DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 12/24/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 13 is cancelled and claims 1-12are 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakita et al (US 2021/0214594 A1) in view of Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakita discloses a packaging material comprising:
a substrate layer made of a heat-resistant resin (a heat-resistant resin layer comprising a polyamide resin; Fig. 1 #2; paragraph [0062]);
a sealant layer made of a thermoplastic resin (a thermoplastic resin layer laminated on an inner side of the metal foil layer; Fig. 1 #3; paragraph [0070]);
a metal foil layer provided between the substrate layer and the sealant layer (a metal foil layer laminated on an inner side of the heat-resistant resin layer; Fig. 1 #4; paragraph [0073]); and
a colored adhesive layer provided between the metal foil layer and the substrate layer (a first adhesive layer imparts a color and is between the metal foil layer and the heat-resistant resin layer; Fig. 1 #5; paragraph [0074]),
wherein the colored adhesive layer contains a color pigment (first adhesive layer contains a color pigment; paragraph [0075]) and
wherein the substrate layer is 2.0% to 20.0% both in hot water shrinkage in a machine direction (MD) and in hot water shrinkage in a transverse direction (TD) perpendicular to the machine direction (heat-resistant resin layer has a hot water shrinkage of 2% to 20%; paragraph [0064]).
Since the heat-resistant resin layer of Kawakita comprises a polyamide resin, which is the same as Applicant’s preferred material for the heat-resistant resin as claimed in claims 1 and 3; the heat-resistant resin layer of Kawakita would inherently have a 1.5% or less difference between the hot water shrinkage in the machine direction and the hot water shrinkage in the transverse direction, 1.5 GPa to 3 GPa both in an elastic modulus in the machine direction and in an elastic modulus in the transverse direction and 320 MPa or more in at least one of breaking strength in the machine direction and breaking strength in the transverse direction where the hot water shrinkage denotes a dimensional change rate in a shrinkage direction before and after immersion of the substrate layer in hot water at 1000 C. for 5 minutes.
The heat-resistant resin layer has a hot water shrinkage of 2% to 20% overlaps the claimed range for the hot water shrinkage of substrate layer in a machine direction and in a transverse direction perpendicular to the machine direction.
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 in order to have higher formability when performing deep drawing or stretch forming and to prevent peeling of the heat-resistant resin layer from the first adhesive layer when used in a harsh environment (paragraph [0069]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kawakita does not disclose the packaging material comprising the substrate layer is formed of a polyamide film that has relative viscosity of 2.9 to 3.1.
However, Park discloses the packaging material comprising the substrate layer is formed of a polyamide film that has relative viscosity of 2.7 to 3.5 (pg. 4 of Park translation).
The relative viscosity of 2.7 to 3.5 in Park overlaps the claimed range for the relative viscosity of the substrate formed of a polyamide film.
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 in order to prevent the moldability of the polyamide resin from being poor and to prevent the thickness of the polyamide resin from being non-uniform (pg. 4 of Park translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material of Kawakita to include the relative viscosity of 2.7 to 3.5 of Park for the polyamide resin of Kawakita because doing so prevents the moldability of the polyamide resin from being poor and to prevent the thickness of the polyamide resin from being non-uniform (pg. 4 of Park translation).
Regarding claim 2, Kawakita and Park disclose the packaging material of claim 1 as noted above and Kawakita discloses the packaging material comprising the colored adhesive layer is made of a colored adhesive composition containing the color pigment and an adhesive (the first adhesive layer made of a color adhesive agent composition comprising a color pigment and an adhesive agent; Fig. 1 #5; paragraph [0075]), wherein the color adhesive composition contains the color pigment of 2 mass% or more and less than 5 mass% with respect to a solid component of the color adhesive composition (Fig. 1 #5; paragraph [0077]), wherein the colored adhesive layer is a coating made of the colored adhesive composition of 5 g/m2 to 10 g/m2 (Fig. 1 #5; paragraph [0078]) and wherein the color pigment has an average particle diameter of 0.1 µm to 5 µm (paragraph [0082]).
The color pigment has an average particle diameter of 0.1 µm to 5 µm overlaps the claimed range for the average particle diameter of the color pigment.
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 in order to have a desired visual effect of the color pigment (paragraph [0075] of Kawakita). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Kawakita and Park disclose the packaging material of claim 1 as noted above and Kawakita discloses the packaging material comprising the metal foil layer having chemical conversion coating films on both surfaces (chemical conversion coatings; paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 7, Kawakita and Park disclose the packaging material of claim 1 as noted above and Kawakita discloses the packaging material comprising matte coat layer provided on an outer surface of the substrate layer (a matte coating layer on the outer surface of the heat-resistant resin layer; paragraph [0110]).
Regarding claim 8, Kawakita discloses a packaging container (molded case) formed by molding the packaging material by deep-drawing or stretch forming (molded portion; paragraph [0119]) and wherein the packaging material of claim 1 is disclosed by Kawakita and Park as noted above.
Regarding claim 9, Kawakita discloses a (power storage packaging material (case for a battery) formed by molding the packaging material by deep-drawing or stretch forming (paragraph [0119]) and wherein the packaging material of claim 1 is disclosed by Kawakita and Park as noted above.
Regarding claim 10, Kawakita discloses a power storage device comprising a power storage device main body (a battery) packaged with a power storage packaging material (case for a battery) formed by molding the packaging material by deep-drawing or stretch forming (paragraph [0119]) and wherein the power storage packaging material of claim 9 is disclosed by Kawakita and Park as noted above.
Regarding claim 11, Kawakita discloses a power storage device comprising a power storage device main body (a battery) packaged with a power storage packaging material (case for a battery) formed by molding the packaging material by deep-drawing or stretch forming (paragraph [0119]) and wherein the packaging material of claim 1 is disclosed by Kawakita and Park as noted above.
Regarding claim 12, Kawakita discloses a power storage device comprising a power storage device main body (battery) packaged with a power storage packaging material (case for a battery) formed by molding the packaging material by deep-drawing or stretch forming (paragraph [0119]) and wherein the packaging container of claim 8 is disclosed by Kawakita and Park as noted above.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakita et al (US 2021/0214594 A1) in view of Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A) in further view of Nagae et al (WO 2015/033897 A1).
Machine translations are being used as the English translations for Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A) and Nagae et al (WO 2015/033897 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kawakita and Park disclose the packaging material of claim 1 as noted above and Kawakita discloses the packaging material comprising the colored adhesive layer (first adhesive layer) comprising an adhesive agent of a two-part curing polyester urethane resin composed of a polyester resin as a main agent and a polyfunctional isocyanate compound as a curing agent (paragraph [0083]), wherein the polyester resin as the main agent is 8,000 to 25,000 in a number average molecular weight (Mn) (paragraph [0089]), 15,000 to 50,000 in a weight average molecular weight (Mw) (paragraph [0089]), and 1.3 to 2.5 in a ratio (Mw/Mn) thereof (paragraph [0089]) and wherein the polyfunctional isocyanate compound as the curing agent contains 70 mol% or more of aromatic isocyanate (paragraph [0091])
Kawakita and Park do not disclose the packaging material comprising the substrate layer configured by a polyamide film having a number average molecular weight of 15,000 to 30,000.
However, Nagae discloses a biaxially oriented nylon film comprising a number average molecular weight of 10,000 to 30,000 (pg. 4 of Nagae translation).
The number average molecular weight of the biaxially oriented polyamide film overlaps the claimed range for the number average molecular weight of the polyamide film.
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 in order to provide sufficient impact strength and tensile strength and to prevent excess entanglement of the molecular chain and excessive strain generated from the stretching process (pg. 4 of Nagae translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material of Kawakita to substitute the polyamide film of Kawakita for the biaxially oriented nylon film of Nagae because doing so provides sufficient impact strength and tensile strength and to prevents excess entanglement of the molecular chain and excessive strain generated from the stretching process (pg. 4 of Nagae translation).
Regarding claim 4, Kawakita, Park and Nagae disclose the packaging material of claim 3 as noted above and Kawakita discloses the packaging material comprising the two-part curing polyester urethane resin comprising the polyester resin being a copolymer composed of polycarboxylic acid and polyhydric alcohol as raw materials (paragraph [0084), wherein the aromatic dicarboxylic acid and the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid comprises an even number of methylenes (paragraph [0085]) and the content rate of aromatic dicarboxylic acid to the total amount thereof is 40 mole% to 80 mole% (paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 5, Kawakita, Park and Nagae disclose the packaging material of claim 3 as noted above and Kawakita discloses the packaging material comprising a cured film of the two-part curing polyester urethane resin having a Young's modulus of 70 MPa to 400 MPa (paragraph [0094]).
Claims 1, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2017/0104189 A1) in view of Oita et al (US 5,683,805 A) in further view of Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a packaging material comprising:
a substrate layer made of a heat-resistant resin a heat-resistant resin layer comprising a biaxially oriented polyamide; Fig. 1 #2; paragraph [0079]);
a sealant layer made of a thermoplastic resin (a heat-fusible resin layer comprising ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and laminated on the inner side of the metal foil layer; Fig. 1 #3; paragraph [0119]);
a metal foil layer provided between the substrate layer and the sealant layer (a metal foil layer on the inner surface of the heat-resistant resin layer; Fig. 1 #4; paragraph [0070]); and
an adhesive layer provided between the metal foil layer and the substrate layer (adhesive layer provided between the metal foil layer and the heat-resistant resin layer; Fig. 1 #5; paragraph [0070]), and
wherein the substrate layer is 1.5% to 12% both in hot water shrinkage in a machine direction (MD) and in hot water shrinkage in a transverse direction (TD) perpendicular to the machine direction (heat-resistant resin layer has a hot water shrinkage rate of 1.5% to 12%; paragraph [0079])
Since the heat-resistant resin layer of He comprises a polyamide resin, which is the same as Applicant’s preferred material for the heat-resistant resin as claimed in claims 1 and 3; the heat-resistant resin layer of He would inherently have a 1.5% or less difference between the hot water shrinkage in the machine direction and the hot water shrinkage in the transverse direction, 1.5 GPa to 3 GPa both in an elastic modulus in the machine direction and in an elastic modulus in the transverse direction and 320 MPa or more in at least one of breaking strength in the machine direction and breaking strength in the transverse direction where the hot water shrinkage denotes a dimensional change rate in a shrinkage direction before and after immersion of the substrate layer in hot water at 1000 C. for 5 minutes.
The heat-resistant resin layer has a hot water shrinkage of 1.5% to 12% overlaps the claimed range for the hot water shrinkage of the substrate layer in a machine direction and in a transverse direction perpendicular to the machine direction.
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 in order to have prevent breakage or cracking at the time of molding and to prevent delamination between the heat-resistant resin layer and the metal foil layer (paragraph [0073]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
He does not disclose the packaging material comprising a colored adhesive layer provided between the metal foil layer and the substrate layer and the colored adhesive layer comprising a pigment.
However, Oita discloses a colored film comprising an adhesive and a coloring pigment with which the adhesive is colored (col. 2, lines 33-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material of He to substitute the first adhesive layer of He with the colored adhesive of Oita because having a colored adhesive provides sufficient coloring power while providing sufficient transparency (col. 6, lines 15-32 of Oita).
He does not disclose the packaging material comprising the substrate layer is formed of a polyamide film that has relative viscosity of 2.9 to 3.1.
However, Park discloses the packaging material comprising the substrate layer is formed of a polyamide film that has relative viscosity of 2.7 to 3.5 (pg. 4 of Park translation).
The relative viscosity of 2.7 to 3.5 in Park overlaps the claimed range for the relative viscosity of the substrate formed of a polyamide film.
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 in order to prevent the moldability of the polyamide resin from being poor and to prevent the thickness of the polyamide resin from being non-uniform (pg. 4 of Park translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material of He to include the relative viscosity of 2.7 to 3.5 of Park for the polyamide resin of He because doing so prevents the moldability of the polyamide resin from being poor and to prevent the thickness of the polyamide resin from being non-uniform (pg. 4 of Park translation).
Regarding claim 6, He, Oita and Park disclose the packaging material of claim 1 as noted above and He discloses the packaging material comprising a metal foil layer having a chemical conversion coating film on at least one surface (chemical conversion film on at least one surface of the metal foil layer; paragraphs [0105] and [0119]).
Regarding claim 8, He discloses a packaging container (case) obtained by shaping by deep drawing the packaging material (paragraph [0124]) and wherein the packaging material of claim 1 is disclosed by He, Oita and Park as noted above.
Regarding claim 9, He discloses a power storage device packaging material (the packaging material arranged on the power storage device main body; paragraph [0125]) and wherein the packaging material of claim 1 is disclosed by He, Oita and Park as noted above.
Regarding claim 10, He discloses a power storage device comprising a power storage device main body and a packaging material arranged on the power storage device main body (paragraph [0125]) and wherein the power storage device packaging material of claim 9 is disclosed by He, Oita and Park as noted above.
Regarding claim 11, He discloses a power storage device comprising a power storage device main body and a packaging material arranged on the power storage device main body (paragraph [0125]) and wherein the power storage device packaging material of claim 1 is disclosed by He, Oita and Park as noted above.
Regarding claim 12, He discloses a power storage device comprising a power storage device main body and a packaging material arranged on the power storage device main body (paragraph [0125]) and wherein the packaging container of claim 8 is disclosed by He, Oita and Park as noted above.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2017/0104189 A1) in view of Oita et al (US 5,683,805 A) in further view of Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A) in further view of Kaibin et al (US 2014/0370368 A1) in further view of Nagae et al (WO 2015/033897 A1).
Machine translations are being used as the English translation for Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A) and Nagae et al (WO 2015/033897 A1).
Regarding claim 3, He, Oita and Park are relied upon as described above.
He, Oita and Park do not disclose the packaging material comprising the colored adhesive layer containing a two-part curing polyester urethane resin composed of a polyester resin as a main agent with 8,000 to 25,000 in a number average molecular weight Mn, 15,000 to 50,000 in a weight average molecular weight Mw and 1.3 to 2.5 in a ratio Mw/Mn.
However, Kaibin discloses a packaging material comprising a first adhesive agent layer between a heat resistant resin layer and a metal foil layer (paragraph [0056]), wherein the first adhesive agent layer comprises a two-part polyester urethane resin (paragraph [0061]) composed of a polyester resin as a main agent with 8,000 to 25,000 in a number average molecular weight Mn (paragraph [0061]), 15,000 to 50,000 in a weight average molecular weight Mw (paragraph [0061]) and 1.3 to 2.5 in a ratio Mw/Mn (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material of He, Oita and Park to substitute the urethane of He for the polyester urethane of Kaibin because having the polyester resin with the required Mn, Mw and ratio of Mw/Mn provides an adhesive with proper coating strength and heat resistance, proper film elongation, appropriate molecular weight distribution and the maintained balance between adhesive agent application suitability and performance (paragraph [0061] of Kaibin).
He, Oita and Park do not disclose the packaging material comprising the polyfunctional isocyanate compound as a curing agent containing 50 mole% or more of aromatic isocyanate.
However, Kaibin discloses the packaging material comprising ae polyfunctional isocyanate compound as a curing agent containing 50 mole% or more of aromatic isocyanate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material of He, Oita and Park to include the polyfunctional isocyanate compound containing 50 mole% or more of aromatic isocyanate in the adhesive of He and Oita because doing do increases the adhesive strength after curing to provide a detachment prevention effect of the heat-resistant resin layer (paragraph [0064] of .
He, Oita and Park do not disclose the packaging material comprising the substrate layer configured by a polyamide film having a number average molecular weight of 15,000 to 30,000.
However, Nagae discloses a biaxially oriented nylon film comprising a number average molecular weight of 10,000 to 30,000 (pg. 4 of translation).
The number average molecular weight of the biaxially oriented polyamide film overlaps the claimed range for the number average molecular weight of the polyamide film.
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 in order to provide sufficient impact strength and tensile strength and to prevent excess entanglement of the molecular chain and excessive strain generated from the stretching process (pg. 4 of Nagae translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material of He, Oita and Park to substitute the polyamide film of He for the biaxially oriented nylon film of Nagae because doing so provides sufficient impact strength and tensile strength and to prevents excess entanglement of the molecular chain and excessive strain generated from the stretching process (pg. 4 of translation).
Regarding claim 4, He, Oita, Park, Kaibin and Nagae disclose the packaging material of claim 3 as noted above and He discloses the packaging material comprising the polyester polyol comprising a polyhydric alcohol component and dicarboxylic acid (dicarboxylic acid and dialcohol as raw materials; paragraph [0093]), aliphatic dicarboxylic acid and aromatic dicarboxylic acid having an even methylene chain (paragraph [0094]) and a content rate of aromatic dicarboxylic acid to a total amount being 40 mole% to 80 mole% (paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 5, He discloses the packaging film comprising the urethane adhesive agent having a Young’s Modulus of 90 to 400 MPa (paragraph [0103]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2017/0104189 A1) in view of Oita et al (US 5,683,805 A) in further view of Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A) in further view of Minamibori et al (US 9,553,284 B2).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Park et al (KR 2011-0075583 A).
Regarding claim 7, He, Oita and Park are relied upon as described above.
He, Oita and Park do not disclose the packaging material comprising a matte coat layer on an outer surface of the substrate layer.
However, Minamibori discloses a packaging material comprising a matte coat layer on an outer surface of the substrate layer (a matte coating layer provided on an outer surface of the outer base material layer; col. 6, lines 33-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material of He, Oita and Park to include the matte coating layer on the outer surface of the heat-resistant resin layer of He because having the required matte coating layer provides a good sliding property to the molding material to improve the formability and provide excellent chemical resistance and abrasion resistance (col. 6, lines 33-42 of Minamibori).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicants argue that Kawakita does not disclose the substrate layer formed of a polyamide film that has a relative viscosity of 2.9 to 3.1
This argument is moot as Kawakita does not disclose the substrate layer formed of a polyamide film that has a relative viscosity of 2.9 to 3.1. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicants argue that He does not disclose the substrate layer formed of a polyamide film that has a relative viscosity of 2.9 to 3.1.
This argument is moot as He does not disclose the substrate layer formed of a polyamide film that has a relative viscosity of 2.9 to 3.1. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights