DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-19 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-19 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 3 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 10, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure as originally filed provides support for the layer providing the second surface which consists of copolymers of “propylene with polyethylene” or a copolymer of “propylene or ethylene with an α-olefin-based resin”. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for the specific limitation “a layer of the multilayer substrate providing the second surface consists of... ethylene” alone.
Regarding claim 17, the disclosure as originally filed provides broad support for “each surface layer may be several tens of nanometers to several μm”, However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for the specific limitation “the layer of the multilayer substrate providing the first surface” which “consists of the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer” having “a thickness of “0.5 µm to 2.0 µm“.
Regarding claim 18, the disclosure as originally filed (i.e., Table 1) provides support for a T-peel strength between the substrate and a heat-sealable layer (Evaluation 1) of 3.40 to 4.6 N/15 mm; and (ii) a 180° peel strength between the substrate and a heat-sealable layer (Evaluation 1) of 4.6 to 5.5 N/15 mm. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for an unspecified type of peel strength with the specific range of “3.4 N/15 mm or more” with an unspecified upper endpoint.
Regarding claim 18, the disclosure as originally filed (i.e., Table 1) provides support for a T-peel strength between the second surface and the cover layer of layer (Evaluation 2) as low as 0.01 N/15 mm; and (ii) a 180° peel strength between the second surface and the cover layer of layer (Evaluation 2) as low as 0.01 N/15 mm. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for an unspecified type of peel strength with the specific range of “less than 0.03 N/15 mm” with an unspecified lower endpoint.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 18 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is vague and indefinite because the present claim permits the “layer of the multilayer substrate providing the second surface” to consist of “ethylene” alone. However, “ethylene” by itself is a monomer per se and is not a polymer, so it is unclear and confusing whether the claim permits the above layer to consist of ethylene monomer alone.
Claim 18 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether what kind of “peel strength” (i.e., T-peel? 180°?) in the phrase “a peel strength between the substrate and a heat-sealable layer of 3.4 N/15 mm or more and a peel strength between the second surface and the cover layer) is being specified.
Claim 18 may be subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 after the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are resolved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• DABADIE ET AL (US 2019/0270288),
and in view of POLYPRINT - WETTING TENSION AND CONTACT ANGLE,
and in view of NAGAI ET AL (US 6,190,760),
and in view of ASTM D2578-17.
DABADIE ET AL ‘288 discloses a multilayer barrier film comprising:
• an optional over-coating layer (OC) (e.g., ORganically MOdified Ceramics (ORMOCERs); acrylic coatings; etc.) (corresponding to the recited “cover layer” of claim 9);
• a metal oxide layer (MO) (e.g., Group III or IV metal oxide, such as aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “gas barrier layer”) with a typical thickness of 5-60 nm;
• a base film with a typical thickness of 5-50 microns (e.g., 12-26 microns, etc.), wherein the base film comprises:
• a high-surface-energy polymer layer (A) (e.g., ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH), etc., wherein blends or mixtures or other components are not required (corresponding to the recited “consists of”)) with a surface energy (ASTM D2578) (corresponding to the recited “wetting tension” as evidenced by ASTM D2578-17) of at least 30 dynes/cm (30 mN/m) (corresponding to the recited “layer... providing the first surface”);
• an “adhesive” layer (B) (e.g., polypropylene polymers, polyethylene polymers, wherein the term “polymer” encompasses both homopolymers and copolymers, and wherein mixtures or blends or other components are not required (corresponding to the recited “consists of”)) (corresponding to the recited “a layer consisting of polypropylene or polyethylene” of claims 1-2, 13; corresponding to the recited “core layer” of claim 14);
• a core layer (C) (e.g., polypropylene homopolymers; polypropylene copolymers, such as ethylene-propylene copolymers, etc.; wherein mixtures or blends or other components are not required (corresponding to the recited “consists of”) (additionally and/or alternatively corresponding to the recited “a layer consisting of polypropylene or polyethylene” of claims 1-2, 13; corresponding to the recited “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14);
• an optional skin layer (D) (e.g., polypropylene; polyethylene, etc.; wherein mixtures or blends or other components are not required (corresponding to the recited “consists of”) (additionally and/or alternatively corresponding to the recited “a layer consisting of polypropylene or polyethylene” of claims 1-2; additionally and/or alternatively corresponding to the recited “second surface” of claims 1, 13; additionally and/or alternatively corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) which can be surface-treated (e.g., but not limited to, corona treatment; flame treatment; etc.) and/or provided with a primer coating.
wherein one or both of the outer exposed surface of the film can be surface-treated (e.g., plasma, etc.) to increase the surface energy to provide receptivity to coatings, adhesives, lamination, etc. The reference further discloses that the surface energy (corresponding to the recited “wetting tension” as evidenced by ASTM D2578-17) of a surface is desirably 7-10 dynes/cm higher than the surface tension of the substance (e.g., liquid or solid) applied to the surface to provide adequate wetting or bonding between the surface and the substance. Untreated polypropylene polyethylene and polypropylene generally have a surface energy (ASTM D 2578) (corresponding to the recited “wetting tension”) of about 30-32 dynes/cm (30-32 mN/m). (entire document, e.g., paragraph 0032, 0035-0043, 0048, 0051-0054, 0057, 0071, 0098, etc.)
POLYPRINT - WETTING TENSION AND CONTACT ANGLE discloses that untreated polyethylene film generally has a wetting tension of about 31 dynes/cm (31 mN/m) and untreated polypropylene film generally have “wetting tension”) of about 29 dynes/cm (29 mN/m). (entire document)
NAGAI ET AL ‘760 discloses that it is well known in the art to avoid producing films with wetting tensions which are too large (e.g., greater than 55 mN/m) because the surface activation used to produce excessively high wetting tensions may cause deterioration in the surface of the base film. (line 66, col. 7 to line 32, col. 8; line 20-33, col. 10; etc.)
ASTM D2578-17 provides evidence that the ASTM D2578 is used to determining wetting tension (in typical units of dynes/cm) of films.
Regarding claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an polypropylene (co)polymer or polyethylene (co)polymer layer as:
(i) the core layer (C) (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14);
and/or
(ii) the optional skin layer (D) (additionally and/or alternatively corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; additionally and/or alternatively corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14);
with: (a) a untreated wetting tension between about 29-32 dynes/cm (29-32 mN/m) (as evidenced by DABADIE ET AL ‘288 and/or POLYPRINT - WETTING TENSION AND CONTACT ANGLE) or (b) a surface-treated (e.g., via plasma, corona, etc.) surface energy (corresponding to the recited “wetting tension” as evidenced by ASTM D2578-17) of 30 dynes/cm (30 mN/m) or more; as the non-metal oxide-coated surface (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) of the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 in order to produce useful barrier material materials (e.g., for packaging, etc.) which can exhibit good adhesion to subsequently applied materials (e.g., coatings, adhesives, lamination, etc.), wherein the wetting tension is selected depending on the surface tension of the subsequently applied materials (e.g., about 7-10 dynes/cm higher than the subsequently applied material).
Regarding claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have avoided raising the wetting tension of the non-metal oxide-coated surface (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) of the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 to greater than 55 mN/m in order to avoid damage to the base film.
Regarding claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the thickness of the high-surface-energy polymer layer (A) in the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 in order to obtain adequate uniform coverage of the metal-oxide-bearing side of the base film, depending on the desired overall film thickness (e.g., as low as 5-10 microns, etc.).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• DABADIE ET AL (US 2019/0270288), in view of POLYPRINT - WETTING TENSION AND CONTACT ANGLE, and in view of NAGAI ET AL (US 6,190,760), and in view of ASTM D2578-17
as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 above,
and further in view of MULLER ET AL (US 2002/0004112).
MULLER ET AL ‘112 discloses that it is well known in the art to form heat-sealable multilayer films comprising:
(A) a multilayer support film containing one or more layers (e.g., polypropylene (PP); ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH); etc., wherein blends or mixtures are not required for the individual layers);
(B) an adhesive layer (e.g., polyurethane adhesive, etc.);
(C) a heat-sealable layer (e.g., polyethylene homopolymer; polyethylene copolymer; wherein blends or mixtures are not required (corresponding to the recited “consisting of”).
(paragraph 0021-0038, 0048, 0065, etc.)
Regarding claims 4-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known adhesive layer to laminate a known heat-sealable layer (as suggested in MULLER ET AL ‘112) to the non-metal oxide-coated surface (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) of the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 in order to produce useful heat-sealable barrier film (e.g., for packaging applications, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the composition of the heat-sealable layer adhesively bonded to the barrier films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 and/or adjusted the wetting tension on the non-metal-oxide-coated surface (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) of the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 in order to obtain good adhesion (as represented by a peel strength of 1 N/15 mm or more) in order to prevent undesired delamination during usage.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• DABADIE ET AL (US 2019/0270288), in view of POLYPRINT - WETTING TENSION AND CONTACT ANGLE, and in view of NAGAI ET AL (US 6,190,760), and in view of ASTM D2578-17
as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 above,
and further in view of SOL-GEL SCIENCE FOR CERAMIC MATERIALS.
SOL-GEL SCIENCE FOR CERAMIC MATERIALS discloses that it is well known in the art to produce organically modified ceramic materials (e.g., Organically Modified Silicates (ORMOSILs)) using compositions containing metal alkoxide (e.g., silicon alkoxides, etc.). (page 3, etc.)
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known ORMOCER-type coating (e.g., at least partially derived from silicon alkoxides, as suggested in SOL-GEL SCIENCE FOR CERAMIC MATERIALS) as the over-coating layer (OC) in the barrier films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 in order to protect the metal oxide barrier layer from abrasion, scratches, prevent cracking, and/or provide printability, etc.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• DABADIE ET AL (US 2019/0270288), in view of POLYPRINT - WETTING TENSION AND CONTACT ANGLE, and in view of NAGAI ET AL (US 6,190,760), and in view of ASTM D2578-17
as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 above,
and further in view of SUNDARARAMAN ET AL (US 2019/0225001).
SUNDARARAMAN ET AL ‘001 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize plasma treatment utilizing noble gas (e.g., argon, etc.) to provide a polymeric film surface with increased surface energy (e.g., but not limited to, a surface tension in accordance with ASTM D2578-84 (corresponding to the recited “wetting tension”) of 35 dynes/cm or more) in order to make the film receptive to coatings, adhesives, primers, and/or lamination. (paragraph 0041-0042, 0044, 0047-0049, etc.)
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a surface-treatment method (e.g., plasma treatment using argon gas, as suggested in SUNDARARAMAN ET AL ‘001) to optimize the the surface energy (corresponding to the recited “wetting tension”) of the non-metal-oxide-coated surface (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) of the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 (e.g., raising the wetting tension of a low energy polyethylene layer from about 29 mN/m to about 30 mN/m).
Regarding claim 14, the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 can have a three-layer A/B/C structure (e.g., EVOH / PP homopolymer / ethylene-propylene copolymer).
Regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the thickness of the high-surface-energy polymer layer (A) in the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 in order to obtain adequate uniform coverage of the metal-oxide-bearing side of the base film, depending on the desired overall film thickness (e.g., about 12-26 microns, etc.), wherein it is well known in the art to make the outer layers of a three-layer film structure relatively thin (e.g., to provide the desired surface functionality, etc.) and the core layer relatively thick (e.g., to provide the desired strength and/or other mechanical or structural properties, etc.).
Regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the thickness of the layer (C) forming the non-metal oxide-coated surface (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) of the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 in order to obtain adequate uniform coverage of the non-metal-oxide-bearing side of the base film, depending on the desired overall film thickness (e.g., about 12-26 microns, etc.), wherein it is well known in the art to make the outer layers of a three-layer film structure relatively thin (e.g., to provide the desired surface functionality, etc.).and the core layer relatively thick (e.g., to provide the desired strength and/or other mechanical or structural properties, etc.).
Regarding 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have subjected the layer (C) forming the non-metal oxide-coated surface (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) of the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288 to known surface treatments (e.g., plasma using argon gas, etc. as suggested in SUNDARARAMAN ET AL ‘001 to slightly increase the surface energy (corresponding to the recited “wetting tension”) of a layer (C) with low surface energy (e.g., about 29 mN/m or less) to about 30 mN/m (which encompasses values which are slightly less than 30 mN/m) in order to obtain the optimal differential (e.g., about 7-10 mN/m) between a surface and a material applied thereof -- for example, for a coating composition with a surface tension of about 22 mN/m, the wetting tension of a untreated surface is desirably raised to at least about 29-30 mN/m.
Regarding claim 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the intensity of the plasma treatment applied to the non-metal-oxide-coated surface (corresponding to the “second surface” of claims 1, 13; corresponding to the recited “layer providing the second surface” of claim 14) of the base films of DABADIE ET AL ‘288, depending on the desired speed of surface-treatment and the desired degree of surface modification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 12/23/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TSAI ET AL (US 6,472,081) and LU ET AL (US 2004/0105994) disclose laminate films with a surface layer with a specified wetting tension.
INOUE ET AL (US 2001/0008686) disclose laminate films with heat-seal layer adhesively bonded to other layers.
KUBA ET AL (US 2004/0014880) disclose laminating adhesives with surface tensions of 40 mN/m or less.
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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 31, 2026
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights