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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 9 – 14, 16 – 21, 25, 27 – 40, & 41. Claims 2 – 3, 6 – 8, 17, 19, 41 – 49 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 4 – 5, 9 – 16, 18, 20 – 40 are examined herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9 – 16, 19, 21 – 31, & 37 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (US 2013/0299374 A1), in view of Sankey et al. (US 2006/0165958 A1) and *Kausch (WO 01/38448 A1).
*Submitted by Applicant with IDS filed 2/21/2023
**Morrison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,427,835)
With regard to claim 1, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach a breathable, heat-sealable composite film comprising a first layer (i.e., “substrate layer (A))”) comprising a copolyester comprising monomeric units derived from one or more diol(s); one or more dicarboxylic acid(s); and one or more poly(alkylene oxide)glycols; and a second layer (i.e., “heat-sealable coating layer (C)”) is a heat sealable polymeric layer comprising a copolyester (abstract, paragraphs [0008] & [0033]).
Sankey et al. (‘374) teach a base layer (1) comprising a copolymer that comprises a first layer (A1) comprising a polyester comprising monomeric units derived from or one or more diol(s); one or more dicarboxylic acid(s); and one or more poly(alkylene oxide)glycols. However, Sankey et al. (‘374) do not teach the substrate is a multi-layer film comprising a polymeric layer (A2) that also comprises a polyester comprising monomeric units derived from one or more diol(s); one or more dicarboxylic acid(s); and one or more poly(alkylene oxide)glycols.
Sankey et al. (‘958) teach a breathable, heat-sealable, composite film comprising a polymeric a barrier layer, a substrate layer, and a heat-sealable layer (paragraphs [0010] – [0012]). The barrier layer may also comprise a copolyetherester elastomer comprising poly(alkylene oxide)glycol, dicarboxylic acid, and diols (paragraphs [0013] & [0052]). The function of the barrier layer is to provide a physical barrier to entry of external contaminants which would spoil the substrate contained within the packaging during transport or storage and may be adapted to be breathable (paragraph [0041]). The substrate is a self-supporting film or sheet that may be formed of a suitable film-forming material, such as copolyesters (paragraphs [0019] - [0022]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Sankey et al. (‘958), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the substrate of the heat-sealable polymeric film taught by Sankey et al. as a multilayer substrate comprising a barrier layer adhered to the first surface of the substrate to provide a physical barrier to entry of external contaminants which would spoil the substrate of the composite when the composite is used as packaging material.
Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the exposed surface of the first layer may be subjected to chemical modification treatment to improve the bond between that surface and the subsequently applied layer (paragraph [0044]). However, Sankey et al. do not explicitly teach the presence of a primer coating layer (B).
Kausch teaches a water-based composition, for use as a primer layer, suitable for use on polyester-based substrates for increasing adhesion to an overcoat. The composition includes a sulfonated-polyester-based resin (pg. 6, line 27 & pg. 20, claim 1) and a crosslinking agent (pg. 6, line 30). The substrate is preferably an oriented polyester-based film (pg. 9, lines 15 – 16).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kausch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a crosslinked sulfo-polyester-based primer layer between the substrate layer and heat-sealable coating layer taught by Sankey et al. (‘374) for increasing adhesion between the substrate and an overcoat, such as the heat-sealable coating layer.
With regard to claim 5, as discussed above for claim 1, Kausch teaches [the] primer coating layer (B) is derived from a composition comprising a sulfopolyester and a cross-linking agent.
With regard to claim 9, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the polyester(s) of substrate layer (A) comprises an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, preferably terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid, phthalic acid and/or 2,5-,2,6- or 2,7-naphthalene dicarboxylic acid, and preferably terephthalic acid (paragraph [0014]).
With regard to claim 10, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the polyester(s) of substrate layer (A) comprises an aliphatic diol, preferably aliphatic diols containing 2 – 8 carbon atoms, preferably ethylene glycol and 1,4-butanediol, more preferably ethylene glycol (paragraph [0016]).
With regard to claim 11, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the poly(alkylene oxide)glycol of the copolymer(s) of substrate layer (A) is selected from polyethylene glycol (PEG), polypropolyene glycol (PPG) and poly(tetramethylene oxide)glycol (PTMO), and preferably from polyethylene glycol (paragraph [0017]).
With regard to claim 12, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the poly(alkylene oxide) glycol of the copolyester of the first layer has a weight average molecular weight of at least 400 and preferably no more than 10,000 (paragraph [0016]).
With regard to claim 13, Sankey et al. (‘958) teach the poly(alkylene oxide) glycol of the barrier layer (Applicant’s “polymeric layer (A2)” has a molecular weight of 400 – 4000 (paragraph [0052]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of about 200 to about 800. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 14, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the copolyester having generally formula 1, from the poly(alkylene oxide) glycol, such as poly(ethylene oxide) glycol, is represented by R, which is present in the amount of n in the range of 14 – 28 (paragraphs [0020] & [0024]). The block of the copolyester containing the R is repeated y times, which is in the range of 1 – 3. The block of the copolyester that contains low molecular weight glycols (not contain poly(alkylene oxide) glycol), such as ethylene glycol, is repeated x times, which is in the range of 3 – 200 (paragraph [0025]). The ratio of x:y blocks is in the range from 3:1 to about 80:1 (paragraph [0022]). A is an aromatic ring, preferably phenyl
PNG
media_image1.png
132
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, when R is poly(ethylene oxide)glycol with a molecular weight of 400 g/mol, R1 is ethylene glycol with a molecular weight of 62.07 g/mol, n is 14, y is 1, x is 80, A is phenyl with a molecular weight of 77.1 g/mol, then polyethylene glycol oxide (R ) is present in the amount of 22.88 wt.% based on the total weight of the copolyester in layer (A1) or (A2).
For example, when R is poly(ethylene oxide)glycol with a molecular weight of 400 g/mol, R1 is ethylene glycol with a molecular weight of 62.07 g/mol, n is 3, y is 1, x is 80, A is phenyl with a molecular weight of 77.1 g/mol, then polyethylene glycol oxide (R ) is present in the amount of 83.9 wt.% based on the total weight of the copolyester in layer (A1) or (A2).
Therefore, the amount of poly(alkylene oxide)glycol present in the copolyester(s) of substrate layer (A1) or A2) taught by Sankey et al. overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 5 to about 40 wt%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 15, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the poly(alkylene oxide)glycol of the substrate may have a molecular weight of up to 10,000 (paragraph [0016]). Sankey et al. (‘958) teach the poly(alkylene oxide) glycol of the barrier layer (Applicant’s “polymeric layer (A2)” has a molecular weight of 400 – 4000 (paragraph [0052]). Furthermore, as discussed above for claim 14, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the poly(alkylene oxide)glycol of the substrate (base) layer may be as much as 84 wt.% of the copolyester. Sankey et al. (‘958) teach the ethylene oxide groups incorporated into the copolyester from the poly(alkylene oxide)glycol is from about 20 – 68 wt.% based on the total weight of the copolyester (paragraph [0052]). This suggests the copolyester of the substrate (i.e. “base layer (A1)”) may be different than the copolyester of the barrier layer (i.e. “polymeric layer (A2)”).
With regard to claim 16, Sankey et al. (‘958) teach the polyester of the unperforated barrier layer is derived from an aliphatic glycol, such as ethylene glycol (short-chain ester units presented as D in the copolyester formula), an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, such as terephthalic acid (represented as R in the copolyester formula), and a multiplicity of recurring long-chain ester units derived from poly(alkylene oxide)glycol (represented as “G” in the copolyester formula) (paragraphs [0049] & [0052]).
With regard to claim 18, Sankey et al. (‘958) teach the polyester of the unperforated barrier layer is derived from an aliphatic glycol, such as ethylene glycol (short-chain ester units presented as D in the copolyester formula), an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, such as terephthalic acid (represented as R in the copolyester formula), and a multiplicity of recurring long-chain ester units derived from poly(alkylene oxide)glycol (represented as “G” in the copolyester formula) (paragraphs [0049] & [0052]).
Sankey et al. (‘958) do not explicitly teach the copolyetherester of the barrier layer comprises a second dicarboxylic acid.
However, Sankey et al. (‘958) teach the barrier layer may have heat-sealable functionality (paragraphs [0012] & [0031]). Furthermore, Sankey et al. (‘958) disclose an embodiment of a heat-sealable layer wherein the copolyester of a heat-sealable layer comprises an aromatic dicarboxylic acid and an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid (paragraph [0028]). The copolyesters containing first and second dicarboxylic acids preferably have a glass transition point in the range of -15°C to -40°C and a melting point in the range of 117°C – 150°C (paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Sankey et al. (‘958), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to achieve a barrier layer with heat sealable functionality comprising a copolyester of desired glass transition temperature and melting temperature by forming said copolyester with a first aromatic dicarboxylic acid and as second dicarboxylic acid.
With regard to claim 21, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the thickness of the first layer is typically from about 12 to about 200 µm (paragraph [0030]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of from about 0.1 to 200 µm.
With regard to claim 22, Kausch et al. teach the primer coating is a water-based coating composition (abstract & pg. 1). Therefore, the crosslinking agent of the primer coating layer discussed above for claim 1 is a water-soluble crosslinking agent.
With regard to claims 23 – 24, Kausch et al. teach the crosslinking agent or primer coating layer (B) is selected from a melamine or epoxy resin (pgs. 6 – 7).
With regard to claim 25, Kausch et al. teach the composition from which primer coating layer (B) is derived comprises in the range of about 0.1 to 20% solids by weight, more preferably about 0.1 to 2% solids by weight (after drying) of the crosslinking agent (pg. 7). Working examples contained C-373 & C-323 crosslinking agents (pg. 15). As shown in Table 1 (pg. 17), C-373 or C323 crosslinking agents were present in the amount of 0.25 – 1.25 grams. All 25 working examples disclosed in Table 1 had a total mass, including water (prior to drying), in the range of 96.965 - 100.05 grams (about 100 grams). Therefore, all 25 working examples taught by Kausch et al. contained about 0.25% by weight to about 1.25% by weight of the crosslinking agent based on the total weight of the composition prior to drying, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.1% by weight to about 3% by weight.
With regard to claim 26, Kausch et al. teach useful sulfonated polyester-based resins include, but is not limited to, ones taught in *U.S. Patent No. 5,427,835 (Morrison et al.) (pg. 6, lines 26 - 28).
**Morrison et al. teach the sulfopolyester comprises monomeric units derived from one or more suitable diols (R5) (Col. 9, lines 22 – 60), one or more suitable arylenedicarboxylic acids (R4) (Col. 9, lines 9 – 21), one or more aliphatic or cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acids (R6) (Col. 9, line 61 – Col. 10, line 2), and sulfosubstituted dicarboxylic acid (R3) (i.e., “sulfomonomers”) (Col. 8, Line 60 – Col. 9, line 8).
With regard to claim 27, Kausch et al. teach the composition from which the primer coating is derived comprises about 4 – 16% solids (after drying) by weight of sulfonated polyester resin (pg. 2). Working examples contained SPET sulfonated polyester (pg. 15). As shown in Table 1 (pg. 17), SPET was present in the amount of 7.5 grams (examples 2 – 3, 7, 22 – 23, & 25). All 25 working examples disclosed in Table 1 had a total mass, including water (prior to drying), in the range of 96.965 - 100.05 grams (about 100 grams). Therefore, Kausch et al. disclose an example of 7.5 wt.% of the sulfopolyester based on the total weight of the composition prior to drying, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.5% to about 20% by weight.
With regard to claim 28, as discussed above, Kausch et al. teach the composition coating from which the primer coating layer is derived is a water-based composition (i.e., water is the coating vehicle) (abstract, pg. 1). All 25 working examples disclosed in Table 1 had a total mass, including water (prior to drying), in the range of 96.965 - 100.05 grams (about 100 grams). The samples contained 85.9 – 93.7 grams of water. Therefore, the working examples had a solids content of 6.3 to 14.1% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 1 to 15% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition.
With regard to claim 29, Kausch et al. teach the composition is coated to form a dry thickness of about 0.01 – 0.1 micrometers (10 nm to 100 nm) (pg. 9), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of about 5 to about 50 nm, and contains Applicant’s preferred ranges of about 10 to about 30 nm and about 15 to 25 nm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 30, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the heat-sealable coating layer (C) is derived from a composition comprising a first copolyester derived from an aliphatic glycol, a first aromatic dicarboxylic acid and a second aromatic dicarboxylic acid (paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 31, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach, with regard to the heat-sealable coating layer, the molar ratio of the first dicarboxylic acid to the second dicarboxylic acid in the first copolyester is in the range of from 50:50 to 90:10 (paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 37, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the thickness of the second layer is preferably no more than 12 µm, and preferably no more than 6 µm (paragraph [0040]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of the thickness of 2 to 3.5 µm.
With regard to claim 38, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the film is oriented, preferably biaxially oriented (paragraph [0011]).
With regard to claim 39, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the film exhibits a haze of less than 10%, wherein the haze is measured according to the standard ASTM D 1003 (paragraph [0043]).
With regard to claim 40, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the film exhibits a water vapour transmission rate of at least 80 g/m2/day (paragraph [0009]).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9 – 14, 21 – 31, & 37 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (US 2013/0299374 A1), in view of Kausch (WO 01/38448 A1).
*Morrison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,427,835)
With regard to claim 1, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach a breathable, heat-sealable composite film comprising a breathable first layer (i.e., “substrate layer (A))”) comprising a copolyester comprising monomeric units derived from one or more diol(s); one or more dicarboxylic acid(s); and one or more poly(alkylene oxide)glycols; and a second layer (i.e., “heat-sealable coating layer (C)”) is a heat sealable polymeric layer comprising a copolyester (abstract, paragraphs [0008] & [0033]).
Sankey et al. (‘374) teach a base layer (1) comprising a copolymer that comprises a first layer (A1) comprising a polyester comprising monomeric units derived from or one or more diol(s); one or more dicarboxylic acid(s); and one or more poly(alkylene oxide)glycols. However, Sankey et al. do not teach the substrate is a multi-layer film comprising a polymeric layer (A2) that also comprises a polyester comprising monomeric units derived from one or more diol(s); one or more dicarboxylic acid(s); and one or more poly(alkylene oxide)glycols.
Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the first layer serves as a substrate for supporting the coating that forms the second layer such that the composite film is a self-supporting film or sheet (paragraphs [0011] – [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the first layer substrate taught by Sankey et al. to form a substrate comprising two first layers (Applicant’s recited “base layer (A1)” and “polymeric layer (A2)”) for enhancing support of the heat-sealable second layer coated thereon. The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the exposed surface of the first layer may be subjected to chemical modification treatment to improve the bond between that surface and the subsequently applied layer (paragraph [0044]). However, Sankey et al. do not explicitly teach the presence of a primer coating layer (B).
Kausch teaches a water-based composition, for use as a primer layer, suitable for use on polyester-based substrates for increasing adhesion to an overcoat. The composition includes a sulfonated-polyester-based resin (pg. 6, line 27 & pg. 20, claim 1) and a crosslinking agent (pg. 6, line 30). The substrate is preferably an oriented polyester-based film (pg. 9, lines 15 – 16).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kausch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a crosslinked sulfo-polyester-based primer layer between the substrate layer and heat-sealable coating layer taught by Sankey et al. (‘374) for increasing adhesion between the substrate and an overcoat, such as the heat-sealable coating layer.
With regard to claim 5, as discussed above for claim 1, Kausch teaches [the] primer coating layer (B) is derived from a composition comprising a sulfopolyester and a cross-linking agent.
With regard to claim 9, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the polyester(s) of substrate layer (A) comprises an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, preferably terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid, phthalic acid and/or 2,5-,2,6- or 2,7-naphthalene dicarboxylic acid, and preferably terephthalic acid (paragraph [0014]).
With regard to claim 10, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the polyester(s) of substrate layer (A) comprises an aliphatic diol, preferably aliphatic diols containing 2 – 8 carbon atoms, preferably ethylene glycol and 1,4-butanediol, more preferably ethylene glycol (paragraph [0016]).
With regard to claim 11, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the poly(alkylene oxide)glycol of the copolymer(s) of substrate layer (A) is selected from polyethylene glycol (PEG), polypropolyene glycol (PPG) and poly(tetramethylene oxide)glycol (PTMO), and preferably from polyethylene glycol (paragraph [0017]).
With regard to claim 12, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the poly(alkylene oxide) glycol of the copolyester of the first layer (i.e., “base layer (A1)”) has a weight average molecular weight of at least 400 and preferably no more than 10,000 (paragraph [0016]).
With regard to claim 13, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to duplicate the first layer of Sankey et al. (‘374) to form a second layer (i.e., “polymeric layer (A2)”). As discussed above for claim 12, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the poly(alkylene oxide) glycol of the copolyester of the first layer has a weight average molecular weight of at least 400 and preferably no more than 10,000 (paragraph [0016]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of about 200 to about 800.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 14, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the copolyester having generally formula 1, from the poly(alkylene oxide) glycol, such as poly(ethylene oxide) glycol, is represented by R, which is present in the amount of n in the range of 14 – 28 (paragraphs [0020] & [0024]). The block of the copolyester containing the R is repeated y times, which is in the range of 1 – 3. The block of the copolyester that contains low molecular weight glycols (not contain poly(alkylene oxide) glycol), such as ethylene glycol, is repeated x times, which is in the range of 3 – 200 (paragraph [0025]). The ratio of x:y blocks is in the range from 3:1 to about 80:1 (paragraph [0022]). A is an aromatic ring, preferably phenyl
PNG
media_image1.png
132
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, when R is poly(ethylene oxide)glycol with a molecular weight of 400 g/mol, R1 is ethylene glycol with a molecular weight of 62.07 g/mol, n is 14, y is 1, x is 80, A is phenyl with a molecular weight of 77.1 g/mol, then polyethylene glycol oxide (R ) is present in the amount of 22.88 wt.% based on the total weight of the copolyester in layer (A1) or (A2).
For example, when R is poly(ethylene oxide)glycol with a molecular weight of 400 g/mol, R1 is ethylene glycol with a molecular weight of 62.07 g/mol, n is 3, y is 1, x is 80, A is phenyl with a molecular weight of 77.1 g/mol, then polyethylene glycol oxide (R ) is present in the amount of 83.9 wt.% based on the total weight of the copolyester in layer (A1) or (A2).
Therefore, the amount of poly(alkylene oxide)glycol present in the copolyester(s) of substrate layer (A1) or A2) taught by Sankey et al. (‘374) overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 5 to about 40 wt%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 21, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the thickness of the first layer is typically from about 12 to about 200 µm (paragraph [0030]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of from about 0.1 to 200 µm.
With regard to claim 22, Kausch et al. teach the primer coating is a water-based coating composition (abstract & pg. 1). Therefore, the crosslinking agent of the primer coating layer discussed above for claim 1 is a water-soluble crosslinking agent.
With regard to claims 23 – 24, Kausch et al. teach the crosslinking agent or primer coating layer (B) is selected from a melamine or epoxy resin (pgs. 6 – 7).
With regard to claim 25, Kausch et al. teach the composition from which primer coating layer (B) is derived comprises in the range of about 0.1 to 20% solids by weight, more preferably about 0.1 to 2% solids by weight (after drying) of the crosslinking agent (pg. 7). Working examples contained C-373 & C-323 crosslinking agents (pg. 15). As shown in Table 1 (pg. 17), C-373 or C323 crosslinking agents were present in the amount of 0.25 – 1.25 grams. All 25 working examples disclosed in Table 1 had a total mass, including water (prior to drying), in the range of 96.965 - 100.05 grams (about 100 grams). Therefore, all 25 working examples taught by Kausch et al. contained about 0.25% by weight to about 1.25% by weight of the crosslinking agent based on the total weight of the composition prior to drying, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.1% by weight to about 3% by weight.
With regard to claim 26, Kausch et al. teach useful sulfonated polyester-based resins include, but is not limited to, ones taught in *U.S. Patent No. 5,427,835 (Morrison et al.) (pg. 6, lines 26 - 28).
*Morrison et al. teach the sulfopolyester comprises monomeric units derived from one or more suitable diols (R5) (Col. 9, lines 22 – 60), one or more suitable arylenedicarboxylic acids (R4) (Col. 9, lines 9 – 21), one or more aliphatic or cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acids (R6) (Col. 9, line 61 – Col. 10, line 2), and sulfosubstituted dicarboxylic acid (R3) (i.e., “sulfomonomers”) (Col. 8, Line 60 – Col. 9, line 8).
With regard to claim 27, Kausch et al. teach the composition from which the primer coating is derived comprises about 4 – 16% solids (after drying) by weight of sulfonated polyester resin (pg. 2). Working examples contained SPET sulfonated polyester (pg. 15). As shown in Table 1 (pg. 17), SPET was present in the amount of 7.5 grams (examples 2 – 3, 7, 22 – 23, & 25). All 25 working examples disclosed in Table 1 had a total mass, including water (prior to drying), in the range of 96.965 - 100.05 grams (about 100 grams). Therefore, Kausch et al. disclose an example of 7.5 wt.% of the sulfopolyester based on the total weight of the composition prior to drying, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.5% to about 20% by weight.
With regard to claim 28, as discussed above, Kausch et al. teach the composition coating from which the primer coating layer is derived is a water-based composition (i.e., water is the coating vehicle) (abstract, pg. 1). All 25 working examples disclosed in Table 1 had a total mass, including water (prior to drying), in the range of 96.965 - 100.05 grams (about 100 grams). The samples contained 85.9 – 93.7 grams of water. Therefore, the working examples had a solids content of 6.3 to 14.1% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 1 to 15% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition.
With regard to claim 29, Kausch et al. teach the composition is coated to form a dry thickness of about 0.01 – 0.1 micrometers (10 nm to 100 nm) (pg. 9), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of about 5 to about 50 nm, and contains Applicant’s preferred ranges of about 10 to about 30 nm and about 15 to 25 nm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 30, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the heat-sealable coating layer (C) is derived from a composition comprising a first copolyester derived from an aliphatic glycol, a first aromatic dicarboxylic acid and a second aromatic dicarboxylic acid (paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 31, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach, with regard to the heat-sealable coating layer, the molar ratio of the first dicarboxylic acid to the second dicarboxylic acid in the first copolyester is in the range of from 50:50 to 90:10 (paragraph [0034]).
With regard to claim 37, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the thickness of the second layer is preferably no more than 12 µm, and preferably no more than 6 µm (paragraph [0040]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of the thickness of 2 to 3.5 µm.
With regard to claim 38, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the film is oriented, preferably biaxially oriented (paragraph [0011]).
With regard to claim 39, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the film exhibits a haze of less than 10%, wherein the haze is measured according to the standard ASTM D 1003 (paragraph [0043]).
With regard to claim 40, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the film exhibits a water vapour transmission rate of at least 80 g/m2/day (paragraph [0009]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (‘374), Sankey et al. (‘958), & Kausch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of **Yamamoto et al. (WO 2018/062397 A1).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (‘374) & Kausch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of **Yamamoto et al. (WO 2018/062397 A1).
**US2021/0276316 A1 is cited herein as the English language equivalent of WO 2018/062397 A1
With regard to claim 20, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach one or more layers of the film contain additives, such as viscosity modifiers, as appropriate (paragraph [0047]). However, Sankey et al. fail to teach the inherent viscosity of the copolyester-based substrate layer (A) is at least 0.6 gL/g.
Yamamoto et al. teach a polyester film formed with a polyester resin that needs to have an inherent viscosity in the range of 0.63 to 0.86 dl/g for a film having sufficient mechanical strength, prevent mold contamination, preventing decrease of film productivity, and achieving a film with the desired RSm (average length of roughness curve) (paragraphs [0028] – [0029]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yamamoto et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the copolyester substrate taught by Sankey et al. (‘374) with a copolyester resin that has an inherent viscosity in the range of 0.63 – 0.86 dl/g in order to prevent mold contamination, maintain film productivity, and achieve a film with good mechanical strength and average length of roughness curve (RSm).
Claim(s) 4 & 33 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (‘374), Sankey et al. (‘958), & Kausch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peiffer et al. (US 2005/0042468 A1).
Claim(s) 4 & 33 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (‘374) & Kausch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peiffer et al. (US 2005/0042468).
With regard to claim 4, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the heat-sealable (second) layer is coated onto a substrate of the first layer (paragraphs [0011] & [0044]), but do not teach the heat-sealable layer (C) comprises a second copolyester.
With regard to claim 33, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the heat-sealable (second) layer is coated onto a substrate of the first layer (paragraphs [0011] & [0044]), but do not teach the heat-sealable coating layer (C) comprises a second copolyester derived from an aliphatic glycol, a first aromatic dicarboxylic acid and a second aliphatic dicarboxylic acid.
Peiffer et al. teach a heat sealable polyester top layer (A) comprises two separate polyesters I and II as a mixture (paragraphs [0059] & [0076]), wherein polyester I consists of a copolyester (paragraph [0084]) and polyester II consists of a copolyester (paragraph [0087]). The polyesters are blends of different copolyesters whose composition is based on aromatic and aliphatic dicarboxylic acids and aliphatic diols (paragraphs [0072] & [0083] – [0084]). Polyester II comprises azelate, sebacate, and/or adipate (aliphatic dicarboxylic acids) and terephthalate and/or isophthalate (aromatic dicarboxylic acid) (paragraphs [0088] – [0093]). Preferred diols of the polyester II include aliphatic glycols, such as ethylene glycol (paragraphs [0049] & [0087]). The desired peeling properties can be attained more individually with the mixture of polyesters I and II than when a single polyester is used (paragraph [0101]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Peiffer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to blend a first copolyester with a second copolyester comprising an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, and a glycol compound with a first copolyester to form a top heat-sealable coating layer that has desirable peeling properties.
With regard to claim 34, Peiffer et al. teach polyester II comprises 10 - 80 mol% terephthalate (“first dicarboxylic acid”) and 20 – 65 mol% azelate (“second dicarboxylic acid) (paragraph [0089] – [0093]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed molar ratio (first dicarboxylic acid to second carboxylic acid) range of 50:50 to 90:10.
Claim(s) 32 & 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (‘374), Sankey et al. (‘958), & Kausch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (KR 1000369847 B1).
Claim(s) 32 & 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (‘374) & Kausch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (KR 1000369847 B1).
With regard to claim 32, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the heat-sealable (second) layer is coated onto a substrate of the first layer (paragraphs [0011] & [0044]), but do not teach the composition from which the heat-sealable coating layer (C) is derived comprises in the range of from about 1% to about 20% by weight of the first copolyester based on the total weight of the composition prior to drying.
With regard to claim 36, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the heat-sealable (second) layer is coated onto a substrate of the first layer (paragraphs [0011] & [0044]), but do not teach the composition from which the heat-sealable coating layer (C) is derived comprises a coating vehicle, preferably wherein the composition comprises the coating vehicle in an amount such that the composition has a solids content of 5 to 30% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition.
Hong et al. teach a water-dispersible copolyester coating formed by dispersing a water-dispersible copolyester resin composition in water or water and alcohol. The water-dispersible copolyester dispersion is preferably 5 to 50% by weight of the solid content. If the concentration of the solid content is less than 5% by weight, then the coating is too thin. If the total content is more than 50% by weight, then the coating is too difficult to dispersion and the viscosity of the coating is too high (pg. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hong et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat sealable coating taught by Sankey et al. (‘374) wherein the coating is applied to a substrate as water-dispersible copolyester dispersion wherein the solid content is 5 to 50% by weight for ease of dispersion, desired viscosity, and desired thickness of the heat-sealable coating. Assuming the heat sealable coating consists of a single copolyester, the first polyester is 5 to 50% by weight of the heat sealable coating prior to drying, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 1 – 20 wt.%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (‘374), Sankey et al. (‘958), Kausch, & Peiffer et al., as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (KR 1000369847 B1)..
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankey et al. (‘374), Kausch, & Peiffer et al., as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (KR 1000369847 B1).
With regard to claim 35, Sankey et al. (‘374) teach the heat-sealable (second) layer is coated onto a substrate of the first layer (paragraphs [0011] & [0044]), but do not teach the composition from which the heat-sealable coating layer (C) is derived comprises in the range of from about 0.1 to about 10% by weight of the second copolyester based on the total weight of the composition prior to drying.
Peiffer et al. teach no organic solvents are used from the outset (paragraph [0025]). Proportion of polyester I in top layer (A) is 10% by weight to 60% by weight (paragraphs [0077] & [0085]). When the proportion of polyester II in the top layer (A) is less than 20% by weight, the peel performance of the film is strongly impaired, and when more than 80% by weight, the producibility of the film by extrusion is made more difficult (paragraphs [0086] & [0097]). Table 1 indicates these values are after drying (not prior to drying).
Hong et al. teach a water-dispersible copolyester coating formed by dispersing a water-dispersible copolyester resin composition in water or water and alcohol. The water-dispersible copolyester dispersion is preferably 5 to 50% by weight of the solid content. If the concentration of the solid content is less than 5% by weight, then the coating is too thin. If the total content is more than 50% by weight, then the coating is too difficult to dispersion and the viscosity of the coating is too high (pg. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hong et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat sealable coating taught by Sankey et al. (‘374) comprising two copolyester resins, as taught by Peiffer et al., wherein the coating is applied to a substrate as water-dispersible copolyester dispersion wherein the solid content is 5 to 50% by weight for ease of dispersion, desired viscosity, and desired thickness of the heat-sealable coating. Peiffer et al. teach the polymer II (second copolyester) is present in the final coating (based on solid content without solvent or water) in the amount of 20 – 80 wt% for desired peelability and reproducibility.
Based on the combined teachings of Hong et al. and Peiffer et al., the second polyester should be present in the heat sealable composition in the range of 1 – 40 wt.% prior to drying the water from the coating, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.1 to about 10%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Claim 16 was objected to for informalities. In an effort to expedite prosecution, claim 16 has been amended to recite ‘an aromatic dicarboxylic acid,’ as suggested by the Patent Office. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the claim objection on this ground” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the amendment of claim 16, the objection of claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claims 9 – 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 28 – 37, 39, and 40 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as purportedly being indefinite. Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses this rejection.
“However, solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, and without acquiescing to the propriety of this rejection, claims 9 – 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 28 – 37, 39, and 40 have been amended to remove the term ‘preferably,’ as suggested by the Patent Office” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claims 9 – 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 28 – 37, 39, and 40, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claims 12 and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, 4th paragraph, as purportedly being of improper dependent form. Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses this rejection.
“Specifically, the Patent Office asserts that ‘the option of substrate layer (A) as a monolayer film in claims 12 & 14 fail to further limit claim 1 upon which it depends.’ See Office Action at page 4. In an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, and without acquiescing to the propriety of this rejection, claims 12 and 14 have been amended to remove reference to a monolayer film” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claims 12 & 14, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) is withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “The composite film of Sankey ‘374 comprises a first polymeric layer (i.e. a monolayer) and a second heat-sealable polymeric layer that is coated onto the first layer (paragraph [0011], claim 1). The first polymeric layer comprises copolyester comprising monomeric units derived from one or more diol(s); one or more dicarboxylic acid(s); and one or more poly(alkylene oxide)glycol(s).
“The composite film of Sankey ‘958 may comprise a heat-sealable layer disposed on the second surface of a perforated substrate layer, and a barrier layer disposed on the first surface of the perforated substrate layer (see paragraphs [0011] and [0025]). The barrier layer may be a polyester comprising monomer units derived from one or more diol(s), one or more dicarboxylic acid(s) and one or more poly(alkylene oxide) glycol(s) (paragraph [0052]), but there is no disclosure in Sankey ‘958 of a substrate layer that is a polyester comprising monomeric units derived from one or more diol(s), one or more dicarboxylic acid(s) and one or more poly(alkylene oxide) glycol(s).
“To arrive at the multilayer substrate layer (A) of claim 1, therefore, the skilled person would have to isolate the barrier layer of Sankey ‘958 and introduce it as a second layer applied to the first polymeric layer of Sankey ‘374. If the skilled person were to instead introduce the substrate layer of Sankey ‘958, they would not arrive at the multilayer substrate layer (A) of claim 1 because there is no disclosure in Sankey ‘958 of a substrate layer comprising the three monomers required by claim 1” (Remarks, Pgs. 12 – 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection does not suggest incorporating the substrate layer of Sankey ‘958 into the substrate of Sankey ‘374. The rejection suggests combining the substrate layer taught by Sankey ‘374 with the barrier layer taught by Sankey ‘958 to form the recited multilayer substrate.
Applicant argues, “…the skilled person would not have been motivated to make this specific modification. The skilled person would have appreciated that the approaches taken in Sankey ‘374 and Sankey ‘958 in achieving the required breathability are different. Sankey ‘958 enhances the breathability of composite films by including perforations in both the substrate and heat-sealable layers the location of which correspond to one another (see paragraphs [0005] and [0011] of Sankey ‘958). In contrast, the composite films of Sankey ‘374 contain unperforated monolayer substrate layers which instead achieve good breathability through adjustment of the molecular weight of PET and the mol% of PEG in the polymeric substrate layer (see paragraphs [0072] – [0079] and claim 1)” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the means of achieving breathability taught by Sankey ‘958 (secondary reference) was not the suggested modification discussed in the rejection, and therefore not pertinent to the reason for citing the reference.
Second, the rejection does not suggest incorporating the substrate comprising perforations taught by Sankey ‘958 into the substrate taught by Sankey ‘374.
Applicant argues, “In any case, the skilled person would not have been motivated to introduce any further layers between the substrate layer and the heat-sealable layer, let alone to introduce a specific cross-linked sulfopolyester primer layer (B) between multilayer polymeric substrate layer according to claim 1 and a heat-sealable layer, and let alone with a reasonable expectation of success that this would impart an advantageous combination of sealability, peelability and breathability to a composite film. In fact, Sankey ‘374 explicitly requires that a surface of its substrate is in contact with its heat sealable layer (e.g. see paragraph [0046]). As such, Sankey ‘374, teaching away from the presence of any additional layer in between these two layers” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, paragraph [0046] states “providing on a surface of the first layer a heat-sealable second polymeric layer.” Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, one of ordinary skill in the art would not assume the phrase “on a surface” to be limited only to embodiments of direct contact between said layers It would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to envision a layer applied indirectly on a surface of another layer via an adhesion promoting layer.
Applicant argues, “Nevertheless, the Patent Office further relies on Kausch to introduce the presence of a primer layer comprising a cross-linked copolyester between the multilayer substrate layer, formed by a combination of the films of Sankey ‘374 and Sankey ‘958, and a heat-sealable layer. The heat-sealable layers of Sankey ‘374 and Sankey ‘958 may be copolyesters, as required by claim 1 (see paragraphs [0032] – [0036] of Sankey ‘958), but may also be other polymers such as ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA polymers (see paragraph [0037] of Sankey ‘374 and paragraph [0029] of Sankey ‘958) (Remarks, Pg. 13).
“Kausch relates to a ‘water-based coating composition suitable for use on a polyester-based substrate as a prime layer between the substrate and selected overcoats’ (page 1, lines 27 – 29), emphasis added). Thus, the teachings of Kausch would be understood to be limited to selected classes of overcoat, and not to apply to all overcoats. Examples of overcoats that are compatible with the coating composition are provided at page 11, lines 10 of Kausch onwards, and include overcoat that ‘contains vinyl copolymers comprising vinyl acetate, vinyl alcohol, and vinyl chloride’ and ‘hard coats’, including the UV-curable acrylate-based overcoats used in the examples of Kausch. Crucially, Kausch does not disclose that its water-based coating composition is suitable for acting as a primer layer between a polyester substrate and a heat-sealable coating layer comprising a copolyester, as in Sankey ‘374, Sankey ‘958 and claim 1” (Remarks, Pgs. 13 – 14).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection, Kausch clearly teaches sulfonated-polyester based resin is compatible for binding to a polyester-based film substrate. It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art that resins comprising similar functional groups (polyester) are compatible for bonding. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kausch, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the sulfonated-polyester-based resin taught by Kausch would be compatible with both a polyester substrate layer and an overcoating composed of a copolyester taught by Sankey ‘374.
Applicant argues, “Further, there is no mention in Kausch of the use of its primer in a peelable, sealable, breathable film. The skilled person would have no reasonable expectation of success that the primer layer in Kausch is suitable for such a film, and a certainly no reasonable expectation of success that use of said primer layer between a multilayer substrate layer and a copolyester heat-sealable layer would impart an advantageous combination of sealability, peelability and breathability to a composite film” (Remarks, Pg. 14).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the skilled person would expect the sulfonated-polyester-based resin primer layer taught by Kausch to be successful as an adhesion promoting layer between two polyester layers.
Second, the sulfonated-polyester-based resin primer layer is an internal layer of a four-layer composite, which is not pertinent to the proper function of the heat-sealable coating layer as an external layer needed for heat-sealing and peeling.
Third, with regard to breathability, Applicant acknowledged above with regard to Sankey ‘958 that it is known in the art for a layer to have perforations (discontinuities) for providing breathability. Kausch does not teach any limitations regarding the percent coverage of the primer layer (continuous vs. discontinuous layer). Therefore, when considering the references in their entirety, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the percent coverage of the primer layer on the substrate, positioned between the substrate and heat-sealable coating layer, as needed for the intended use in a breathable composite film.
Applicant argues, “The Patent Office further asserts that ‘it would have been obvious…to duplicate the first layer substrate taught by Sankey et al. to form a substrate comprising two first layers.’ Applicant respectfully disagrees and asserts that this is based on hindsight bias, which is inappropriate in an obviousness analysis” (Remarks, Pg. 15).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Applicant has failed to demonstrate any new and/or unexpected results in the instance of the recited composite film comprising a substrate formed of two layers, (A1) and (A2), of similar composition compared to a single layer of similar total thickness.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues, “…Yamamoto does not remedy the deficiencies outline above” (Remarks, Pg. 16).
Applicant argues, “…Peiffer does not remedy the deficiencies outline above” (Remarks, Pgs. 16 – 17).
Applicant argues, “…Hong does not remedy the deficiencies outline above” (Remarks, Pgs. 17 – 18).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781