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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 56, 75, and 79-81, 83, and 85-112 are currently pending.
Claims 56 and 75 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 02/12/2026 have been entered.
Claims 79-81, 83, and 85 have been amended.
The Section 103 rejections have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
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 79, 81, 88-90, 101-102, 104, and 107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courchay et al. (US 2020/0339920 A1) in view of Knight et al. (US 2022/0127488 A1).
Regarding claim 79,
Courchay teaches an article made from a water-soluble film comprising a first water soluble film layer and a second water-soluble film layer in contact with one another in a seal area with the first layer may be considered a first surface forming an outer surface of the film (Courchay: abstract; Figs. 1-3; par. 0007 and 0023).
The first layer is a first water-soluble resin may comprise a mixture of at least one homopolymers and/or copolymers comprising anionic monomers such as an alkyl acrylate modified polyvinyl alcohol copolymer (Courchay: par. 0036-0044). The first layer may have a plasticizer and a surfactant (Courchay: par. 0074). The first layer may comprise stearic acid (an anti-block additive according to Applicant’s specification) (Courchay: par. 0097 and Applicant’s PGpub: par. 0080).
The second layer contains a second water soluble resin comprising at least one polyvinyl alcohol copolymer and a monomethyl maleate-modified polyvinyl alcohol copolymer as the layer may have at least one PVOH copolymer (Courchay: par. 0036-0044). The second layer may have a plasticizer and a surfactant (Courchay: par. 0074).
The thicknesses between the first and second layers may be the same or different and the compositions may be slightly similar or the same with slightly different or the same additives compositions and amounts (Courchay: par. 0028, 0034-0035, and throughout the disclosure). Thus, the first and the second layer may be present at a ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 1:200 to about 1:1, respectively, based on the total weight of the water-soluble film. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
The first and second layers may both be thermoformed (a first and second heat history, respectively) in which they may be considered to have a “same heat history” as they may both be thermoformed and Applicant does not have any special definition in the specification for defining what constitutes a “heat history” (Courchay: par. 0033).
It is noted that the first and second heat history limitations are product-by-process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed multilayer water-soluble film and the multilayer water-soluble disclosed by Courchay.
Courchay is silent towards the specific composition of the alkyl acrylate in the first layer polyvinyl alcohol copolymer. However, Knight teaches acrylate modified polyvinyl alcohols comprising anionic modifiers in which methyl acrylate modified polyvinyl alcohol copolymers are known to be utilized in forming similar films with desired adhesive and barrier properties (Knight: abstract; par. 0016, 0031, and 0032).
Courchay and Knight are in the corresponding field of water-soluble films composed of modified PVOH copolymers having overlapping anionic monomers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize methyl acrylate as the alkyl acrylate in the modified PVOH copolymer in the first layer of Courchay as it is a known suitable alkyl acrylate for similar compounds that are known to provide improved adhesion and barrier properties as taught by Knight.
Courchay and Knight are silent towards the water-soluble films haze% of being less than about 50 as determined by the Haze Test and the static coefficient of friction between a first portion of the outer layer surface and a second portion of the outer surface of the film being less than about 2 as determined by the Coefficient of friction Test.
However, Courchay and Knight teach the claimed and disclosed film structure, compositions, including the compositional proportions and additives. Thus, it would be expected that the resulting film would have the same properties, such as the claimed haze% and the claimed coefficient of friction, when tested in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 81,
Courchay teaches an article made from a water-soluble film comprising a first water soluble film layer and a second water-soluble film layer in contact with one another in a seal area with the first layer may be considered a first surface forming an outer surface of the film (Courchay: abstract; Figs. 1-3; par. 0007 and 0023).
The first layer is a first water-soluble resin may comprise a mixture of at least one polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers and/or copolymers (Courchay: par. 0036-0044). The first layer may have a plasticizer and a surfactant (Courchay: par. 0074). The first layer may comprise stearic acid (an anti-block additive according to Applicant’s specification) (Courchay: par. 0097 and Applicant’s PGpub: par. 0080).
The second layer contains a second water soluble resin comprising at least one polyvinyl alcohol copolymer (Courchay: par. 0036-0044). The second layer may have a plasticizer and a surfactant (Courchay: par. 0074).
The thicknesses between the first and second layers may be the same or different and the compositions may be slightly similar or the same with slightly different or the same additives compositions and amounts (Courchay: par. 0028, 0034-0035, and throughout the disclosure). Thus, the first and the second layer may be present at a ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 1:200 to about 1:1, respectively, based on the total weight of the water-soluble film. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
The first and second layers may both be thermoformed (a first and second heat history, respectively) in which they may be considered to have a “same heat history” as they may both be thermoformed and Applicant does not have any special definition in the specification for defining what constitutes a “heat history” (Courchay: par. 0033).
It is noted that the first and second heat history limitations are product-by-process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed multilayer water-soluble film and the multilayer water-soluble disclosed by Courchay.
Courchay is silent towards the first layer additionally comprising hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose.
Knight teaches modified polyvinyl alcohols with overlapping copolymers with that of Courchay as they are known to be utilized in forming similar films with desired adhesive and barrier properties in addition to other components such as hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (Knight: abstract; par. 0016, 0031-0032, and 0042).
Courchay and Knight are in the corresponding field of water-soluble films composed of modified PVOH copolymers having overlapping anionic monomers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to hydroxypropyl methylcellulose to the first layer containing modified PVOH copolymer of Courchay as it is a known suitable additional component for similar compounds that are known to provide improved adhesion and barrier properties as taught by Knight.
Regarding claims 88-90,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay does not teach wherein the second layer has an anti-blocking agent and thus may be considered substantially free of an anti-blocking agent.
Courchay does not explicitly teach wherein an anti-blocking agent is added to the first layer in a n amount of about 2% to about 20% by weight of the first layer.
Knight teaches modified polyvinyl alcohol layers (corresponds to the claimed first layer) with overlapping copolymers with that of Courchay as they are known to be utilized in forming similar films with desired adhesive and barrier properties in addition to other components such as anti-blocking agents in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 6 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed about 2 to about 10% by weight of the first layer (Knight: abstract; par. 0016, 0031-0032, and 0063).
Courchay and Knight are in the corresponding field of PVOH modified water-soluble films composed of overlapping components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add anti-blocking agents to the first layer of Courchay in the claimed amounts to provide improved processing to the formation of the films as taught by Knight.
It is further noted that Courchay states the first second layer may be different in various ways including different additives (Courchay: par. 0030-0032). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that one layer may have additives such as anti-blocking agent and the other may not have it as the anti-blocking agent additives are optional in the PVOH modified layers and the two layers may be chemically different.
Courchay and Knight are silent towards the water-soluble films haze% as determined by the Haze Test and the static coefficient of friction as determined by the Coefficient of friction Test wherein the combination of haze% and static coefficient of friction lies within a polygon defined by the claimed vertices.
However, Courchay and Knight teach the claimed and disclosed film structure, compositions, including the compositional proportions and additives. Thus, it would be expected that the resulting film would have the same properties, such as the claimed haze% and the claimed coefficient of friction, when tested in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 101 and 102,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay does not explicitly teach wherein the first water-soluble resin comprises a bio-based resin such as hydroxypropyl methylcellulose.
Knight teaches modified polyvinyl alcohols with overlapping copolymers with that of Courchay as they are known to be utilized in forming similar films with desired adhesive and barrier properties in addition to other components such as hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (Knight: abstract; par. 0016, 0031-0032, and 0042).
Courchay and Knight are in the corresponding field of water-soluble films composed of modified PVOH copolymers having overlapping anionic monomers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to hydroxypropyl methylcellulose to the first layer containing modified PVOH copolymer of Courchay as it is a known suitable additional component for similar compounds that are known to provide improved adhesion and barrier properties as taught by Knight.
Regarding claim 104,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 103. Courchay is silent towards the composition of the plasticizer and is thus silent towards the plasticizer being selected from one of the compounds in claim 104.
Knight teaches modified polyvinyl alcohols with overlapping copolymers with that of Courchay as they are known to be utilized in forming similar films with desired adhesive and barrier properties in addition to other components such as plasticizer composed of glycerol, sorbitol, dipropylene glycol, and other overlapping components to provide improved plasticity properties (Knight: abstract; par. 0016, 0031-0032, and 0046-0047).
Courchay and Knight are in the corresponding field of water-soluble films composed of modified PVOH copolymers having overlapping anionic monomers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize plasticizers that satisfy the listed compounds to the first layer and/or second layer containing modified PVOH copolymer of Courchay as it is a known suitable additional component for similar compounds that are known to provide improved plasticity properties as taught by Knight.
Regarding claim 107,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay does explicitly teach the first layer has a thickness in a range of about 1 micron to about 5 microns.
Knight teaches modified polyvinyl alcohols with overlapping copolymers with that of Courchay as they are known to be utilized in forming similar films with desired adhesive and barrier properties in addition to other components such as plasticizer composed of glycerol, sorbitol, dipropylene glycol, and other overlapping components to provide improved plasticity properties (Knight: abstract; par. 0016, 0031-0032, and 0046-0047). The films may have a thickness of from about 2.54 microns to about 50.8 microns to give the appropriate dissolving time for the intended use in the desired device (Knight: par. 0071). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Courchay and Knight are in the corresponding field of water-soluble films composed of modified PVOH copolymers having overlapping anionic monomers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the first layer of Courchay to within the claimed range to provide the desired dissolving properties for the intended use as taught by Knight.
Claims 80, 85-87, 91-100, 103, 105-106, and 108-112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courchay.
Regarding claim 80,
Courchay teaches an article made from a water-soluble film comprising a first water soluble film layer and a second water-soluble film layer in contact with one another in a seal area with the first layer may be considered a first surface forming an outer surface of the film (Courchay: abstract; Figs. 1-3; par. 0007 and 0023).
The first layer contains a first water-soluble resin may comprise a mixture of at least one homopolymers and/or copolymers comprising anionic monomers such as an monomethyl maleate-modified polyvinyl alcohol copolymer (Courchay: par. 0036-0044). The first layer may have a plasticizer and a surfactant (Courchay: par. 0074).
The second layer contains a second water soluble resin comprising a blend of maleate-modified polyvinyl alcohol copolymer and a monomethyl maleate-modified polyvinyl alcohol copolymer as the layer may have at least one PVOH copolymer (Courchay: par. 0036-0044). The second layer may have a plasticizer and a surfactant (Courchay: par. 0074).
The thicknesses between the first and second layers may be the same or different and the compositions may be slightly similar or the same with slightly different or the same additives compositions and amounts (Courchay: par. 0028, 0034-0035, and throughout the disclosure). Thus, the first and the second layer may be present at a ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 1:200 to about 1:1, respectively, based on the total weight of the water-soluble film. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
The first and second layers may both be thermoformed (a first and second heat history, respectively) in which they may be considered to have a “same heat history” as they may both be thermoformed and Applicant does not have any special definition in the specification for defining what constitutes a “heat history” (Courchay: par. 0033).
It is noted that the first and second heat history limitations are product-by-process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed multilayer water-soluble film and the multilayer water-soluble disclosed by Courchay.
Courchay is silent towards the films MTVR of less than 25 g H2O/m2/day, as measured by the Moisture Vapor Transmission Rate test and the film exhibiting a heat-seal strength of at least 15 N, as measured by the Seal Strength Test.
However, Courchay teaches the claimed and disclosed film structure, compositions, including the compositional proportions and additives. Thus, it would be expected that the resulting film would have the same properties, such as the claimed MTVR and heat-seal strength, when tested in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 85,
Courchay teaches an article made from a multilayer water-soluble film comprising a first water soluble film layer and a second water-soluble film layer in contact with one another in a seal area with the first layer may be considered a first surface forming an outer surface of the film (Courchay: abstract; Figs. 1-3; par. 0007 and 0023).
The first layer contains a first water-soluble resin may comprise a mixture of at least one polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers and/or copolymers (Courchay: par. 0036-0044).
The second layer contains a second water soluble resin comprising at least one polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers and/or copolymers (Courchay: par. 0036-0044).
The first layer may have a first heat history as it may be thermoformed (heated) prior to deformation and the second film may have a second heating history that may be the same as the first film and thus the first and second heat history may be the same (Courchay: par. 0033).
It is noted that the first and second heat history limitations are product-by-process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed multilayer water-soluble film and the multilayer water-soluble disclosed by Courchay.
Regarding claim 86,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay further teaches the first and second layer may be thermoformed and thus have a first and second heat history which involves heating prior to deformation of the film (Courchay: par. 0033). As the heating involves heating under a lamp, it would inherently involve a drying temperature and time for each layer.
It is noted that the first and second heat history having drying time and temperature limitations are product-by-process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed multilayer water-soluble film and the multilayer water-soluble disclosed by Courchay.
Regarding claims 87 and 110-111,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay further teaches the second layer and the first layer may have outer surfaces as shown in Fig. 2, wherein the point at which the two films contact are sealed to together to form a compartment and thus the multilayer water-soluble film may be considered to be sealed to itself by a first portion of the second outer layer surface (such as the surface forming the seal on the left side of the compartment) sealed to a second portion of the second layer outer surface (the surface forming the seal on the right side of the compartment) which could be considered a water seal as the compartment may contain liquids (Courchay: Fig. 2; par. 0007, 0022-0029, and 0074-0099).
Courchay is silent towards the multilayer water-soluble film having a water seal strength of about 10 N or more based on the Seal Strength Test and a moisture vapor transmission rate of about 100 g/m2 or less per 24 hours, based on the Moisture Vapor Transmission Rate test method.
However, Courchay teaches the claimed and disclosed film structure, compositions, including the compositional proportions and additives. Thus, it would be expected that the resulting film would have the same properties, such as the claimed water seal strength and the moisture vapor transmission rate, when tested in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 91-100,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay further teaches the first and the second water-soluble resin in the first and second layer, respectively, may be at least one polyvinyl alcohol copolymer and/or at least one polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer (Courchay: par. 0044). The first and second water-soluble resin may comprise anionic-modified polyvinyl alcohol, such as, maleic acid, monomethyl maleate, dimethyl maleate, maleic anhydride, alkali metal salts, esters thereof, and combinations (Courchay: par. 0041-0044).
Regarding claim 103,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay further teaches the first and/or the second layer may further comprise a plasticizer (Courchay: par. 0074).
Regarding claims 105-106 and 108,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay further teaches the thickness of the first and/or second layers may have a thickness of from 40 to 100 microns, which overlaps with the claimed of from 1 to about 99 microns (Courchay: par. 0034). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 109,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay is silent towards the first layer has a dissolution time of 300 seconds or less in water having a temperature of 20°C or less based on the MSTM 205 Dissolution Test Method.
However, Courchay teaches the claimed and disclosed film structure, compositions, including the compositional proportions and additives. Thus, it would be expected that the resulting film would have the same properties, such as the claimed dissolution time, when tested in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 112,
Courchay teaches the multilayer water-soluble film required by claim 85. Courchay further teaches the multilayer water-soluble film is a unit dose article having an outer wall with an exterior and an exterior surface, wherein the exterior surface of the outer wall comprises the first layer and the interior surface of the outer wall comprises the second layer and the interior surface of the outer wall defines an interior pouch volume; and may have a composition contained in the interior pouch volume (Courchay: Fig. 2 and 3; par. 0022).
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courchay in view of Semerau et al. (JP 2004/510838 A).
Regarding claim 83,
Courchay teaches an article made from a multilayer water-soluble film comprising a first water soluble film layer and a second water-soluble film layer in contact with one another in a seal area with the first layer may be considered a first surface forming an outer surface of the film (Courchay: abstract; Figs. 1-3; par. 0007 and 0023).
The first layer contains a first water-soluble resin may comprise a mixture of at least one polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers and/or copolymers (Courchay: par. 0036-0044).
The second layer contains a second water soluble resin comprising at least one polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers and/or copolymers (Courchay: par. 0036-0044).
The first and second layers may both be thermoformed (a first and second heat history, respectively) in which they may be considered to have a “same heat history” as they may both be thermoformed and Applicant does not have any special definition in the specification for defining what constitutes a “heat history” (Courchay: par. 0033).
It is noted that the first and second heat history limitations are product-by-process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed multilayer water-soluble film and the multilayer water-soluble disclosed by Courchay.
Courchay does not explicitly teach wherein the first layer comprises a foamed film layer having an entrained gas fraction of at least about 5 vol%, based on the volume of the first layer.
Semerau teaches multilayered water-soluble detergent moldings (dosing units) comprising one or more water-soluble polymers, such as polyvinyl alcohol in which said multilayered moldings may comprise a foamed layer over a non-foamed layer (corresponds to a first layer comprising a foamed film layer) to provide different rates of dissolution (Semerau: par. 0032, 0042, 0262-0263 and 0302). The foam layer may be a closed cell foam with a gas-filled cell of at least 50% by volume which overlaps with the claimed at least 5 vol% of a entrained gas fraction (Semerau: par. 0014 and 0021).
Courchay and Semerau are in the corresponding field of dosing units comprising detergent comprising multilayered water-soluble films. Therefore, it would have been obvious to add a foamed layer having the claimed entrained gas fraction onto the first layer of Courchay to provide different dissolution rates for the desired release of detergent as taught by Knight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation “same heat history” is not a product by process limitation as it implies structure. Applicant states that par. [0035] of the specification states “simultaneous co-casting”, which “allows for limited migration of adjacent layers into each other so as to more effectively bind adjacent layers and minimize the risk of cohesive failure to the multilayer film” supports the argument.
The argument is not found persuasive as “simultaneous co-casting” is not required by the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP 2145 VI. Further, the argument that it is not a product-by-process limitation is not found persuasive as there has not been a proven structural difference between the resulting multilayer laminate structure. The stated advantage of limiting migration of adjacent layers would also be achieved by the lamination process of Courchay as thermoforming the layers separately followed laminating would also “limit migration” between layers as the “first” and “second” heat history steps are done separately and thus no migration would happen. Further, the claims do not require or preclude doing the heat history steps separately.
Applicant argues that the first and second layers have the “same heat history” is not a limitation taught or suggested by Courchay as the films are separately manufactured that are formed together later by sealing and thus would have different heat histories. Applicant argues the thermoforming steps of Courchay are different processes than the drying during solution casting simultaneously as taught in the specification.
The argument is not found persuasive as Applicant does not have a special definition in the specification for the phrase “heat history”. The claimed “the first layer may have a first heat history” and the second layer has a second heat history” and “the first heat history is the same as the second heat history” does not preclude the first layer of Courchay being formed by a thermoforming process, which can be considered “a heat history” as heat is involved and the second layer being formed separately also by a thermoforming process which is not stated to be any different, which may be considered a second heat history; and wherein the two heat histories may be considered the same as they are both thermoforming processes. Applicant’s claims do not require the lamination steps to be done together in a co-casting process as argued by Applicant. . Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP 2145 VI.
Applicant lastly argues the inherency rejection on some of the property limitations are also improper as the process steps are different and would thus result in different structure or “may” result in a different structure.
The argument is not found persuasive as there is the inherency stance is based on the resulting final structure between the prior art and the claimed/disclosed layers and/or laminate being the same. Applicant has pointed to various process step differences, but has not persuasively argued or shown a distinct structural difference between Courchay and the disclosed structure. Courchay has the same final structure, thicknesses, ratios, tradename compositions, etc. as explained in the rejections above. Applicant has only stated differences in the process steps limiting migration (unclear exactly what structure this is referring to) that typically comes from co-casting layers together. However, Courchay would also have this physical distinction as they are thermoformed (heat history) separately and then laminated together, thus no migration would occur during the heat history steps. Therefore, there appears to be no structural difference between the two laminates.
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 Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783