DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim(s) 14-29, 32-34 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 14-18, 20-23, 28-29, 32-34 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 19, 24-27 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 1-13, 30-31 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species (a)(i) (claim 22) and Species (b)(i) (claim 23) in the reply filed on 04/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement mailed 03/20/2025, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The election of species requirement with respect to category of species (a) in the Election of Species Requirement mailed 03/20/2025 has been withdrawn upon reconsideration.
Claim 19 was inadvertently omitted as the third species (b)(iii) from the Election of Species Requirement for category of species (b) (the polymeric buffer layer). In view of the above election of species (b)(i) (claim 23), claim 19 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 19, 24-27 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 14-18, 21-23, 28-29 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
• claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-16, 18-19, 21-23, 25, 27 of copending Application No. 18/687,751 (OKLE ET AL) (US 2024/0359440,
in view of KAWAI ET AL (US 2019/0134959).
The copending Application claims a barrier packaging film with a majority of the recited features (e.g., but not limited to, substrate layer; polymeric buffer layer with the thickness relative to the average amplitude of the wave structure; inorganic coating layer with a wave structure with the average amplitude and wavelength; etc. as recited in copending Application claim 18; inorganic coating layer thicknesses of 5-60 nm; polymeric buffer layer comprising vinyl alcohol copolymer; etc.). However, the copending Application does not explicitly claim the thickness of the polymeric substrate layer.
KAWAI ET AL ‘959 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize plastic films (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, etc. which can be uniaxially oriented or biaxially oriented) with a typical thickness which is not particularly limited, but are preferably 12-250 microns as base layers or substrates for gas barrier coatings in order to produce barrier films (e.g., for packaging, electronic applications, etc.). (paragraph 0001, 0003-0005, 0023-0024, 0026, etc.)
Regarding claims 14-18, 21-23, 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known plastic films with conventional thicknesses commonly used as substrates for barrier films (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, etc. which can be uniaxially oriented or biaxially oriented with preferred thicknesses of 12-250 microns, as disclosed in KAWAI ET AL ‘959) as the substrate in the barrier packaging film claimed in copending Application No. 18/687,751 in order to produce useful barrier films for various applications (e.g., packaging applications; electronic applications; etc.).
Regarding claims 16, 22-23, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized commonly used inorganic metal oxides conventionally used as inorganic barrier layers (e.g., silicon oxides, aluminum oxides, etc.) in conventional inorganic barrier layers (e.g., submicron thicknesses, etc.) as the inorganic coating layer claimed in the copending Application.
Regarding claim 28, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized the barrier films claimed in the copending Application as a component in known air-tight (corresponding to the recited “hermetically sealed”) packaging articles.
Regarding claim 29, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the types of materials and thicknesses of the polymeric layers and inorganic barrier layers in the barrier films claimed in the copending Application in order to: (i) provide the required oxygen transmission rate (OTR) before and after retorting; and (ii) minimize the reduction of OTR after retorting; for specific packaging applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
• claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-16, 18-19, 21-23, 25, 27 of copending Application No. 18/687,751 (OKLE ET AL) (US 2024/0359440,
in view of KAWAI ET AL (US 2019/0134959).
as applied to claims 14-18, 21-23, 28 above,
and further in view of JP 2007-216504 (SHIBATA-JP ‘504).
SHIBATA-JP ‘504 discloses that it is well known in the art to use curable gas barrier coatings (e.g., comprising vinyl alcohol resins, etc. with Young’s modulus of 15-40 MPa (measured at 25 °C) in gas barrier films in order to prevent cracking or breakage of adjacent inorganic barrier layers, thereby facilitating the production of gas barrier films with excellent flexibility while maintaining excellent barrier properties. (page 1, 3-4, 12-13, etc. of English machine translation)
Regarding claims 32-34, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize low Young’s modulus curable coatings (as suggested in SHIBATA-JP ‘504) to form the polymeric buffer layer in the barrier packaging film claimed in copending Application No. 18/687,751 in order to produce crack-resistant gas barrier films subjected to substantial and/or repeated flexing.
Further regarding claims 32-34, since: (i) SHIBATA-JP ‘504 discloses the desirability of using curable coatings with Young’s modulus of 15-40 MPa (measured at 25 °C) in gas barrier films subjected to flexing; and (ii) the Young’s modulus generally decreases with increasing temperature; the Examiner has reason to believe that curable gas barrier coatings with Young’s modulus values of 15-40 MPa measured at 25 °C would have Young’s modulus values measured at 60 °C which at least partially overlaps the Young’s modulus range of 0.1-100 MPa recited in claims 32-34, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-16, 20, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• MULLER (US 2012/0243092),
in view of KAWAI ET AL (US 2019/0134959).
MULLER ET AL ‘092 discloses a barrier film comprising:
• a substrate with a flat surface (402, etc.) (e.g., transparent plastics, etc.);
• a first polymeric layer with an undulating surface profile (104, 404, etc.) which can be formed from a curable polymeric material (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 14), wherein the first polymeric layer has:
• a first sinusoidal profile in a first direction with: (i) a wave height H1 (corresponding to the recited “amplitude”) of 10 nm to 80 microns; and (ii) a wavelength L1 of 80 nm to 80 microns;
• a second sinusoidal profile in a second direction with: (i) a wave height H2 (corresponding to the recited “amplitude”) of 10 nm to 80 microns; and (ii) a wavelength L2 of 80 nm to 80 microns;
wherein H1 and H2 can be same or different, and wherein L1 and L2 can be same or different;
• an inorganic barrier layer (102, 202) (corresponding to the recited “inorganic coating layer”) with a typical thickness of 5-500 nm which conforms to the undulating surface profile of the first layer, wherein the inorganic barrier layer can comprise a metal oxide;
• an optional additional layer of polymeric material (corresponding to the recited “second polymeric buffer layer in direct contact with the inorganic coating layer” of claim 20);
wherein the presence of the undulating surface profile (104, 404) allows the conforming barrier layer (102, 202) to stretch and shrink in all directions (e.g., in response in thermal stress, mechanical stress, loads caused by deformation of adjacent layers, etc.) and thereby prevent cracking of the inorganic barrier layer.
The barrier film can be used as a barrier packaging material or a barrier film for electronics. (entire document, Figure 1-2, 4, etc.; paragraph 0003-0004, 0007-0013, 0017, 0020-0023, 0039-0043, 0045-0046, 0053-0055, 0069-0070, 0072, 0093-0094, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss the recited polymeric buffer layer thickness or substrate layer thicknesses.
KAWAI ET AL ‘959 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize plastic films (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, etc. which can be uniaxially oriented or biaxially oriented) with a typical thickness which is not particularly limited, but are preferably 12-250 microns as base layers or substrates for gas barrier coatings in order to produce barrier films (e.g., for packaging, electronic applications, etc.). (paragraph 0001, 0003-0005, 0023-0024, 0026, etc.)
Regarding claims 14-16, 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a first polymeric layer with an undulating surface profile (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 1) in a multilayer barrier film material in accordance with MULLER ET AL ‘092 to form durable barrier films containing an undulating inorganic barrier layer with undulations with amplitudes and wavelengths corresponding to the amplitudes and wavelengths of the undulations in the adjacent first polymeric layer (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 1) which is resistant to breakage caused by thermal and/or mechanical and/or load deformation stresses.
Further regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the thickness of the first polymeric layer (e.g., 404, etc.) with an undulating surface profile (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 1) in MULLER ET AL ‘092 to be greater than the desired H1 and H2 (corresponding to the recited “amplitude”) of the first and second sinusoidal profiles in order to provide full development of a smooth, continuous undulating surface profile on a flat substrate and avoids the presence of straight lines or flat surfaces or sharp edges which may damage or cause stress concentrations in the inorganic barrier layer -- i.e., when the first polymeric layer (e.g., 404, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 1) is thinner than the H1 and H2 (corresponding to the recited “amplitude”) of the desired first and second sinusoidal profiles, the bottoms of the first and second sinusoidal curves would get “cut off” or “clipped” by the flat surface of substrate 402, thereby generating sharp edges which can cause undesirable stress concentrations in the overlying inorganic barrier layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the amplitude (H1, H2) and wavelength (L1, L2) in the barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 based on the specific end-use application of the barrier film -- e.g., for electronic devices with particularly small and strict dimensional limits, combined with substantial motivation to reduce component sizes as much as possible in electronic components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to select amplitudes and wavelengths which are on the lower end (e.g., submicron with respect to amplitude; less than 5 microns with respect to wavelength) of the ranges of amplitudes and wavelengths disclosed in MULLER ET AL.
Further regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known plastic films with conventional thicknesses commonly used as substrates for barrier films (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, etc. which can be uniaxially oriented or biaxially oriented with preferred thicknesses of 12-250 microns, as disclosed in KAWAI ET AL ‘959) as the substrate with a flat surface (402, etc.) in the barrier film of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to produce useful barrier films for various applications (e.g., packaging applications; electronic applications; etc.).
Regarding claim 15, since MULLER ET AL ‘092 discloses: (i) a first layer with sinusoidal profiles (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 14) with a wave height (corresponding to the recited “amplitude”) of 10 nm to 80 microns and a wavelength L1 of 80 nm to 80 microns; and (ii) an inorganic barrier layer (corresponding to the recited “inorganic coating layer”) with a typical thickness of 5-500 nm which conforms to the undulating surface profile of the first layer; MULLER ET AL ‘092 discloses an inorganic barrier layer (corresponding to the recited “inorganic coating layer”) with wavelength to average amplitude ratios which at least partially read on the wavelength to average amplitude as recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 28, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized the barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 as a component in known air-tight (corresponding to the recited “hermetically sealed”) packaging articles.
Regarding claim 29, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the types of materials and thicknesses of the polymeric layers and inorganic barrier layers used in the thermal stress-resistant and mechanical stress-resistant and deformation-resistant barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to: (i) provide the required oxygen transmission rate (OTR) before and after retorting; and (ii) minimize the reduction of OTR after retorting; for specific packaging applications.
Claim(s) 17-18, 21-23, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• MULLER (US 2012/0243092), in view of KAWAI ET AL (US 2019/0134959),
as applied to claims 14-16, 20, 28-29 above,
and further in view of TSUMAGARI ET AL (US 2012/0270058),
and further in view of GOTRIK ET AL (US 2018/0370182),
and further in view of SEARLE ET AL (US 6,106,950).
TSUMAGARI ET AL ‘058 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize polyolefin films which can oriented on one direction (corresponding to the recited “monoaxially oriented”) or two directions (corresponding to the recited “biaxially oriented”) as base or substrate layers in multilayer barrier films. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to use metal oxides (e.g., silicon oxides, aluminum oxides, etc.) to form inorganic barrier layers in multilayer barrier films. (paragraph 0019, 0025-0026, 0029, etc.)
GOTRIK ET AL ‘182 discloses that it is well known in the art to use polyethylene or polypropylene films (e.g., biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) film, etc.) as substrate or support layers for multilayer barrier films. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to use metal oxides (e.g., silicon oxides, aluminum oxides, etc.) to form inorganic barrier layers in multilayer barrier films. (paragraph 0002, 0021-0022, 0027-0029, etc.)
SEARLE ET AL ‘950 discloses that it is well known in the art to apply crosslinkable polyvinyl alcohol layers with a typical thickness of 0.01-100 microns to polymeric film substrates to provide improved gas barrier properties which are resistant to moisture and humidity. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate a heat-sealable polyolefin layer as a surface layer of a barrier packaging film in order to facilitate the production of heat-sealable packaging. (line 3-19, 61-63, col. 8; line 46-68, col. 9; line 19-26, 47-68, col. 10; line 35, col. 11 to line 40, col. 12; line 1-11, col. 13; etc.)
Regarding claims 17-18, 22-23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known polyolefin (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, etc.) films oriented in at least one direction (corresponding to the recited “monoaxially oriented” and the recited “biaxially oriented”) conventionally used for barrier packaging materials (as suggested in KAWAI ET AL ‘959 and TSUMAGARI ET AL ‘058 and GOTRIK ET AL ‘182) as base or substrate layers for the barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to facilitate the formation of known packaging articles.
Regarding claims 21, 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an additional heat-sealable polyolefin surface layer (as suggested in SEARLE ET AL ‘950) in the barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to facilitate the formation of known heat-sealed air-tight (corresponding to the recited “hermetically sealed”) packaging articles.
Regarding claims 22-23, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known metal oxides conventionally used as inorganic barrier layers in barrier packaging materials (as suggested in TSUMAGARI ET AL ‘058 and GOTRIK ET AL ‘182) as the inorganic barrier layer in the barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to produce packaging and/or protective materials with excellent gas barrier properties.
Regarding claims 22-23, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the amplitude (H1, H2) and wavelength (L1, L2) in the barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 based on the specific end-use application of the barrier film -- e.g., for electronic devices with particularly small and strict dimensional limits, combined with substantial motivation to reduce component sizes as much as possible in electronic components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to select amplitudes and wavelengths which are on the lower end (e.g., submicron with respect to amplitude; less than 5 microns with respect to wavelength) of the ranges of amplitudes and wavelengths disclosed in MULLER ET AL.
Further regarding claim 22, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known plastic films with conventional thicknesses commonly used as substrates for barrier films (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, etc. which can be uniaxially oriented or biaxially oriented with preferred thicknesses of 12-250 microns, as disclosed in KAWAI ET AL ‘959) as the substrate with a flat surface (402, etc.) in the barrier film of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to produce useful barrier films for various applications (e.g., packaging applications; electronic applications; etc.).
Regarding claim 23, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known curable vinyl alcohol-based compositions with gas barrier properties as disclosed in SEARLE ET AL ‘950 to form the first layer with sinusoidal profiles (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 14) in the barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to further increase the gas barrier properties of the barrier films.
Regarding claim 29, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the types of materials and thicknesses of the polymeric layers and inorganic barrier layers used in the thermal stress-resistant and mechanical stress-resistant and deformation-resistant barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to: (i) provide the required oxygen transmission rate (OTR) before and after retorting; and (ii) minimize the reduction of OTR after retorting; for specific food or medical packaging applications.
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• MULLER (US 2012/0243092), in view of KAWAI ET AL (US 2019/0134959),
as applied to claims 14-16, 20, 28-29 above,
and further in view of TSUMAGARI ET AL (US 2012/0270058), and further in view of GOTRIK ET AL (US 2018/0370182), and further in view of SEARLE ET AL (US 6,106,950),
as applied to claims 17-18, 21-23, 28-29 above,
and further in view of JP 2007-216504 (SHIBATA-JP ‘504).
SHIBATA-JP ‘504 discloses that it is well known in the art to use curable gas barrier coatings (e.g., comprising vinyl alcohol resins, etc. with Young’s modulus of 15-40 MPa (measured at 25 °C) in gas barrier films in order to prevent cracking or breakage of adjacent inorganic barrier layers, thereby facilitating the production of gas barrier films with excellent flexibility while maintaining excellent barrier properties. (page 1, 3-4, 12-13, etc. of English machine translation)
Regarding claims 32-34, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize low Young’s modulus curable coatings (as suggested in SHIBATA-JP ‘504) to form at least the first polymeric layer (e.g., 404, etc.) with an undulating surface profile (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 1) in MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to prevent cracking of inorganic barrier layers (and therefore loss of barrier properties) in gas barrier films subjected to flexing.
Further regarding claims 32-34, since: (i) SHIBATA-JP ‘504 discloses the desirability of using curable coatings with Young’s modulus of 15-40 MPa (measured at 25 °C) in gas barrier films subjected to flexing; and (ii) the Young’s modulus generally decreases with increasing temperature; the Examiner has reason to believe that curable gas barrier coatings with Young’s modulus values of 15-40 MPa measured at 25 °C would have Young’s modulus values measured at 60 °C which at least partially overlaps the Young’s modulus range of 0.1-100 MPa recited in claims 32-34, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant’s arguments regarding the asserted failure of: (i) the provisional double patenting rejections; and (ii) the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103; in the previous Office Action mailed 06/04/2025 to address the recited thickness and Young’s modulus of the polymeric buffer layer have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in the present Office Action (in particular, newly cited references KAWAI ET AL ‘959 and SHIBATA-JP ‘504).
(B) Applicant argues that “Muller... is silent as to any particular thickness for its layer 404 of a viscous curable material.” However, while this limitation is not explicitly disclosed in MULLER ET AL ‘092, the selection of thickness of layer 404 is well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art in order to obtain a predetermined surface topography. In particular, if the thickness of the first polymeric layer (e.g., 404, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 1) in MULLER ET AL ‘092 to be thinner than the desired H1 and H2 (corresponding to the recited “amplitude”) of the first and second sinusoidal profiles, the bottoms of the first and second sinusoidal curves would get “cut off” or “clipped” by the flat surface of substrate 402, thereby generating sharp edges which can cause undesirable stress concentrations in the overlying inorganic barrier layer. Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims from the recited polymeric buffer layer thickness.
(C) Applicant argues that “The Examiner has not provided any rationale to allegedly arrive at the claimed amplitude of between 0.25 µm and 1.0 µm or the claimed wavelength of between 2 µm and 5 µm in view of this very broad disclosure in Muller.” However, the selection of amplitude and wavelength in the barrier films of MULLER ET AL ‘092 are within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the specific end-use application of the barrier film -- e.g., for electronic devices with particularly small and strict dimensional limits, combined with the substantial motivation to reduce component sizes as much as possible in electronic components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to select amplitudes and wavelengths which are on the lower end (e.g., submicron with respect to amplitude; less than 5 microns with respect to wavelength) of the ranges of amplitudes and wavelengths disclosed in MULLER ET AL. Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims from the recited average amplitude and wavelength.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HAN ET AL (US 2014/0093700) disclose barrier films with an undulating surface and decoupling layers.
MIYAKE ET AL (US 5,942,320) disclose barrier films.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
December 21, 2025
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787