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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 February 2026 has been entered.
EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Csaba Henter on 25 February 2026.
The application has been amended as follows:
Please amend claims 7 and 14.
7. (Currently Amended) The film of claim 1, wherein layers (A) and (B) (C)
14. (Currently Amended) The film according to claim 1, wherein layer (C)
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, 3-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 20050208282 A1) (previously cited) in view of Dabadie et al. (WO 2020018360 A1) (previously cited) and Bardiot et al. (US 7622176 B2) (previously cited). Claim 6 is further evidenced by Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced (Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced, 2025, MatWeb, Pages 1-2)
Regarding claim 1, Wood teaches a multilayer film for food packaging comprising, in this order, a heat sealable skin layer (11), a layer (12), a layer (13), and a core layer (14) (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0065 and Fig. 1). Wood teaches that each layer comprises biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (Wood, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0049, and 0065-0067). Wood’s layers (11) through (14) satisfy the limitation of the claimed (d) layer of a biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate layer. The layer (14) is considered the first A layer, the layer (13) is considered the B layer, the layer (12) is considered the second A layer, and the layer (11) is considered the C layer in the claimed A:B:A:C structure (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0021-0027 and 0065). Wood teaches that both A layers and the B layer comprise crystalline PET and antiblocking particles (silica), and the C layer comprises an amorphous, heat sealable copolyester that is an ethylene terephthalate copolymer (PET) (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0065, and 0073). Silica satisfies the limitation of an antiblocking particle as it is given as an example of one by the instant claim 5. Wood further teaches the film has a polyurethane coating on a face of the core layer opposite the skin layer (Wood, Par. 0031). Wood’s polyurethane coating improves adhesion and would thus have some elastic properties and satisfy the claimed (c) layer of an elastic polyurethane (Wood, Par. 0031). Wood teaches the food packaging includes the film as a lid (Wood, Par. 0002, 0004, and 0007).
Wood is silent regarding a layer (a) of a biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate layer and a layer (b) of a pressure sensitive adhesive in this order.
Dabadie teaches a multilayer film for food packaging comprising a biaxially oriented PET (base film) that satisfies the claimed layer (a) (Dabadie, Abstract, 0004, 022, and 0046). Dabadie teaches the film further comprises at least one coating layer that can be on each side of the biaxially oriented PET layer, wherein the coating layer may comprise a styrene-isoprene-styrene polymer (SIS) or a polyurethane (Dabadie, Abstract Par. 0004, 0022-0025). The styrene-isoprene-styrene polymer on one side of the biaxially oriented PET layer is considered the layer (b). Dabadie teaches the multilayer film may be laminated onto another film (Dabadie, Par. 0046-0047).
Wood and Dabadie are analogous art as they both teach multilayer films for food packaging comprising a layer of a biaxially oriented PET. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have laminated the multilayer film of Dabadie onto the multilayer film of Wood. This would allow for a soft touch film with a matte appearance (Dabadie, Abstract, Par. 0002-0004). This would further result in a layer structure of: coating film of Dabadie/BOPET (a) (base film of Dabadie)/coating SIS film of Dabadie (b)/elastic polyurethane layer of Wood (c)/multilayer BOPET film of Wood (d) in that order.
Modified Wood is silent regarding the layer (b) being a pressure sensitive adhesive layer, wherein layer (b) is releasably adhered to layer (c).
Bardiot teaches a multilayer film for packaging comprising a sealing layer, a skin layer (outer layer), and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer therebetween (Bardiot, Abstract and Col. 5 Lines 14-20). Bardiot teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive comprises a tackifier and a styrene isoprene styrene polymer (SIS) (Bardiot, Col. 3 Lines 16-67, and claim 12). Bardiot teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive layer allows for a closure that can be opened and resealed and is thus releasably adhered to the adjacent layers (Bardiot, Abstract).
Modified Wood and Bardiot are analogous art as they both teach multilayer films for packaging comprising an SIS layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the SIS pressure sensitive adhesive layer as the SIS layer of modified Wood. This would allow for improved adhesion between the layers, as well as a resealable structure (Bardiot, Abstract and Col. 3 Lines 16-67). This would further result in the layer (b) being releasably adhered to the layer (c).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wood teaches the C layer comprises an amorphous, heat sealable copolyester that is an ethylene terephthalate copolymer (PET) (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0065, and 0073).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wood teaches C is a copolymer of terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol (PET) (Wood, Par. 0007).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wood teaches the antiblocking particles are silica (Wood, Par. 0021-0027 and 0065).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wood teaches (d) is biaxially stretched in both the machine and transverse direction by an amount of 0-600% (Wood, Par. 0040-0042), which overlaps the claimed range of 300-400% and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modified Wood teaches the stretching occurs at a temperature above the glass transition temperature of the homopolymer core layer (PET), and below the melt temperature of the homopolymer core layer (PET). The glass transition temperature of PET is 70-82 °C and the melt temperature of PET is 200-260°C as evidenced by Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced (Overview of materials for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Unreinforced, Pages 1-2). Therefore, the stretching occurs between 70 and 260 °C, which overlaps the claimed range of 226-238°C and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 7-8, modified Wood teaches the first A layer has a thickness of 2 to 100 µm, the B layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 30 µm, the second A layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 30 µm, and the C layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 10 µm (Wood, Par. 0024, 0027, and 0034). This results in a combined A and B layer thickness of 3 to 160 µm and a layer (d) thickness of 3.1 to 170 µm. Modified Wood’s A and B layer thickness range, C layer thickness range, and (d) layer thickness range overlaps the claim 7 ranges of 2-100 µm, 0.1-10 µm, and 2-110 µm respectively, and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modified Wood’s (d) layer thickness range overlaps the claim 8 value of 8 µm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed thickness, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Wood teaches the layer (b) comprises a styrene block copolymer of at least one styrene monomer and isoprene forming an SIS block copolymer (Bardiot, Col. 3 Lines 16-67, and claim 12).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wood teaches the layer (b) comprises 45-85 wt.% of styrene block copolymer and 15-55 wt.% of a compatible tackifying resin having a softening temperature of between 5 and 150 °C (Bardiot, Col. 3 Lines 16-67, Col. 4 Lines 30-40, Col. 4 Lines 62-67, and claim 12). Modified Wood’s styrene block copolymer content and softening temperature ranges lie within the claimed ranges of 40-85 wt. % and between 5 and 150°C respectively and therefore satisfy the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2131.03. Modified Wood’s tackifying resin content range overlaps the claimed range of 10-35 wt.% and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 12, Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. Modified Wood teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive comprises the same materials in the same amount as the instant invention as stated above for claim 11. Further, the instant specification states that the adhesive composition of Bardiot (US 7622176 B2) is a suitable adhesive for the claimed invention and exhibits the claim 12 properties (See the instant specification Page 4). Therefore, the pressure sensitive adhesive of modified Wood is the same as the instant invention and would inherently exhibit the claimed properties.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wood teaches there may be multiple base layers of a copolyester (PET) (Dabadie, Abstract, 0022-0026 – see “at least one base film”). Modified Wood thus teaches a layer (a’) (the second base layer) that is between the layer (a) and the layer (b).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wood teaches the layer C comprises an anti-fog agent (Wood, Par. 0007-0010).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wood teaches a container having a resealable lid, wherein said lid is a film according to claim 1 (Wood, Par. 0002, 0004, 0007; Bardiot, Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Wood teaches a multilayer film for food packaging comprising, in this order, a heat sealable skin layer (11), a layer (12), a layer (13), and a core layer (14) (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0065 and Fig. 1). Wood teaches that each layer comprises biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (Wood, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0049, and 0065-0067). Wood’s layers (11) through (14) satisfy the limitation of the claimed (d) layer of a biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate layer. Wood further teaches the film has a polyurethane coating on a face of the core layer opposite the skin layer (Wood, Par. 0031). Wood’s polyurethane coating improves adhesion and would thus have some elastic properties and satisfy the claimed (c) layer of an elastic polyurethane (Wood, Par. 0031). Wood teaches the food packaging includes the film as a lid (Wood, Par. 0002, 0004, and 0007).
Wood is silent regarding a layer (a) of a biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate layer and a layer (b) of a pressure sensitive adhesive in this order.
Dabadie teaches a multilayer film for food packaging comprising a biaxially oriented PET (base film) that satisfies the claimed layer (a) (Dabadie, Abstract, 0004, 022, and 0046). Dabadie teaches the film further comprises at least one coating layer that can be on each side of the biaxially oriented PET layer, wherein the coating layer may comprise a styrene-isoprene-styrene polymer (SIS) or a polyurethane (Dabadie, Abstract Par. 0004, 0022-0025). The styrene-isoprene-styrene polymer on one side of the biaxially oriented PET layer is considered the layer (b). Dabadie teaches the multilayer film may be laminated onto another film (Dabadie, Par. 0046-0047).
Wood and Dabadie are analogous art as they both teach multilayer films for food packaging comprising a layer of a biaxially oriented PET. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have laminated the multilayer film of Dabadie onto the multilayer film of Wood. This would allow for a soft touch film with a matte appearance (Dabadie, Abstract, Par. 0002-0004). This would further result in a layer structure of: coating film of Dabadie/BOPET (a) (base film of Dabadie)/coating SIS film of Dabadie (b)/elastic polyurethane layer of Wood (c)/multilayer BOPET film of Wood (d) in that order.
Modified Wood is silent regarding the layer (b) being a pressure sensitive adhesive layer, wherein layer (b) is releasably adhered to layer (c).
Bardiot teaches a multilayer film for packaging comprising a sealing layer, a skin layer (outer layer), and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer therebetween (Bardiot, Abstract and Col. 5 Lines 14-20). Bardiot teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive comprises a tackifier and a styrene isoprene styrene polymer (SIS) (Bardiot, Col. 3 Lines 16-67, and claim 12). Bardiot teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive layer allows for a closure that can be opened and resealed and is thus releasably adhered to the adjacent layers (Bardiot, Abstract).
Modified Wood and Bardiot are analogous art as they both teach multilayer films for packaging comprising an SIS layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the SIS pressure sensitive adhesive layer as the SIS layer of modified Wood. This would allow for improved adhesion between the layers, as well as a resealable structure (Bardiot, Abstract and Col. 3 Lines 16-67). This would further result in the layer (b) being releasably adhered to the layer (c).
Regarding the limitation of the film consisting essentially of the layers, modified Wood does not teach that any additional layers that would material affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed film are required. Therefore, modified Wood satisfies the limitation of consisting essentially of the layers, se MPEP 2111.03, III.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered.
On page 9-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Wood’s layers (11)-(14) are the entire structure, and thus Wood does not teach the layers (a), (b), or (c). This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Wood teaches a multilayer film for food packaging comprising, in this order, a heat sealable skin layer (11), a layer (12), a layer (13), and a core layer (14) (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0065 and Fig. 1). These layers are interpreted as the claimed (d) layer as stated above for claim 1. Wood further teaches the film has a polyurethane coating on a face of the core layer opposite the skin layer (Wood, Par. 0031). Wood’s polyurethane coating improves adhesion and would thus have some elastic properties and satisfy the claimed (c) layer of an elastic polyurethane (Wood, Par. 0031). Therefore Wood teaches the claimed layers (c) and (d).
Regarding the layers (a) and (b), In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Wood is silent regarding the claimed (a) and (b) layers, secondary references Dabadie and Bardiot are utilized to render obvious the claimed (a) and (b) layers as stated above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that it does not logically flow that Wood, which is relied upon to teach the layer (d), might also suggest other features other than the layer (d), Wood specifically teaches a polyurethane coating as stated above. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2123. Therefore, Wood specifically teaches the claimed layers (c) and (d).
In view of the above, Wood in view of Dabadie and Bardiot render obvious the claimed layers (a)-(d) and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on pages 9-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the specific order of the layers. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Wood teaches a film comprising the claimed layer (d), which is a multilayer structure with an outer heat seal layer and an outer core layer as stated above for claim 1. Wood further teaches the film has a polyurethane coating on a face of the core layer opposite the skin layer (Wood, Par. 0031). Wood therefore teaches a layer arrangement of (c)/(d), wherein the side of (d) away from the side of (c) is a heat seal layer to be heat sealed onto an object.
Meanwhile, Dabadie teaches a multilayer film for food packaging comprising a biaxially oriented PET (base film) that satisfies the claimed layer (a) (Dabadie, Abstract, 0004, 022, and 0046). Dabadie teaches the film further comprises at least one coating layer that can be on one or each side of the biaxially oriented PET layer, wherein the coating layer may comprise a styrene-isoprene-styrene polymer (SIS) or a polyurethane (Dabadie, Abstract Par. 0004, 0022-0025). The styrene-isoprene-styrene polymer on one side of the biaxially oriented PET layer is considered the layer (b). Dabadie therefore teaches a layer arrangement of (b)/(a)/(b), or a layer arrangement of (a)/(b). Dabadie further teaches the multilayer film may be laminated onto another film (Dabadie, Par. 0046-0047).
In view of the above, Wood combined with Dabadie render obvious laminating the film of Dabadie onto the film of Wood. When doing so, one of ordinary skill of the art would not laminate the film onto the heat seal layer as that would ruin the heat seal properties of Wood, and would therefore laminate the film onto the layer (c).Therefore, Wood in view of Dabadie render obvious a claimed layer structure of either (b)/(a)/(b)/(c)/(d) or (a)/(b)/(c)/(d).
In view of the above, Wood in view of Dabadie render obvious the claimed layer structure and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thirdly, on pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Dabadie does not teach the claimed 4 layer structure of (a)/(b)/(c)/(d). This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Dabadie alone does not teach the entire claimed layer structure, as stated above Wood in view of Dabadie render obvious the claimed layer structure of (a)/(b)/(c)/(d). Therefore, modified Wood renders obvious the claimed layer structure and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Fourthly, on pages 12-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the claimed A/B/A/C structure. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Wood teaches a multilayer film for food packaging comprising, in this order, a heat sealable skin layer (11), a layer (12), a layer (13), and a core layer (14) (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0065 and Fig. 1). Wood teaches that each layer comprises biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (Wood, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0049, and 0065-0067). Wood’s layers (11) through (14) satisfy the limitation of the claimed (d) layer of a biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate layer. The layer (14) is considered the first A layer, the layer (13) is considered the B layer, the layer (12) is considered the second A layer, and the layer (11) is considered the C layer in the claimed A:B:A:C structure (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0021-0027 and 0065). Wood teaches that both A layers and the B layer comprise crystalline PET and antiblocking particles (silica), and the C layer comprises an amorphous, heat sealable copolyester that is an ethylene terephthalate copolymer (PET) (Wood, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0021-0027, 0065, and 0073). Silica satisfies the limitation of an antiblocking particle as it is given as an example of one by the instant claim 5. Applicant has not pointed out how the layers of Wood do not satisfy the claimed A/B/A/C layers. Therefore, Wood teaches the claimed layer structure and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Fifthly, on pages 12-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach that layer (b) is releasably adhered to layer (c). This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Bardiot teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive layer allows for a closure that can be opened and resealed and is thus releasably adhered to the adjacent layers (Bardiot, Abstract). Therefore, the layer (b) of modified Wood, which uses the pressure sensitive adhesive of Bardiot, would be releasably adhered to the layer (c) of modified Wood, satisfying the claimed limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Sixthly, on page 12 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the film consists essentially of the claimed layers. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Regarding the limitation of the film consisting essentially of the layers, modified Wood does not teach that any additional layers that would material affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed film are required. Modified Wood thus satisfies the limitation of consisting essentially of the layers, se MPEP 2111.03, III. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782