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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 10/14/25 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 18 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled, leaving claims 1-20 currently active and pending.
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 1-8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambroise et al. (US 2018/0361722).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12-15, 18, and 19 Ambroise teaches a label (Ambroise para 25) comprising a polymer multilayer film (Ambroise para 17) comprising a polymer core layer (polymer matrix) with a first side and a second side (Ambroise para 27-28; Tables 2-5), a first tie layer (intermediate layer) on the first side of the core layer (Ambroise para 36; Tables 2-5), a second tie layer (intermediate layer) on the second side of the core layer (Ambroise para 36; Tables 2-5), a first skin layer on the first tie layer, so that the tie layer is between the first side of the core and the first skin layer (Ambroise para 36, 40; Tables 2-5), a second skin layer on the second tie layer so that the tie layer is between the second side of the core and the second skin layer (Ambroise para 36, 40; Tables 2-5). Ambroise further teaches that the core layer has a greater thickness than the tie layers or the skin layers (Ambroise Table 2-5), where the core layer is from 5-50 µm thick (Ambroise para 35). Additionally Ambroise teaches that exemplary films may have a total thickness of 30 µm, but may range from 10-120 µm (Ambroise para 16; Tables 2-5). Ambroise teaches a cavitating agent of polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) in the core layer in an amount of 2-10 wt% with a particle size of 0.1-10 µm which provides for voids, at least some of which would intrinsically possess the initiating PBT particle (Ambroise para 33, 51). Lastly, Ambroise teaches that the multilayer film may have an adhesive layer applied (Ambroise para 22).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the layer thickness, PBT particle size, and particle amount taught by Ambroise overlaps with the instantly claimed layer thickness, PBT particle size, and particle amount and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
While Ambroise does not explicitly teach a first surface gloss being from 75-80 and a second surface gloss being from 60-77 per ASTM D2457 at an angle of 45°; nor does Ambroise explicitly teach an opacity of from 80-92 per TAPPI T425, as Ambroise teaches the same materials (polypropylene, PBT cavitating agent, as above, paragraph 41) as claimed and subjects it to the same stretching process (biaxial orienting with a stretch ratio of 3-6 times in the machine direction and 4-10 times in the transverse direction (Ambroise para 60; Applicant’s as-filed specification at paragraph 36) it would be expected to exhibit the same properties, such as first and second surface gloss and opacity if measured in the claimed manner. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Ambroise teaches a multilayer film for a label as above for claims 1 and 13. Ambroise further teaches that the thickness of the tie (intermediate) layers may be from 2.5-5 µm (Ambroise para 39). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Ambroise teaches a multilayer film for a label as above for claims 1 and 13. Ambroise further teaches that the thickness of the skin layers may be 0.50-3.5 µm (Ambroise para 43). With particular examples of 1 µm (Tables 2-5). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 8, Ambroise teaches a multilayer film for a label as above for claim 1. Ambroise further teaches that the first and second skin layers may be subjected to a corona treatment (Ambroise para 47, 61).
Claims 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambroise as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kitada et al. (US 2019/0375200).
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 20, Ambroise teaches a multilayer film for a label as above for claims 1 and 13. Ambroise further teaches the inclusion of metal soaps as a slip agent in an amount of 0.1-2 wt% based on the total weight of the layer (Ambroise para 52).
Ambroise is silent with respect to the metal soaps being calcium, manganese, and/or zinc stearate.
Ambroise and Kitada are related in the field of multilayer films for labels. Kitada teaches the use of calcium or zinc stearates as preferred metal soaps for lubrication (slip) behavior (Kitada para 73). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select either calcium or zinc stearate as the metal soap of Ambroise as taught by Kitada because these are preferred slip/lubrication agents in multilayer labels.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambroise as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Migliorini et al. (US 2003/0211298).
Regarding claim 11, Ambroise teaches a multilayer film for a label as above for claim 1. Ambroise further teaches that the skin layers may include sealing layers (Ambroise para 7).
Ambroise is silent with respect to the sealing layer being a heat sealing layer with an initiation temperature of greater than 75°C.
Ambroise. and Migliorini are related in the field of biaxially oriented polypropylene cavitated multilayer films. Migliorini teaches including a heat sealing layer with an activation temperature of about 100°C (Migliorini para 136) noting that high heat sealing temperatures are desirable so that the films may be processed on conventional lines for biaxially oriented polypropylene (Migliorini para 3). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sealing layer(s) of Ambroise to be high temperature heat sealing layers as taught by Migliorini because this would allow the multilayer film of Ambroise to be processed on standard equipment for biaxially oriented polypropylene.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 10/14/25 with respect to the objections of claims 6, 11, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to these claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 12/27/2025