the claimed print layer laminated on an outward side opposite the undercoat layer of the base material layer.
Regarding claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, the laminate (10A) of modified Sato includes the following layers in the order stated: 11/anchor/VD/21/13/22/12/22/14, wherein layer 11 reads on the base material layer and is suitably formed from PP, and layer 13 reads on the resin layer and is suitably formed from PE or PP. In view thereof, Sato discloses that layer 14 is suitably formed from, inter alia linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) [0055-0056]. Layer 14, formed from LLDPE, reads on the claimed second resin layer different from the first resin layer, including a polyolefin, and laminated on an outward side of the base material layer under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof, wherein layer 13, formed from PP, reads on the first resin layer. The phrase “laminated on an outward side of the base material layer” does not necessarily require the second resin layer be located on the opposite side of the base material layer relative to that of the (first) resin layer, i.e. each of the first and second resin layers may be located on the same side of the base material layer, with or without layers intervening the first and second resin layers.
Regarding claim 11, in view of the rejection of claim 10 above, the two layers located farthest from each other are layer 11 formed from PP (base material layer) and layer 14 formed from LLDPE (second resin layer). In view thereof, the grounds of rejection of claim 7 above are incorporated herein by reference – one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably/readily recognizes that the melting temperature (Tm) of LLDPE ranges from about 120-130° C, and the Tm of PP ranges from about 130 to 170° C. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably/readily recognized that the difference in Tm between layer 11 (PP) and layer 14 (LLDPE) of (modified) Sato could have necessarily been as high as (max.) 50° C, and thereby found the difference in Tm of 50° C or less prima facie obvious, wherein the range of 50° C or less renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of 10° C or greater (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Sato discloses that the laminate (10A) is suitably formed into a packaging bag [0091-0094; Fig. 4]. The laminate (10A) of modified Sato, set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and formed into a packaging bag, reads on the packaging bag defined by claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 13. Layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) of the laminate of modified Sato exhibits a thickness of 0.1-5 µm, of which encompasses the lower bound of, and exhibits an identical upper bound to, the claimed range of 1.5 to 5 µm, thereby rendering the claimed range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity). The laminate of modified Sato set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above reads on the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 14 – the thickness of layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) may be 0.33-1,000 times the thickness of the VD layer, of which overlaps with and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of the thickness of the bas barrier adhesive layer is at most 300 times larger than a thickness of the inorganic oxide layer (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 15. That is, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that layer 21 (gas barrier adhesive layer) of the laminate of modified Sato would have necessarily exhibited a Tg of 40 to 150° C. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Sato is silent regarding a thickness of the anchor layer (undercoat layer of the base material) being from 0.01 to 5 µm, as claimed. However, as set forth above (see ¶15), Ishii teaches that the thickness of the anchor layer is suitably from 5 nm to 5 µm, preferably 10 nm to 1 µm [0055], which enables formation of a uniform layer on the PP layer without internal stress [0055, 0104]. Additionally, Shoda teaches that the anchor layer suitably ranges from 0.01 to 1 µm (10 nm to 1 µm) [0047, 0074, 0097].
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laminate of modified Sato by forming the anchor coating layer to a thickness of from 0.01-5 µm, in order to form a uniform anchor layer on layer 11 to thereby uniformly enhance adhesiveness between the vapor-deposited oxide and oriented PP film, and to improve the surface flatness/uniformity of the PP film to reduce defects, e.g. cracks in the vapor-deposited film formed thereon.
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the anchor layer of the laminate (10A) of modified Sato would have included, in addition to all of the elements/features set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, the anchor layer exhibiting a thickness of 0.01-5 µm, of which is identical to and reads on the claimed range 0.01 to 5 µm.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated) and reads on the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 17.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Sato discloses that layer 11 of the laminate (10A), as an alternative to said layer being a single layer, may be a multilayer coextruded film including at least two layers 11 of the, inter alia PP material [0045-0046]. As such, modified Sato reasonably encompasses embodiments of the laminate (10A) exhibiting the following layers in the order stated: 11A/11B/anchor/VD/21/13/22/12/22/14, wherein 11A/11B designates multilayer, coextruded PP layers – i.e. 11A is the first PP layer of a coextruded multilayer and 11B is the second PP layer of a coextruded multilayer. As indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above, layer 13, formed from, inter alia PE reads on the claimed resin layer in direct contact with the gas barrier adhesive layer, and further, reads on the claimed first resin layer defined in claim 10. Layer 11B reads on the claimed base material layer including a polyolefin, and layer 11A reads on the claimed second resin layer different from the first resin layer, including a polyolefin, and laminated on an outward side of the base material layer (claim 10).
In view thereof with respect to claim 18, layer 11A reads on the claimed second resin layer on a surface of the base material layer on a side opposite to the undercoat layer, and in view of the analysis at ¶34-35 above (incorporated herein) in the rejection of claim 7, said layer 13 reads on the claimed first resin is a sealant layer under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof. As such, the laminate 11A/11B/anchor/VD/21/13/22/12/22/14 of modified Sato reads on each gas barrier laminate defined by the limitations of claims 10 and 18 respectively.
Regarding claim 19, in view of the rejection of claim 10 above, the laminate (10A) of modified Sato includes the following layers in the order stated: 11/anchor/VD/21/13/22/12/22/14, wherein layer 13 (resin layer including a polyolefin) is suitably formed from PE or PP, and wherein layer 21 reads on the gas barrier adhesive layer. Sato discloses that layer 14 is suitably formed from, inter alia linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), and constitutes a sealant layer [0055-0056]. Further, adhesive layer(s) 22 interposed between layer 13 and layer 14 are formed from a polyurethane-based adhesive [0043, 0058, 0060]. As such, layer 13 reads on the claimed first resin layer; layer 14 reads on the claimed second resin layer on a surface of the first resin layer on a side opposite to the gas barrier adhesive layer with the adhesive layer between the second resin layer and the first resin layer, and reads on the second resin layer is a sealant layer; and the adhesive layer(s) 22 interposed between layer 13 and layer 14 and formed from said polyurethane-based adhesive read(s) on the claimed adhesive layer between the second resin layer and the first resin layer and [the] adhesive layer including a urethane resin.
Regarding claim 20, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Sato is silent regarding the total mass of components other than polyolefin components, with respect to a whole mass of the gas barrier laminate, being 10 mass% or smaller.
The laminate (10A) of modified Sato includes layers 11/anchor/VD/21/13/22/12/22/14, wherein layer 11 is polyolefinic, layer 13 is polyolefinic, layer 12 may also be polyolefin-based (e.g. formed from PP) [Sato, 0050], and layer 14 may be polyolefin-based (e.g. formed from LLDPE) [Sato, 0056].
The overall thickness of the laminate (10A) of modified Sato suitably ranges from 50-250 µm [Sato, 0067]. Layer 11 suitably exhibits a thickness of 5-30 µm [Sato, 0047]; layer 21 exhibits a thickness of 0.1-5 µm; layer 13 suitably exhibits a thickness of 9-30 µm [Sato, 0054]; layer 12 suitably exhibits a thickness of 4-30 µm [Sato, 0050-0051]; layer 14 suitably exhibits a thickness of 30-150 µm [Sato, 0057]; and layers 22 each exhibit a coat weight of 2.0-5.0 g/m2 [0064].
Further, it is noted that the rejections of claim 2 and claim 16 above are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated) – in view thereof, the anchor layer exhibits a thickness of 0.01-5 µm, and the VD layer exhibits a thickness of 0.005-0.3 µm.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, through simple calculation – under the assumption that the coat weight of each adhesive layer 22 is the approximate equivalent to layer thickness (e.g. 2.0 g/m2 ≈ 2 µm) – utilizing maximum layer thicknesses for layers 11 (30 µm), VD (0.3 µm), 13 (30 µm), 12 (30 µm), and 14 (150 µm), and layer thicknesses of 0.005 µm for the anchor layer, 1 µm for layer 21, and 2 µm for each layer 22, the overall thickness of the laminate (10A) of modified Sato (which constitutes an embodiment of the laminate reasonably encompassed within the disclosure of modified Sato in accordance with the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 16 above) is approximately 245.305 µm (30+0.005+0.3+1+30+2+30+2+150). The total thickness of all polyolefin-based layers of said laminate is 240 µm (30+30+30+150), and the thickness of the remaining, non-polyolefin based layers of the laminate is 5.305 µm.
As such, the non-polyolefin based layers of the laminate define a total thickness that is approximately 2.16% of the overall thickness of the laminate (5.305/245.305*100). Given that the non-polyolefin based layers, i.e. the components of the laminate (10A) of modified Sato which are not polyolefin components, constitute merely 2.16% of the total thickness of the laminate, there is a strong and reasonable expectation that said non-polyolefin based layers of the laminate (components other than polyolefin components) would have necessarily constituted (significantly) less than or equal to 10% by mass of the overall mass of the laminate, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
The exemplary embodiment of the laminate of modified Sato set forth above by the Examiner to illustrate/support the basis of the rejection, which is readily/reasonably encompassed within the embodiments encompassed by modified Sato based on the stated thicknesses and/or ranges thereof for each layer, reads on and thereby renders prima facie obvious the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 20, specifically renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of 10 mass% or less of components other than polyolefin components (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 21, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the analysis set forth at ¶34-35 is incorporated herein by reference. Layer 13 (resin layer including a polyolefin), formed from PE or PP, may be an unstretched film in accordance with Sato [0053] and reads on the claimed resin layer that is a sealant layer and the sealant layer is unstretched. Further, layer 11 (base material layer including a polyolefin) of Sato, suitably formed from PP, is preferably a biaxially stretched film [0045], but is not explicitly required to be stretched. As such, given that layer 11 being biaxially stretched constitutes a preference of Sato (MPEP 2123(I) and (II)), and given that one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes that a finite number of alternatives to the film being biaxially stretched exist, i.e. the film being unstretched or uniaxially stretched, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laminate of modified Sato by forming layer 11 from an unstretched PP or uniaxially stretched PP film to achieve the predictable result of said layer being, inter alia an unstretched PP film, with the reasonable expectation that the resultant laminate would have also successfully exhibit the requisite degree of gas barrier properties imparted thereto by the VD layer, additional gas barrier layers, and adhesive layer 21.
In accordance with the foregoing, layer 11 (base material layer including a polyolefin) of the laminate of modified Sato would have been an unstretched PP film, and layer 13 would have been an unstretched PE or PP film (resin layer including a polyolefin, which is a sealant layer that is unstretched), thereby reading on the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the gas barrier laminate defined by claim 22. Layer 11 (base material layer including a polyolefin) of the laminate of modified Sato is formed from a PP film which is preferably biaxially stretched, which reads on the claimed base material layer is OPP film (OPP being oriented polypropylene).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Ishii, Shoda, and Arai as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ammar et al. (“Talc as Reinforcing Filler in Polypropylene Compounds: Effect on Morphology and Mechanical Properties”, Polymer Sciences, 20 July 2017, Vol. 3 No. 1:8, DOI: 10.4172/2471-9935.100023, accessed online 02 February 2026) (hereinafter “Ammar”; copy provided herewith), as evidenced by MatWeb (Material Overview for Polypropylene with 30% Talc Filler, accessed online 02 February 2026) (hereinafter “MatWeb”; copy provided herewith).
Regarding claim 23, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, the laminate (10A) of modified Sato includes layer 11, formed from PP (base material layer including a polyolefin).
Sato is silent regarding a requisite density for layer 11, and does not disclose or suggest the density of the PP forming layer 11 being greater than or equal to 0.945 g/cm3 as claimed. However, Sato suggests that it may be desirable, based on a predetermined end use of the laminate, to impart, inter alia abrasion resistance or bending resistance to the laminate (10A) [Sato, 0052, 0065].
Ammar teaches that through addition of talc particles to polypropylene (based density 0.900 g/cm3), in an amount of 30 wt.%, the elastic modulus, and accordingly stiffness (resistance to bending) of the polypropylene increases (elastic modulus nearly doubles relative to unfilled polypropylene) [p. 1, Materials; p. 4, Tensile Behavior]; further, the abrasion resistance of the polypropylene is increased [p. 5–p. 6, Abrasive Wear].
MatWeb evidences the polypropylene filled with talc to a weight amount of 30% exhibits an average density of 1.13 g/cm3, with a corresponding range of 1.05-1.48 g/cm3 [p. 1, Physical Properties – Density].
Given that Sato suggests that it may be desirable to increase the abrasion resistance or bending resistance of the laminate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laminate (10A) of modified Sato by having utilized PP filled with 30 wt.% talc, evidenced as having an average density of 1.13 g/cm3, as the PP forming layer 11 in order to increase either or both of the abrasion resistance and stiffness of the laminate.
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, layer 11 (base material layer including a polyolefin) of the laminate (10A) of modified Sato – as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 – would have been formed from PP filled with 30 wt.% talc exhibiting a density of 1.13 g/cm3 (rather than polypropylene homopolymer). As such, layer 11 (base material layer including a polyolefin) of the laminate would have necessarily exhibited a density greater than 0.945 g/cm3, i.e. within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.945 g/cm3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 7-8 of the Remarks filed 30 October 2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered and found persuasive. Specifically, the Examiner agrees that at least the “SiOx layer 312” of Kitahara is interposed between adhesive 313 and base 311 of sheet 400, such that adhesive 313 and base 311 are not in direct contact with each other [Remarks, p. 7], which does not read on the claimed gas barrier adhesive layer being in direct contact with the resin layer. Additionally, the Examiner agrees that the overcoat/adhesive of Arai is interposed between the gas barrier layer and sealant layer such that the gas barrier layer and sealant layer are not in direct contact with each other [Remarks, p. 8], which also does not read on the aforesaid relationship between the claimed gas barrier adhesive and resin layers. As such – and as previously indicated above at ¶4 – the corresponding 103 rejections previously set forth in the NFOA have been overcome and withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth above, necessitated by the amendments to the claims and made in view of the newly cited prior art identified as a result of additional search/consideration completed.
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 Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782