Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/134,795

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A TUBE LAMINATE, TUBE LAMINATE AND TUBE PACKAGING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 14, 2023
Examiner
THROWER, LARRY W
Art Unit
1754
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co. Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
622 granted / 947 resolved
+0.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
1016
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.0%
+2.0% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 947 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 16-25, in the reply filed on August 27, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). 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. Claims 16-25 are 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. Regarding claim 16, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the following steps." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the mentioned order." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 16-17, 19-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goel (US 2017/0087814). Claim 16: Goel discloses a method for forming a multi-layer packaging laminate (abstract). The method includes providing a polyolefin film as a base layer of the laminate wherein the base layer forms a first outermost polymer surface of the laminate (¶¶ 69, 76; fig. 4); applying a first polymer layer arrangement in a flowable state onto the base layer at a first application station, the first polymer layer arrangement having at least one polymer layer (¶¶ 69-76; fig. 4); transporting the base layer with the applied first polymer layer arrangement to a further application station (¶¶ 69-76; fig. 4); applying a second polymer layer arrangement onto the first polymer layer arrangement at the further application station, the second polymer layer arrangement having at least one polymer layer, wherein the second polymer layer arrangement forms a second outermost polymer surface of the laminate (¶¶ 69-76); wherein at least one of the first and the second polymer layer arrangements contains a water vapor and/or oxygen transmission polymer barrier layer (¶¶ 69-76); and wherein the second polymer layer arrangement is applied to the first polymer layer arrangement in a flowable state (¶¶ 69-76). Claim 17: Goel discloses the application stations including extruder stations (¶¶ 69-76). Claim 19: Goel discloses extrusion coating at both stations (¶¶ 69-76). Claim 20: Goel discloses EVOH, nylon (PA) and PVOH as barrier options (claims 6-7; ¶¶ 18, 27). Claim 21: Goel discloses coextruding with a tie layer on each side of the barrier layer (¶¶ 27-50). Claim 23: Goel discloses the barrier layer being coated onto the receiving polymer layer (¶ 36). Claim 24: Goel discloses the first or second arrangements consist of only polyolefin layers (¶36). Claims 16-17, 19-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ackermans (US 2019/0299574). Claim 16: Ackermans discloses a method for forming a multi-layer packaging laminate (abstract). The method includes providing a polyolefin film as a base layer of the laminate wherein the base layer forms a first outermost polymer surface of the laminate (¶¶ 19-25); applying a first polymer layer arrangement in a flowable state onto the base layer at a first application station, the first polymer layer arrangement having at least one polymer layer (¶¶ 19-25); transporting the base layer with the applied first polymer layer arrangement to a further application station (¶¶ 60-67); applying a second polymer layer arrangement onto the first polymer layer arrangement at the further application station, the second polymer layer arrangement having at least one polymer layer, wherein the second polymer layer arrangement forms a second outermost polymer surface of the laminate (¶¶ 60-67); wherein at least one of the first and the second polymer layer arrangements contains a water vapor and/or oxygen transmission polymer barrier layer (example 1); and wherein the second polymer layer arrangement is applied to the first polymer layer arrangement in a flowable state (example 1). Claim 17: Ackermans discloses the application stations including extruder stations (example 1). Claim 19: Ackermans discloses extrusion coating at both stations (example 1). Claim 20: Ackermans discloses EVOH, nylon (PA) and PVOH as barrier options (example 1). Claim 21: Ackermans discloses coextruding with a tie layer on each side of the barrier layer (claim 1). Claim 23: Ackermans discloses the barrier layer being coated onto the receiving polymer layer (example 1). Claims 24-25: Ackermans discloses the first or second arrangements consist of only polyolefin layers with different densities (example 1). 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. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 2017/0087814), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Krupa (EP0589567). Claim 18: Goel discloses two-station extrusion coating of multilayer ECLs with multiple extruders per station, but is silent as to the claimed extruder-to-nozzle count. However, in the same field of endeavor, Krupa discloses forming three layers with only two extruders and three nozzles, namely a first nozzle to emit polymer material conveyed by a first extruder device and two nozzles, one on either side of the first nozzle to emit polymer material conveyed by a second extruder device, to extrude exactly three layers (¶¶ 26-27). As taught by Krupa, two extruders can effectively form a classic ABA three-layer configuration (¶¶ 26-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have utilized the extruder configuration of Krupa in the method of Goel in order to effectively extrude three layers of material. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 2017/0087814), as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Nair (US 2022/0363041). Claim 22: Goel is silent as to the claimed layer configuration. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nair discloses a five-layer PE/Tie/EVOH/Tie/PE structure prepared by extrusion lamination/coextrusion (laminate 4; ¶¶ 89-91). As taught by Nair, this five-layer structure provides a barrier laminate with enhanced barrier efficiency (¶¶ 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to prepare the five-layer structure of Nair using the method of Goel in order to create a barrier laminate with enhanced barrier efficiency. Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 2017/0087814), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Chambliss (US 2009/0252981). Goel is silent as to the claimed density or molecular structure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Chambliss discloses polymer arrangements consisting of only polyolefin layers, wherein at least two of the polyolefin layers differ in their density and molecular structure (¶¶ 13-15). As taught by Chambliss, having layers with the claimed polyolefins, reduces or eliminates inadvertent sealing of other than the seal layers (¶ 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the polyolefins of Chambliss in the method of Goel in order fine tune the sealing properties of the laminates. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F. 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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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. /LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 14, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600082
DISPENSING HEAD FOR CONTINUOUS FIBER REINFORCED FUSED FILAMENT TYPE ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12539670
Method and Device for Producing a Three-Dimensional Object in an Optically Reactive Starting Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12484588
Partially Transparent Disposable Piping Bag
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12478129
THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING ALONG A CURVED SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12427701
VEHICLE TRIM COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+12.4%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 947 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month