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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on August 26, 2025 have been entered and considered. Claims 1, 3 and 4 are currently amended, claim 2 is canceled and claims 1 and 3 - 18 remain pending. The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill int the art would not have any reason or motivation to arrive at claim 1 reciting that “the composition does not contain an inorganic layered mineral”. Applicant points to Omura’s comparative examples 5 and 10 which do not contain inorganic layered material and have inferior oxygen permeability compared to its inventive Examples which contain the inorganic layered material.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. First, claims 1 – 8 are directed to “a gas barrier layer-forming composition”. It should be noted that the composition itself is not required to have any particular gas barrier properties only
that it can form a gas barrier layer. This is open to that the composition alone is a gas barrier or with any other additional components. Additionally, claims 9 – 15 directed to a gas barrier film has open language and the gas barrier property is not limited to the composition itself and does not preclude any additional materials that would make the resulting film a gas barrier. Plus, even if it was positively recited, the claim does not require any particular level of gas barrier properties. In light of that, Omura et al. teach a composition within the scope of at least Applicant’s claim 1 although it is a comparative example where no inorganic layered filler is present. Additionally, the amount of gas permeability in the data is not relevant to the invention as claimed. It should be noted in the example tables of Omura as whole the level of gas permeability is not only affected by the presence or absence of inorganic layered mineral but also the selection and amounts of the other components. Therefore, the comparative examples are not evidence that Omura et al. is teaching away and that the disclosure of Minelli would not be relevant. Minelli demonstrates that the amount of inorganic filler can be tailored to requirements of the end use of the film. Absent a showing of unexpected results, the Examiner submits that the set forth combination is reasonable and thus maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 3 - 11 and 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omura et al. (US 2018/0037769) in view of Oxygen permeability of novel organic–inorganic coatings: I. Effects of organic–inorganic ratio and molecular weight of the organic component by M. Minelli et al.
Omura et al. is directed to a coating agent and gas barrier film (Abstract) having a long usable time and favorable performance stability useful as packing materials [0301-0302].
As to claim 1, Omura et al. teach a coating agent including an aqueous polyurethane resin (A) including a polyurethane resin having an acid group and a polyamine compound equated to Applicant’s “ polyurethane resin (A)”, a water-soluble polymer (B) equated to Applicant’s “water-soluble polymer (B)”, an inorganic layered mineral (C) equated to Applicant’s “inorganic layered mineral (D)”, and a compound (D) having an epoxy group equated to Applicant’s “curing agent (C) (Abstract). Omura et al. teach that the mass ratio in solid content of polyurethan resin resin/water soluble polymer is 85/15 to 10/90 [0125], the solid content of the inorganic layered material is preferably 5 mass % or more [0128]. Omura et al. teach that the epoxy compound (D) is preferably 0.5 mass% or more and 30% mass% or less [0130].
Omura et al. teach the claimed invention above but fail to teach a composition not containing an inorganic layered mineral. Omura et al. does note that is possible to effectively exhibit the barrier property in high humidity environments while maintaining the cohesion strength of the coating films formed of the coating agent. [0128].
Oxygen permeability of novel organic–inorganic coatings: I. Effects of organic
inorganic ratio and molecular weight of the organic component by M. Minelli et al. teach the effects on the coating permeability of the organic-inorganic ratio (Abstract) specifically for food packaging applications (Intro, page 2581).
The article notes a huge amount of studies have dealt with the improvement of the barrier properties of plastic films against oxygen permeability and the most studied approach is the modification of the plastic material by including fillers and specifically nanofillers. The improvement of the gas barrier properties observed for nanocomposites with respect to unfilled matrices has been generally attributed to two distinct phenomena. The main effect is ascribed to the inorganic phase, which introduces a physical barrier to diffusing molecules, increasing their tortuous path within the polymer and ultimately enlarging the characteristic length for the diffusive process.
The above argument is supported by good correlations obtained for the permeability reduction as function of the structural parameters of the nanocomposite, such as aspect ratio and loading (i.e. the filler concentration). A second, complementary, phenomenon has been attributed to the lowering of the penetrant mobility in the nanocomposite due to the modification of the polymer chain flexibility induced by interactions of the polymer chain elements with the surface of the nanoparticles. The inorganic component, indeed, may stabilize the polymeric matrix towards vapour penetrants and prevent plasticization, which could depress the gas barrier properties. On the other hand, the inclusion of nanoparticles in polymer matrices leads to undesired variations in other properties and in particular to a strong increase in melt viscosity, which limits the maximum amount of inorganic nanofiller to less than 10 wt.%. As a consequence, the gain in barrier properties obtained through the addition of nanofillers is typically limited to 30%, and only in few cases a 50% reduction of gas permeability has been observed (Introduction, page 1). Simple calculations have also shown that hybrid coatings can be effectively used to decrease oxygen permeability of some plastic films for food packaging, leading to improvements in barrier properties similar to or better than the best results achieved by including Montmorillonite in the plastic films. (page 2587, Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create the composition of Omura et al. that does not contain an inorganic layered material as suggested by M. Minelli et al. motivated by the desire to utilize the surprising benefits of improving barrier properties to similar or even better than films containing an inorganic mineral filler.
As to claims 3 - 4, Omura et al. teach the epoxy compound is present in ranges between 0.5 mass % to 30 mass %, 1 mass % to 25 mass %, 3 mass % to 20 mass % based on solids [0130].
As claims 5 - 7, Omura et al. teach water-soluble polymer (B) includes polyvinyl alcohol and derivatives [0091-0096]. Polyvinyl alcohol inherently lacks silanol groups and its structure doesn’t include the silicon hydrogen bonds that define silanols.
As to claim 8, Omura et al. teach the use of epoxy compound (D) which is preferably a silane coupling agent having an epoxy group which forms a complicated and strong crosslinking structure [0109].
As to claim 9, Omura et al. teach a gas barrier film comprising a base film formed from a plastic material and a coating film made of the coating of the invention [0147]. The coating film would be cured due to the use of the epoxy compound (D) as discussed above.
As to claims 10 – 11, Omura et al. teach that the thickness of the coating layer is preferably 0.1 – 5 microns (100 – 5000 nm), preferably 0.2 to 2 microns (200 – 2000 nm) [0158].
As to claims 14 – 15, Omura et al. teach when the gas barrier film has a heat-sealable thermally fused layer, this thermally fused layer is posed on at least one outermost layer of the gas film and can be sealed by heat sealing [0161-0162]. Omura et al. teach the use of the film as packaging material [0302] and can be used make packaging for dried foods, sweet, bread and delicacies [0167] implying a bag structure.
As to claims 16 - 18, Omura et al. teach the coating film can be formed by applying the coating agent on a single surface or both surfaces of the base film to form a coating and drying the coating [0155]. The coating can be applied using a wide variety of processes including roll coating, gravure coating, reverse coating among other coating methods [0157] and dried using hot-air drying, hot-roll drying and infrared irradiation [0157]. Omura et al. teach when the gas barrier film has a heat-sealable thermally fused layer, this thermally fused layer is posed on at least one outermost layer of the gas film and can be sealed by heat sealing [0161-0162]. Omura et al. teach the use of the film as packaging material [0302] and can be used make packaging for dried foods, sweet, bread and delicacies [0167] implying a bag structure.
Claims 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omura et al. (US 2018/0037769) in view of Oxygen permeability of novel organic–inorganic coatings: I. Effects of organic–inorganic ratio and molecular weight of the organic component by M. Minelli et al as applied above, further in view of Ozeki et al. (US 2017/0166718).
Omura et al. teach that the gas barrier film according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention may further have a printing layer, an undercoat layer, an overcoat layer, a light-shielding layer, an adhesive layer, a heat-sealable thermally fused layer, and other functional layers as necessary [0220].
Omura et al. in view of Oxygen permeability of novel organic–inorganic coatings: I. Effects of organic–inorganic ratio and molecular weight of the organic component by M. Minelli fail to teach an inorganic oxide layer containing an inorganic oxide disposed between the resin substrate and the gas barrier as required by claim 12 and the inorganic oxide is composed of silicon oxide as required by claim 13.
Ozeki et al. is directed to a gas barrier laminate film having excellent gas barrier property, water resistance and adhesiveness comprising a silicon oxide layer, a coating layer comprising a mixture of a polyurethane resin and silane coupling agent (Abstract). Ozeki et al. teach that the film can be used for wrapping to avoid deterioration of foods and the like [0135]. Ozeki et al. shows in the examples that the presence of the silicon oxide layer increases the oxygen permeability and water vapor permeability both before pressurized water treatment and after pressurized hot water treatment (see Tables 1 and 2, specifically Comparative example 4 that has no inorganic layer compared to the other examples) (pages 12 and 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an inorganic oxide layer, specifically silicon oxide as suggested by Ozeki et al. in the laminate of Omura et al. in view of Oxygen permeability of novel organic–inorganic coatings: I. Effects of organic–inorganic ratio and molecular weight of the organic component by M. Minelli motivated by the desire to have gas barrier laminates with good oxygen and water vapor barrier effects.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786