DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim(s) 14-29, 32-35 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 14-18, 20-23, 28-29, 32-35 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Claim(s) 19, 24-27 is/are withdrawn from consideration.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)).
Claim(s) 19, 24-27 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/30/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent issuing from copending Application No. 18/687,751 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
The provisional rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting based on copending Application No. 18/687,751 have been withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 03/30/2026.
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, 35 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 (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 (104) 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 (106) 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 of the first polymeric layer (104/106, 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 film for electronics (e.g., OLEDs, etc.) or “on products other than electronic devices, like any product that needs protection against permeation of external fluids or gases” (e.g., but not limited to, food packaging applications, etc. -- for example, the barrier layer 102 may be used to coat the inside of a plastic bottle, thereby improving the effectiveness of the plastic bottle against gas-permeation). (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 (104/106, 404) 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 serve as a “template” for an inorganic barrier layer (102, 202) in durable barrier films wherein the inorganic barrier layer is an undulating inorganic barrier layer with undulations (corresponding to the recited “wave structure”) with amplitudes and wavelengths corresponding to the amplitudes and wavelengths of the undulations in the adjacent first polymeric layer (104/106, 404) (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 claims 14, 35, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the thickness of the first polymeric layer (e.g., 104/106, 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 applications which require a relatively high density of ‘flexing’ zones (e.g., peak/valley areas) to prevent cracking of the inorganic barrier layer, 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 ‘092.
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 a flat support layer (402, etc.) for the first polymeric layer (104/106, 404) “template” used to generate the inorganic barrier layer (102, 202) in the barrier film of MULLER ET AL ‘092 in order to produce useful barrier films for various applications (e.g., packaging applications for food and other materials; electronic applications; etc.).
Regarding claim 15, since: (a) MULLER ET AL ‘092 discloses: (i) a first layer (104/106, 404) with sinusoidal profiles (corresponding to the recited “polymeric buffer layer” in claim 14) with a wave height H1 (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; and (b) the inorganic barrier layer substantially conforms to the undulating surface of the first layer (104/106, 404); 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 -- for example, a first polymeric layer (104/106) with a H1=H2=500 nm (corresponding to the recited “average amplitude”) and an L1=L2=3 microns (corresponding to the recited “wavelength”), which results in an inorganic barrier layer with substantially similar L1, H1, H2, L1, L2 values and therefore a wavelength (L1=L2) to amplitude (H1=H2) value of about 6.
Regarding claims 28-29, 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”) and/or retortable (corresponding to the recited “retort stable”) packaging materials conventionally used in the food packaging industry.
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),
as stated in the previous Office Action mailed 12/29/2025.
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),
as stated in the previous Office Action mailed 12/29/2025.
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 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that the Examiner mischaracterizes MULLER ‘092 because “Muller does not state that the disclosed stacks of layers would be useful in packaging applications. The embodiments of stacked layers disclosed in Muller are specific to an OLED (300, Fig. 3, [0058]) and a photovoltaic device (400, Fig. 4, [0068]). Muller does not disclose barrier films appropriate for packaging applications.” However, as admitted by Applicant, MULLER ‘092 discloses that the barrier layer 102 (which has surface undulations generated by conforming to the surface undulations of an adjacent first polymeric layer 104/106, as illustrated by Figure 4 which shows that barrier layer 202 conforms to and therefore replicates the wave-pattern undulations of adjacent first polymer layer 404) can be used on “products other than electronic devices, like any product that needs protection against permeation of external fluids or gases” and further cites a “food packaging” application as an illustrative, non-limiting example of alternative uses for barrier layer 102. MULLER ‘092 discloses -- or at least reasonably suggests -- the use of the disclosed barrier layer 102 with wave-pattern surface undulations (generated by using the undulating surface of adjacent polymer layer 104/106 as a template) in any product that needs protection against permeation of external fluids or gases” such as in “the food packaging industry”. Since it is well known in the art that packaging materials (especially for oxygen-sensitive and/or water-sensitive products such as drugs or food products) commonly require the use of materials which provide barrier properties (i.e., “protection against the intrusion of external fluids or gases”), MULLER ‘092 clearly discloses the use of the disclosed barrier layers 102 with undulating wave-patterns in food packaging applications, and reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed barrier layers 102 with undulating wave-patterns would be useful for other types of packaging applications. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that: (i) the barrier films of MULLER ‘092 is limited only to OLED and photovoltaic applications; (ii) “Muller does not disclose barrier films appropriate for packaging applications”; are unpersuasive.
(B) Applicant argues that “It is not disclosed that this layer would be necessary or useful in a film designed for packaging applications.” However, the mention of using MULLER ‘092’s barrier layers 102 with undulating wave-patterns on the inside of a bottle is merely an illustrative, non-limiting, example of a possible alternative usage, and therefore does not constitute a clear teaching away from using the barrier layer disclosed in MULLER ‘092 (having wave-pattern undulations (generated by using an adjacent polymer layer as a template) in other conventional or known applications well known in the art as requiring barrier properties (i.e., “any product that needs protection against permeation of external fluids or gases”), such as packaging applications.
(C) Applicant argues that “the layer 404 of a viscous curable material in Muller, that relied upon as being representative of the claimed polymeric buffer layer, is only disclosed as
part of the exemplary photovoltaic device 400. It is not disclosed that this layer would be
necessary or useful in a film designed for packaging applications.”
However, the first polymeric layer 104/106 which provides the template for the undulating wave-patterning of the barrier layer 102 is not required to be “a viscous curable material”. Furthermore, MULLER ‘092 further discloses that the material of layer 404 in Figure 4 is curable, which reasonably implies that at some point, it will be subjected to curing and therefore may not retain a “viscous” nature. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, there is nothing in MULLER ‘092 which would prevent the barrier layer disclosed in MULLER ‘092 (having wave-pattern undulations (generated by using an adjacent polymer layer as a template) from being incorporated in or adapted for use in other conventional or known applications well known in the art as requiring barrier properties (i.e., “any product that needs protection against permeation of external fluids or gases”), such as known packaging applications in general, and known types of food packaging materials (e.g., hermetically sealed or retortable packaging) in particular.
(D) Applicant argues that “Muller does not disclose a barrier layer having a "wave function" as described and claimed in the current application.” Applicant further argues that the barrier layer of MULLER ‘092 does not have a regular wavelength or amplitude as defined and claimed by the current application.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a wave structure of the inorganic coating formed in one or more patterns such as regular (i.e. stripes), herringbone and random (i.e. labyrinths); only one wave structure; etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, MULLER ‘092 discloses barrier layers (102, 202) which are deposited on the undulating surface of a previously formed adjacent polymer layer (104/106, 404), so that the barrier layer (102, 202) substantially conforms to the undulating surface of the adjacent polymer layer (104/106, 404), which results in the barrier layer (102, 202) exhibiting the undulations of the adjacent polymer layer (104/106, 404), which exhibits a regular wave structure with a wavelength L1 (measured along the x-y plane) and amplitude H1 (measured in the z-direction), which meets the limitations of the present claims. For example, MULLER ‘092 describes an illustrative, non-limiting example in which “the barrier layer 102 can have a thickness of 200 nm, a wave-height in each of the two perpendicular directions of 500 nm and a wavelength in each of the two perpendicular directions of 1000 nm” (MULLER ‘092, paragraph 0045).
Additionally, it can be seen in Applicant’s own 3D rendering (provided on page 8 of Applicant’s Response filed 03/30/2026) shows that an undulating surface in which a “wave structure” exhibiting a regular wavelength and amplitude is present.
PNG
media_image2.png
289
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since the present claims do not limit the claimed inorganic coating layer to a single “wave structure”, Applicant’s argument that “Since the shape of the barrier layer of Muller is a combination of the first and second undulations, that barrier layer does not have a regular
wavelength or amplitude as defined and claimed by the current application” is not persuasive.
(E) Applicant argues that “Muller does not disclose or suggest at least the
following features: the inorganic coating layer comprising a wave structure characterized by an average amplitude comprised between 0.25 µm and 1.0 µm and a wavelength comprised between 2 µm and 5 µm.” Applicant further argues that “Muller in view of Kawai does not disclose an inorganic layer characterized by a ratio of the wavelength to the average amplitude comprised between 2 and 20.”
However, as discussed in detail above, MULLER ‘092 discloses that barrier layer which has “a wave structure” wherein the “wave structure” of the barrier layer is generated by an adjacent first polymeric layer (104/106, 404) having:
• 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.
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 applications which require a relatively high density of ‘flexing’ zones (e.g., peak/valley areas) to prevent cracking of the inorganic barrier layer, 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.
Similarly, the selection of the ratio of the wavelength to the average amplitude 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., based on the required density of ‘flexing’ zones (e.g., peak/valley areas) and degree of “give” needed to prevent cracking of the inorganic barrier layer, etc.). Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims from the recited ratio of the wavelength to the average amplitude.
(F) Applicant argues that “Muller in view of Kawai does not disclose film structures useful in packaging (see above in the Characterization of Muller). Muller discloses that the barrier layer itself may be used in packaging, but does not disclose that the film structures used therein would be useful in packaging applications. Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used the barrier films of Muller as a component of a hermetically sealed package or a retort stable package.” However, Applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged failure of MULLER ‘092 to disclose (or at least reasonably suggest) the use of MULLER ‘092 in known, conventional packaging applications (e.g., hermetically sealed or retortable packaging, etc.) which benefit from the use of barrier layer materials which are resistant to mechanical stress, thermal stress, and deformation is not persuasive for the reasons discussed in detail above.
(G) Since Applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged failure of MULLER ‘092 to disclose the above features (i.e., wave structure, average amplitude, average wavelength, ratio of wavelength to average amplitude; packaging applications; etc.) are not persuasive for the reasons discussed in detail above, Applicant’s arguments regarding the asserted failure of the secondary references (i.e., KAWAI ET AL ‘959; TSUMAGARI ET AL ‘058; GOTRIK ET AL ‘182; SEARLE ET AL ‘950; SHIBATA-JP ‘504) to address these alleged deficiencies are also deemed not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.
June 11, 2026
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights