DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17, 18, 25 and 26 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites “the multilayer structure does not have any layer (A) adjacent to the sealant layer (C), and the multilayer structure does not have any sealant layer (C) adjacent to the layer (A)”. With respect to the limitation “the multilayer structure does not have any layer (A) adjacent to the sealant layer (C), and the multilayer structure does not have any sealant layer (C) adjacent to the layer (A)”, it is noted that the cited phraseology clearly signifies a “negative” or “exclusionary” limitation for which the applicants have no support in the original disclosure. Negative limitations in a claim which do not appear in the specification as filed introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph, Ex Parte Grasselli, Suresh, and Miller, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (Bd. Pat. App. and Inter. 1983); 783 F. 2d 453.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites “the multilayer structure does not have any layer (A) adjacent to the sealant layer (C), and the multilayer structure does not have any sealant layer (C) adjacent to the layer (A)”. It is not clear how layer (A) is not adjacent to layer (C) and how layer (C) is not adjacent to layer (A), given that claim 1 recites a multilayer structure comprising layer (A), layer (B) and layer (C), in that order. In the multilayer structure comprising layer (A)/layer (B)/layer (C), layer (A) is adjacent to layer (C), and layer (C) is adjacent to layer (A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 18, Hayashi et al. disclose a multilayered structure comprising a layer A (oxygen barrier layer) comprising EVOH resin as a main component laminated to a layer C (layer made of polyolefin composition) comprising a polypropylene resin as a main component, wherein layer C is stretched 4 to 10 times in the longitudinal direction (see col. 29, claim 1 and claim 7). The adhesive layer B is provided between layer A and layer C (see col. 29, claim 1). Further, a heat sealing layer H (sealant layer) comprising polypropylene can be provided (see col. 12, lines 40-51). A specific example includes H/C/B/A/B/C, wherein H is heat sealing layer, C is polypropylene layer, B is adhesive layer, A is EVOH layer and C is polypropylene layer.
The layer C (i.e. claimed layer A made of a polyolefin resin composition) comprises polypropylene having a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 100 g/10 minutes under a load of 2.16 kg at 230 °C (see page col., claim 1), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0031 of published application). Therefore, polypropylene of layer C reads on a polyolefin having a melting point of 130 °C or higher. The thickness of layer C is 5 to 95 microns (see col. 13, lines 44-46). Given that layer C of Hayashi et al. is identical to layer A as presently claimed, layer C of Hayashi et al. has a water vapor transmission rate as presently claimed. Given that additives are optionally present in layer C, polypropylene resin is a main component (see col. 6, lines 46-50). Further, given that layer C is identical to the presently claimed layer A, layer C has density as presently claimed.
The layer A (i.e. an oxygen barrier layer B) comprises EVOH having ethylene content of 20 to 60 mol% (see col. 29, claim 1). The thickness of layer A is 1 to 20 microns (see col. 13, lines 30-32). Given that additives are optionally present in layer A, EVOH is a main component (see col. 10, lines 13-18).
The total thickness of the multilayered structure is 10 microns or more (see col. 13, lines 25-29).
While Hayashi et al. disclose the layer H (i.e. sealant layer) comprises polypropylene-containing polymers (see col. 12, lines 40-51), Hayashi et al. do not disclose polypropylene homopolymer.
Schell et al. disclose that it is well known in the art to use heat sealing layer comprising thermoplastic polymer such as polypropylene homopolymers in order to provide sealing of the film (see page 10, paragraph 0036, lines 24-26 and page 11, paragraph 0036, line 2). The sealable resin has melting point of up to 150 C (see page 11, paragraph 0036, lines 28-30).
In light of motivation for using heat sealing layer comprising polypropylene homopolymer disclosed by Schell et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polypropylene homopolymer as the polypropylene-containing polymer in in the sealant layer (layer H) of Hayashi et al. in order to provide sealing properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Goto et al. (JP2019135094A cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Goto et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. disclose the multilayer structure as set forth above. The multilayer structure comprises heat seal layer (layer H), polypropylene layer (layer C), adhesive layer (layer B), EVOH layer (layer A), adhesive layer (layer B) and polypropylene layer (layer C) such as H/C/B/A/B/C (see col. 12, lines 40-46).
Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. disclose that the heat seal layer (layer H) comprises polypropylene homopolymer as noted above, which is identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, polypropylene homopolymer necessarily has a melting point of 240 C or lower.
The polypropylene layer (layer C) comprises polypropylene having a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 100 g/10 minutes under a load of 2.16 kg at 230 °C (see col. 29, claim 1), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0031 of published application). Therefore, polypropylene (resin component in polypropylene layer) necessarily has a melting point of 240 C or lower.
The adhesive layer (layer B) can be polyolefin resin modified with carboxylic acid or anhydrides, esters, amides, or the like thereof, wherein polyolefin can be polyethylene or polypropylene (see col. 11, lines 41-58), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0080 of published application). Therefore, polyolefin resin modified with carboxylic acid or anhydrides, esters, amides, or the like thereof (resin component in adhesive layer) necessarily has a melting point of 240 C or lower.
The EVOH layer (layer A) comprises EVOH having ethylene content of 20 to 60 mol% and having melt flow rate of 0.5 to 50 g/10 min (see col. 29, claim 1 and col. 9, lines 61-64), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0055 and 0057 of published application). Therefore, EVOH (resin component in EVOH layer) necessarily has a melting point of 240 C or lower.
Accordingly, all resin components contained in all layers have a melting point of 240 C or lower.
Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. do not disclose a water-vapor barrier layer (D) between the layer (B) and layer (C).
Goto et al. disclose a barrier film 121 comprising a stretched polypropylene layer 133, an EVOH layer 132 and an aluminum vapor deposition layer 131 (see Abstract, Figure 2 and paragraph 0021). Because the stretched polypropylene layer has excellent water vapor barrier properties, it is possible to prevent EVOH layer from absorbing water vapor through the side that is not subjected to aluminum vapor deposition (see paragraph 0030). Such a barrier film prevents wrinkles and sagging after aluminum deposition, and improves processability of the barrier film (see paragraph 0030). The barrier layer 121 blocks water vapor and oxygen (see paragraph 0020).
In light of motivation for using a barrier film comprising a stretched polypropylene layer, an EVOH layer and an aluminum vapor deposition layer disclosed by Goto et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use an aluminum vapor deposition layer on EVOH layer such that a multilayer structure comprises heat seal layer (layer H), stretched polypropylene layer (layer C), adhesive layer (layer B), aluminum deposition layer/EVOH layer (layer A), adhesive layer (layer B) and stretched polypropylene layer (layer C), in that order in order to prevent wrinkles and sagging after aluminum deposition, improve processability as well as blocks water vapor and oxygen, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, aluminum deposition layer (layer D) is between EVOH layer (layer B) and heat seal layer (layer C).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ding et al. (US 2004/0072949 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. disclose the multilayer structure as set forth above. Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. do not disclose polypropylene resin composition (layer A) comprises a hydrogenated styrene thermoplastic elastomer as presently claimed.
Ding et al. disclose a polyolefin resin blend comprising polypropylene polymer and thermoplastic elastomer such as hydrogenated styrene-butadiene random copolymer which functions as an impact modifier (see Abstract and paragraphs 0044, 0050, 0053). The amount of impact modifier is 0.1 to 40 wt% (see paragraph 0053).
In light of motivation for using 0.1 to 40 wt% of thermoplastic elastomer such as hydrogenated styrene-butadiene random copolymer disclosed by Ding et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 0.1 to 40 wt% of thermoplastic elastomer such as hydrogenated styrene-butadiene random copolymer in the polypropylene resin composition (layer A) in order to improve impact strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kagawa et al. (JP2017226060A cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Kagawa et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. disclose the multilayer structure as set forth above. Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. do not disclose the polypropylene layer (i.e. layer A) is porous.
Kagawa et al. disclose a microporous plastic film that provides high breathability and moisture permeability in comparison to plastic film that is not porous (see paragraphs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0006, 0080, 0081). The plastic film can be oriented polypropylene (stretched polypropylene) (see paragraph 0063). The plastic film can also be a laminated film (see paragraph 0065).
In light of motivation for using a microporous polypropylene plastic film disclosed by Kagawa et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a microporous polypropylene layer as layer C (i.e. layer A) in Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. in order to provide high breathability and moisture permeability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2006/0281882 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 11-13, Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. disclose the multilayer structure as set forth above. Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. do not disclose EVOH layer (i.e. layer B) comprises an oxygen-absorbing resin.
Tsuji et al. disclose an oxygen absorption resin composition comprising a gas barrier resin such as EVOH, a thermoplastic resin having carbon-carbon double bonds substantially in its main chain such as polyoctenylene and a transition metal salt (see Abstract and paragraphs 0047, 0065, 0074, 0075 and 0093). The composition has excellent oxygen absorption properties and suppresses generation of odorous substances derived from the decomposition of resins as a result of oxygen absorption (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using an oxygen absorption resin composition comprising EVOH, polyoctenylene and transition metal salt disclosed by Tsuji et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use an oxygen absorption resin composition comprising EVOH, polyoctenylene and transition metal salt instead of EVOH for preparing EVOH layer (i.e. layer B) in Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. in order to provide excellent oxygen absorption properties and suppress generation of odorous substances derived from the decomposition of resins as a result of oxygen absorption, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ishii et al. (JP2010111098A cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Ishii et al. are based on a machine translation of JP5199838B2 (equivalent of JP2010111098A) which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. disclose the multilayer structure as set forth above. Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. do not disclose layer B comprises a layer B1 and a layer B2 as presently claimed.
Ishii et al. disclose a laminate of EVOH layer A, EVOH layer B and EVOH layer A, wherein EVOH layer A has ethylene content of 20 to 30 mol% and EVOH layer B has ethylene content 3 mol% or more higher than ethylene content of EVOH layer A (see paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0011). EVOH layer A provides oxygen barrier properties, but has poor thermal stability (see paragraphs 0010, 0011). EVOH layer B provides thermal stability by covering EVOH layer A and prevents generation of cross-linked gel in EVOH (see paragraph 0011).
In light of motivation for using a laminate of EVOH layer A, EVOH layer B and EVOH layer A disclosed by Ishii et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use to use outer EVOH layers (B2) on each side of EVOH layer (B1) of Hayashi et al. such that the outer EVOH layers have ethylene content 3 mol% or more higher than ethylene content of EVOH layer of Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. in order to provide oxygen barrier properties, thermal stability and prevent generation of cross-linked gel in EVOH, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Negi et al. (CA 1324312 C cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. disclose the multilayer structure as set forth above. While Hayashi et al. disclose other resin such as polyamide can be blended with EVOH (see col. 10, lines 13-18), Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. do not disclose EVOH (layer B) comprises an aliphatic polyamide.
Negi et al. disclose a blend of EVOH and polyamide, wherein amount of polyamide added to EVOH is 5 to 30 wt% in order to improve fabrication properties, prevent crack and unevenness, and have good gas barrier properties (see page 10, lines 11-17). The polyamide is an aliphatic copolymer, i.e. aliphatic polyamide (see page 8, lines 24-27). A layer comprising the blend of EVOH and polyamide can be laminated to a thermoplastic resin layer comprising polypropylene resin (see page 22, claims 1 and 2). Such a multilayered structure has excellent has barrier properties and minimized unevenness (see Abstract). According to the present claim, the amount of aliphatic polyamide is 20 wt% or less (20 = 25/125 x 100).
In light of motivation for using 5 to 30 wt% of aliphatic polyamide blended with EVOH disclosed by Negi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 5 to 30 wt% of aliphatic polyamide blended with EVOH in EVOH layer (i.e. layer B) in Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. in order to improve fabrication properties, prevent crack and unevenness, and have good gas barrier properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yamada et al. (WO 2020/045629 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that when utilizing Yamada et al., the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2021/0347148 A1 (cited in IDS) which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Yamada et al. are found in US ‘148.
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. disclose the multilayer structure as set forth above. Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. do not disclose thickness of aluminum vapor deposition layer (layer D).
Yamada et al. disclose a vapor deposited aluminum film having thickness of 1 nm to 150 nm to improve oxygen barrier properties and water vapor barrier properties of a laminate for a packaging material as well as prevent cracks from forming in the vapor deposited film and improve recyclability of a laminate for a packaging material (see paragraphs 0177-0181).
In light of motivation for using a vapor deposited aluminum film having thickness of 1 nm to 150 nm disclosed by Yamada et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a vapor deposited aluminum film having thickness of 1 nm to 150 nm in Hayashi et al. in view of Schell et al. in order to improve oxygen barrier properties and water vapor barrier properties of a laminate for a packaging material as well as prevent cracks from forming in the vapor deposited film and improve recyclability of a laminate for a packaging material, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (JP 2008018976 A cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2). It is noted that the disclosures of Saito et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS) which is included in the previous action.
Regarding claim 25, Saito et al. disclose a multi-layer container (multilayer structure) comprising an outside layer (layer A) comprising an olefin resin material, an intermediate layer (layer B) comprising ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) and an inside layer (layer C) comprising an olefin resin material (see Abstract). The EVOH has ethylene content of 28 to 45 mol% (see paragraph 0029). The multilayer structure can be heat-sealed, wherein the multilayer structure can be a bag (Figure 1 and paragraphs 0019, 0061). That is, the outside layer and/or the inside layer are heat sealable.
The outer layer is made of polypropylene resin (see paragraph 0015). Given that polypropylene is identical to polyolefin utilized in the present invention, polypropylene is a polyolefin having a melting point as presently claimed. Given that the outer layer is made of polyolefin identical to that utilized in the present invention for a layer (A), the outside layer reads on the layer (A) having a water vapor transmission rate and humidity as presently claimed. The thickness of the outside layer (layer A) is about 10 to 20 microns (see paragraph 0055). Given that outer layer is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent that outer layer has density as presently claimed.
The inner layer is made of polypropylene resin (see paragraph 0015). Given that the inner layer is made of polyolefin identical to that utilized in the present invention for a sealant layer (C), the inside layer reads on the sealant layer (C). The thickness of the inner layer (layer C) is 10 to 20 microns (see paragraph 0055). The thickness of intermediate layer (layer B) is 10 to 20 microns (see paragraph 0055). Each of the adhesive layer interposed between outer layer and intermediate layer, and the adhesive layer interposed between intermediate layer and inner layer, has thickness of 5 to 10 microns (see paragraphs 0054 and 0055). Accordingly, the multi-layer container has a total thickness of 40 to 80 microns (40 = 10 + 5 +10 + 5 + 10 and 80 = 20 + 10 + 20 + 10 + 20).
Accordingly, Saito et al. disclose the multilayer structure comprising layer A, layer B and layer C, in that order as presently claimed. That is, the multilayer structure does not have layer A directly adjacent to layer C, and does not have layer C directly adjacent to layer A.
Saito et al. do not disclose the inner layer (sealant layer C) comprises a polypropylene resin as presently claimed.
Schell et al. disclose that it is well known in the art to use heat sealing layer comprising thermoplastic polymer such as polypropylene homopolymers in order to provide sealing of the film (see page 10, paragraph 0036, lines 24-26 and page 11, paragraph 0036, line 2). The sealable resin has melting point of up to 150 C (see page 11, paragraph 0036, lines 28-30).
In light of motivation for using heat sealable resin such as polypropylene homopolymer disclosed by Schell et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polypropylene homopolymer as polypropylene resin in the outer and/or inner layer of Schell et al. in order to provide sealing properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, the inner layer reads on heat sealant layer (layer C) as presently claimed.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 6,503,588 B1 cited in IDS) in view of Schell et al. (WO 2006/063283 A2).
Regarding claim 26, Hayashi et al. disclose a multilayered structure comprising a layer A (oxygen barrier layer) comprising EVOH resin as a main component laminated to a layer C (layer made of polyolefin composition) comprising a polypropylene resin as a main component (see col. 29, claim 1). The adhesive layer B is provided between layer A and layer C (see col. 29, claim 1). Further, a heat sealing layer H (sealant layer) comprising polypropylene can be provided (see col. 12, lines 40-51). A specific example includes H/C/B/A/B/C, wherein H is heat sealing layer, C is polypropylene layer, B is adhesive layer, A is EVOH layer and C is polypropylene layer.
The layer C (i.e. claimed layer A made of a polyolefin resin composition) comprises polypropylene having a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 100 g/10 minutes under a load of 2.16 kg at 230 °C (see col. 29, claim 1), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0031 of published application). Therefore, polypropylene of layer C reads on a polyolefin having a melting point of 130 °C or higher. The thickness of layer C is 5 to 95 microns (see col. 13, lines 44-46). Given that layer C of Hayashi et al. is identical to layer A as presently claimed, layer C of Hayashi et al. has a water vapor transmission rate as presently claimed. Given that additives are optionally present in layer C, polypropylene resin is a main component (see col. 6, lines 46-50). Further, given that layer C is identical to the presently claimed layer A, layer C has density as presently claimed.
The layer A (i.e. an oxygen barrier layer B) comprises EVOH having ethylene content of 20 to 60 mol% (see col. 29, claim 1). The thickness of layer A is 1 to 20 microns (see col. 13, lines 30-32). Given that additives are optionally present in layer A, EVOH is a main component (see col. 10, lines 13-18).
The total thickness of the multilayered structure is 10 microns or more (see col. 13, lines 25-29).
Hayashi et al. disclose the multilayered structure is a film stretched to 3 to 12 times larger in at least one direction (see col. 30, claim 5). Given that the multilayer structure is stretched 3 to 12 times larger in at least one direction, all the layers of the multilayer structure including layer C (i.e. claimed layer A made of a polyolefin resin composition) will be stretched 3 to 12 times larger in at least one direction.
While Hayashi et al. disclose the layer H (i.e. sealant layer) comprises polypropylene-containing polymers (see col. 12, lines 40-51), Hayashi et al. do not disclose polypropylene homopolymer.
Schell et al. disclose that it is well known in the art to use heat sealing layer comprising thermoplastic polymer such as polypropylene homopolymers in order to provide sealing of the film (see page 10, paragraph 0036, lines 24-26 and page 11, paragraph 0036, line 2). The sealable resin has melting point of up to 150 C (see page 11, paragraph 0036, lines 28-30).
In light of motivation for using heat sealing layer comprising polypropylene homopolymer disclosed by Schell et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polypropylene homopolymer as the polypropylene-containing polymer in the sealant layer (layer H) of Hayashi et al. in order to provide sealing properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above.
Applicants argue that in making the rejection, the examiner alleges that "given that layer C of Hayashi et al. is identical to layer A as presently claimed, layer C of Hayashi et al. has a water vapor transmission rate as presently claimed." See Paragraph 17 of the office action. Applicant respectfully disagrees that layer C of Hayashi is identical to layer A as presently claimed. As such, layer C of Hayashi does not inherently have a water vapor transmission rate as presently claimed. The polypropylene resin (C) in layer C of Hayashi has high crystallinity. See Hayashi at col. 6, II. 7-21. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a water vapor transmission rate of a polymer decreases as crystallinity increases. As provided in the specification, "[i]f a stretching ratio is too large, orientational crystallization increases so that water vapor transmission rate decreases" (see Specification at paragraph [0042]).
While the applicants argue that stretching ratio affects crystallization and therefore water vapor transmission rate, it is noted that Hayashi discloses that the layer C (i.e. claimed layer A) comprising polypropylene is stretched 4 to 10 times in the longitudinal direction (see col. 29, claim 1 and claim 7). Given the stretching ratio of layer C (i.e. claimed layer A) overlaps with that utilized in the present invention (claim 7) and given that layer C comprises polypropylene resin similar to polyolefin utilized in the present invention (claim 3), layer C is identical to layer A as presently claimed. Therefore, layer C of Hayashi necessarily inherently has a water vapor transmission rate as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Alternatively, Hayashi et al. also disclose that the multilayered structure is a film stretched to 3 to 12 times larger in at least one direction (see col. 30, claim 5). Given that the multilayer structure is stretched 3 to 12 times larger in at least one direction, all the layers of the multilayer structure including layer C (i.e. claimed layer A made of a polyolefin resin composition) will be stretched 3 to 12 times larger in at least one direction. Given the stretching ratio of layer C (i.e. claimed layer A) overlaps with that utilized in the present invention (claims 7 and 26) and given that layer C comprises polypropylene resin similar to polyolefin utilized in the present invention (claim 3), layer C is identical to layer A as presently claimed. Therefore, layer C of Hayashi necessarily inherently has a water vapor transmission rate as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Further, regarding “layer C of Hayashi does not inherently have a water vapor transmission rate as presently claimed”, applicants have provided no evidence (i.e. data) to support their position.
Applicants argue that Hayashi also discloses that a polyolefin such as polypropylene (PP) that has excellent humidity resistance (i.e., low water vapor transmission rate) is used for Hayashi's multilayer film. See Hayashi at col. 1, II. 23-32. Accordingly, Hayashi fails to inherently teach or suggest the claimed layer (A) having a high water vapor transmission rate as set forth in claim 1. Hayashi teaches away from using a layer (A) having a high water vapor transmission rate, as Hayashi's multilayered film requires a polyolefin layer which has excellent humidity resistance.
However, applicants have provided no evidence (i.e. data) to show that layer C (i.e. claimed layer A) comprising polypropylene of Hayashi would not provide water vapor transmission rate as presently claimed.
Applicants argue that, in making the rejection of claim 16, the examiner alleges that Hayashi's layer H (i.e. sealant layer) comprises a polypropylene resin, citing to Hayashi at col. 12, lines 40-51. See Paragraph 19 off the office action. In response, Applicant respectfully submits that Hayashi fails to teach or suggest a layer (C) comprising a polypropylene homopolymer as set forth in claim 1. Specifically, Hayashi at col. 12, lines 40-51 discloses various copolymers, polyethylene, or ethylene-vinyl acetate, but does not teach or suggest a polypropylene homopolymer:
In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above.
Applicants argue that as such, Hayashi fails to teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. Goto, Ding, Kagawa, Tsuji, Ishii, Negi, and Yamada fail to cure the deficiencies of Hayashi.
However, note that while Goto, Ding, Kagawa, Tsuji, Ishii, Negi, and Yamada do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Goto, Ding, Kagawa, Tsuji, Ishii, Negi, and Yamada are each used as a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather each reference teaches a certain concept, namely water-vapor barrier layer by Goto, hydrogenated styrene thermoplastic elastomer by Ding, porous polypropylene layer by Kagawa, oxygen absorbing resin and transition metal salt by Tsuji et al., laminate of EVOH layers by Ishii et al., a blend of EVOH and polyamide by Negi et al. and thickness of water-vapor barrier layer by Yamada et al., and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787