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 .
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell (US 2018/0369859) in view of Ebina (US 2007/0027248) taken in view of the evidence given by Smectite Group.
Re claims 1, 10, 21-24, and 26-28, Boswell discloses a film comprising more than one water-soluble layer including three layers (0044). Each water soluble layer includes water-soluble polymer including polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene oxide or methylcellulose (0075). Any of the water-soluble layers can include gas barrier additive such as nanoclay (0086, 0091), i.e. nanocomposite. Boswell therefore discloses film comprising water-soluble polymer layer/nanocomposite/water soluble polymer layer.
Boswell does no disclose Dissolution Time as claimed.
Ebina discloses water-soluble polymer clay film (0016, 0050) comprising clay including natural or synthetic smectite (0028) having a particle size up to 1 micron and aspect ratio up to 300 (0025), i.e. nanoplatelet. As evidenced by Smectite Group, smectite naturally has a basal spacing of 14.4- 15.6 Angstroms (page 1, paragraph 1). The claim includes hectorite (0021), i.e. trioctahedral smectite. The clay film has a thickness of 3-30 microns and is flexible, self-supporting, and easy to work with (0023). The clay film can be used in a multilayer film (0056). The clay film has mechanical strength, excellent flexibility, and good barrier properties (0068).
In light of the motivation for using clay film having thickness of 3-30 microns and comprising smectite nanoplatelets disclosed by Ebina as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use nanocomposite with such thickness and such smectite nanoplatelets as the nanoclay in the nanocomposite of Boswell in order to produce a film with mechanical strength, excellent flexibility, and good barrier properties.
Given that Boswell in view of Ebina disclose film identical to that presently claimed, it would inherently have the same Dissolution Time as claimed.
Re claims 3-6, Boswell discloses that the film has water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of 7.75 to 248 g/m2 day (0102). Given that Boswell in view of Ebina disclose film identical to that presently claimed, it would inherently have the same WVTR as presently claimed.
Re claim 7, Boswell discloses that the film as a thickness of 50-100 microns (0085). Therefore, each layer would necessarily have a thickness of less than 50-100 microns.
Re claim 8, Bowell discloses the water-soluble layers can have different water-soluble polymers (0083).
Re claim 9, Boswell discloses the film can include three water-soluble layers, five water-soluble layers, or more water-soluble layers (0044).
Re claims 11 and 13, Boswell discloses the water-soluble polymer has any suitable degree of hydrolysis including 60-100% (0080). Further, the polyvinyl alcohol would necessarily have to be either a homopolymer or copolymer.
Re claims 12, 14, and 15, Boswell discloses the water-soluble polymer has weight average molecular weight of about 20,000 to about 150,000 (0076).
Re claim 16, given that the claim only further limits an optional limitation, it is considered met by the prior art.
Re claim 17, given that the claim only further limits an optional limitation, it is considered met by the prior art.
Re claims 18-19, Boswell discloses the water-soluble polymer layers include plasticizers including glycerol and propylene glycol (0086-0087).
Re claim 20, given that Boswell in view of Ebina disclose film identical to that presently claimed, the nanocomposite would inherently be distinct as claimed.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell (US 2018/0369859) in view of Ebina (US 2007/0027248) taken in view of the evidence given by Smectite Group and further in view of Seo (KR 20050083310).
Boswell in view of Ebina disclose film as set forth above.
Boswell in view of Ebina do not disclose aspect ratio of the clay nanoplatelets as presently claimed.
Seo disclose gas barrier coating comprising layered compound including clay such as smectite having aspect ratio of 50-1000 where if the aspect ratio is less than 50, gas barrier properties are not sufficiently exhibited and if the aspect ratio is greater than 1000, there is a decrease gas barrier properties (pages 5-7).
In light of the motivation for using clay with specific aspect ratio disclosed by Seo as described above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use clay nanoplatelets with such aspect ratio in Boswell in view of Ebina to produce a film with good gas barrier properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are considered convincing due to the statements and are moot in view of the new ground of rejection using a new reference as primary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 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 on 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights