RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 March 2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Amendments to claims 1, 13, 16, and 18, filed on 24 March 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claim 19 has been cancelled by applicant. Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending,.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 12-20 over EP 1,431,028 A1 made of record on page 3, paragraph 4 of the office action mailed 13 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 24 March 2026. In particular, EP ‘028 does not specify a first surface comprising a polyethylene based polymer as claimed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 8 as over EP ‘028 in view of Hanyu (U.S. Pat. 6,641,913), made of record on page 5, paragraph 5 of the office action mailed 13 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 24 March 2026. In particular, Hanyu does not remedy the above-described deficiency of EP ‘028.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 10 as over EP ‘028 in view of Ginossatis (U.S. Pub. 2007/0082150), made of record on page 6, paragraph 6 of the office action mailed 13 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 24 March 2026. In particular, Ginossatis does not remedy the above-described deficiency of EP ‘028.
NEW AND REPEATED REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the claims recite that the packaging film comprises a first polypropylene-based film or first oriented polypropylene-based film comprising the first surface. However, claim 1, upon which claims 4 and 5 depend, requires that the first surface comprises a first polyethylene-based polymer. Thus claims 4 and 5 require that the first surfaces comprises the combination of a polyethylene-based polymer and a polypropylene-based film,
However, the specification as filed does not disclose such a combination of materials to comprise the first surface. Instead, the disclosure recites the use of polyethene or polypropylene in the alternative. See, e.g. p. 13, line 24 through p. 14, line 4 of the original disclosure.
Accordingly, claims 4 and 5 are considered to contain new matter. The new matter should be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020-263887 A1 in view of EP 1,431,028 A1. A machine translation of EP ‘028 was relied upon for analysis.
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘887 discloses heat-resistant polyethylene multilayer films for flexible packaging lines, see title and abstract. The multilayer film includes an outer layer, a tie layer, and a sealant layer in order, see p. 2, [0007]. Both the outer layer and sealant layer comprise polyethylene based polymers, see id. However, WO ‘887 also teaches that conventional laminates include or more layers of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) laminated to a polyethylene sealant substrate, see p. 2, [0009]. Thus it is known to combined a polyethylene layer and a BOPP layer in a sealant film.
WO ‘887 does not also specify the use of a heat-resistant coating attached to a surface which is less than 50% coextensive by area with that surface as claimed.
However, EP ‘028 describes a packaging film based on two films of heat sealable oriented polypropylene, see paragraph [0001]. A heat-sealable lacquer is applied locally as a coating at the locations where the film is to be sealed, see [0005]. As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the heat-resistant lacquer 24 is applied only around part of the perimeter of the film. See description at paragraph [0014]. This is less than 50% by area of the packaging film as visually shown in FIGS. 1-3.
WO ‘887 and EP ‘028 are analogous because they are each directed to multilayer polyolefin-based heat-sealable films for packaging. Thus they are similar in structure and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the heat-resistant lacquer as taught in EP ‘028 at the sealing locations of the multilayer film of WO ‘887 to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the heat-resistant lacquer at the sealing areas because this removes the risk of a seal against the wrapping, see EP ‘028 at paragraph [0004]. It is desirable to have this in the multilayer heat-sealable packaging film because it allows the heat sealing to occur only in the desired areas.
Regarding claims 2 and 3 and 6, WO ‘887 teaches the use of polyethylene-based polymers in both the outer layer and sealant layer, see p. 2, [0007]. Oriented polyethylene can also be used as described at p. 8, [0043-0044] and p. 16, [0080].
Regarding claim 7, WO ‘887 teaches that the melting point of the ethylene-based polymer in the sealant layer is between 70 °C and 99 °C, see p. 3, [0015] and p. 15, [0075]. The Examiner has considered the melting point temperature to coincide with the sealing initiation temperature, and thus the sealing initiation temperature is less than 110°C as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the Examples of WO ‘887 each employ polyolefin-based polymers in each of the layers, see Table 1 at pp. 21-22 and Examples 1-6 at Tables 2 and 3 on pp. 22-23. The Examiner has assumed that the heat-resistant coating of EP ‘028, when added to the sealing areas of the packaging film, comprises less than 20% by weight of the packaging film. This is a reasonable assumption based on the depiction of FIG. 1 of EP ‘028 which shows only small overlapping sealed areas of the packaging film relative to the entire film.
Regarding claim 11, WO ‘887 teaches that the tie layer – which is located between the outer and sealant layers of the multilayer film as taught at p. 2, [0007] – may include high density polyethylene (HDPE) to enhance stiffness, see p. 12, [0060].
Regarding claim 12, EP ‘028 teaches that the inner film of the laminate may be metallized, reading on a metal barrier material as claimed. See paragraph [0009]. WO ‘887 also teaches including suitable additives in any of the layers of the multilayer film, see paragraph [0084].
Regarding claim 13, WO ‘887 teaches using the multilayer film as a flexible package for consumer products, see p. 1, [0003]. The film is heat-sealed, see p. 2, [0006] and may be formed into a sachet, pouch, stand-up pouch, or pre-made package or pouch, see paragraph [0092]. The films are heat sealed together, see paragraph [0101], reading on heat sealing the second surface of the packaging film to itself.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, EP ‘028 teaches applying the heat-resistant lacquer locally as a coating at the locations where the film is to be sealed, see [0005]. The Examiner has considered this to mean that the heat-resistant coating is 100% coextensive with the heat seal area and is not present at the other portions of the laminate film (that is, the portions which are not to be heat sealed).
Regarding claim 16, WO ‘887 discloses heat-resistant polyethylene multilayer films for flexible packaging lines, see title and abstract. The multilayer film includes an outer layer, a tie layer, and a sealant layer in order, see p. 2, [0007]. Both the outer layer and sealant layer comprise polyethylene based polymers, see id. However, WO ‘887 also teaches that conventional laminates include or more layers of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) laminated to a polyethylene sealant substrate, see p. 2, [0009]. Thus it is known to combined a polyethylene layer and a BOPP layer in a sealant film.
The film is heat-sealed, see p. 2, [0006] and may be formed into a sachet, pouch, stand-up pouch, or pre-made package or pouch, see paragraph [0092]. The sealant (inner) surface of the laminate film is adjacent to the product. The films are heat sealed together, see paragraph [0101], reading on heat sealing the second surface of the packaging film to itself. However WO ‘887 does not also specify the use of a heat-resistant coating attached to the first surface which is at least partially coextensive with the heat seal area.
EP ‘028 describes a packaging film based on two films of heat sealable oriented polypropylene, see paragraph [0001]. A heat-sealable lacquer is applied locally as a coating at the locations where the film is to be sealed, see [0005]. This reads on being at least partially coextensive with the heat seal area as claimed. As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the heat-resistant lacquer 24 is applied only around part of the perimeter of the film. See description at paragraph [0014]. EP ‘028 teaches that the package has a pillow bag configuration as shown in FIG. 1, reading on the second (inner) layer being heat sealed to itself.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the heat-resistant lacquer as taught in EP ‘028 at the sealing locations of the multilayer film of WO ‘887 to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the heat-resistant lacquer at the sealing areas because this removes the risk of a seal against the wrapping, see EP ‘028 at paragraph [0004]. It is desirable to have this in the multilayer heat-sealable packaging film because it allows the heat sealing to occur only in the desired areas.
Regarding claim 17, EP ‘028 teaches applying the heat-resistant lacquer locally as a coating at the locations where the film is to be sealed, see [0005]. The Examiner has considered this to mean that the heat-resistant coating is 100% coextensive with the heat seal area and is not present at the other portions of the laminate film (that is, the portions which are not to be heat sealed).
Regarding claim 18, EP ‘028 teaches that the package has a pillow bag configuration as shown in FIG. 1.
Regarding claim 20, by visual inspection of EP ‘028 Figs. 1-3, it is apparent that the coating lacquer amounts to only a small portion of the packaging film, and thus it is implied that the polyolefin-based polymer comprises over 80% by weight as claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020-263887 A1 in view of EP 1,431,028 A1 and further in view of Hanyu (U.S. Pat. 6,641,913). A machine translation of EP ‘028 was relied upon for analysis.
Regarding claim 8, WO ‘887 and EP ‘028 are relied upon as described above. In particular, WO ‘887 discloses heat-resistant polyethylene multilayer films for flexible packaging lines, see title and abstract. The multilayer film includes an outer layer, a tie layer, and a sealant layer in order, see p. 2, [0007]. Both the outer layer and sealant layer comprise polyethylene based polymers, see id. However, WO ‘887 also teaches that conventional laminates include or more layers of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) laminated to a polyethylene sealant substrate, see p. 2, [0009]. Thus it is known to combined a polyethylene layer and a BOPP layer in a sealant film.
EP ‘028 describes a packaging film based on two films of heat sealable oriented polypropylene, see paragraph [0001]. A heat-sealable lacquer is applied locally as a coating at the locations where the film is to be sealed, see [0005]. As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the heat-resistant lacquer 24 is applied only around part of the perimeter of the film. See description at paragraph [0014]. This is less than 50% by area of the packaging film as visually shown in FIGS. 1-3.
EP ‘028 does not specify the heat sealing initiation temperature (HSIT) of the polypropylene on the sealing surface of the sealant film.
However, Hanyu describes multilayer polyolefin films suitable for heat sealed packages, see abstract. The heat-seal layer is formed of a syndiotactic propylene polymer which is effective to produce a heat seal with itself at a sealing temperature of less than 110 °C, see col. 4, lines 44-64 and col. 8, lines 51-64.
WO ‘887, EP ‘028 and Hanyu are analogous as they each describe polyolefin-based multilayer sealing films for packaging. Thus they are similar in structure and function.
It would have been obvious to have used the syndiotactic polypropylene of Hanyu as the sealing layer of EP ‘028 and WO ‘887 to arrive at the claimed invention, as use of a material having a lower sealing temperature requires less energy to provide an effective seal. WO ‘887 teaches that it is known to combined a polyethylene layer and a BOPP layer in a sealant film, thus there is a reasonable expectation of success in the combination.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020-263887 A1 in view of EP 1,431,028 A1 and further in view of Ginossatis (U.S. Pub. 2007/0082150). A machine translation of EP ‘028 was relied upon for analysis.
Regarding claim 10, WO ‘887 and EP ‘028 are relied upon as described above. In particular, WO ‘887 discloses heat-resistant polyethylene multilayer films for flexible packaging lines, see title and abstract. The multilayer film includes an outer layer, a tie layer, and a sealant layer in order, see p. 2, [0007]. Both the outer layer and sealant layer comprise polyethylene based polymers, see id. However, WO ‘887 also teaches that conventional laminates include or more layers of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) laminated to a polyethylene sealant substrate, see p. 2, [0009]. Thus it is known to combined a polyethylene layer and a BOPP layer in a sealant film.
EP ‘028 describes a packaging film based on two films of heat sealable oriented polypropylene, see paragraph [0001]. A heat-sealable lacquer is applied locally as a coating at the locations where the film is to be sealed, see [0005]. As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the heat-resistant lacquer 24 is applied only around part of the perimeter of the film. See description at paragraph [0014]. This is less than 50% by area of the packaging film as visually shown in FIGS. 1-3.
EP ‘028 does not specify the dry coat weight of the heat-resistant coating.
However, Ginossatis describes stack sealable heat shrinkable films, see title and abstract. The multi-layer film includes a coating layer, an outer and an inner layer, see p. 2, [0047]. Tie layers may also be included, see p. 3, [0062]. The outer layer may include a polyolefin layer, see p. 3, [0063]. The coating layer is a heat resistant coating, see p. 3, [0066-0067]. This coating has a thickness of about 1-2 microns, see p. 3, [0077], and in the example is applied with a coating weight of 1.2 g/m2, see p. 4, [0100]. This is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 4.0 g/m2.
WO ‘887, EP ‘028 and Ginossatis are analogous as they each describe multilayer sealing films for packaging which with polyolefin materials. EP ‘028 and Ginossatis also describe heat-resistant outer coatings. Thus they are similar in structure and function.
It would have been obvious to have used a coating weight of 1.2 g/m2 as taught in Ginossatis as the coating weight of the heat-resistant coating of EP ‘028 to arrive at the claimed invention, as this teaches an effective amount of heat-resistant coating to provide the desired functionality.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 24 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 11 of record over WO ‘887 in view of EP ‘028 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 6 of the remarks that Lee fails to disclose a packaging film comprising a first surface with a first polyethylene-based polymer and a heat-resistant coating attached to the first surface which is coextensive with less than 50% by area of the first surface of the packaging film. Applicant argues merely that EP ‘028 is not effective in guidance towards the currently claimed solution.
The Examiner is not persuaded. While the Examiner admits that WO ‘887 does not disclose the heat-resistant coating applied to less than 50% of the first surface as claimed, EP ‘028 does teach this concept as described in the rejection above. The references are analogous as described in the above rejection, and there is a reasonable expectation of success in their combination as WO ‘887 teaches that multilayer heat seal film comprising layers of polyethylene and polypropylene are known.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained and expanded to encompass additional claims.
Prior Art of Record
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. 7,611,770 teaches multilayer films having enhanced sealing characteristics
U.S. Pat. 5,298,326 describes cook-in-bag multilayer films having heat seal portions.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights