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. 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. Application Status This is a first action on the merits following applicant’s response to a restriction/election requirement mailed on 31 December 2025. A preliminary amendment was filed on 02 August 2023 canceling claims 1-25 and adding claims 26-42. Claims 26-42 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 August 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I (product claims 26-28 and 31-42) in the reply filed on 23 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 29-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrase “The present invention addresses the problem …”. Correction is recommended. See MPEP § 608.01(b), guideline (C). Drawings No drawings are present in the application. Claim Objections Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 28 , the last line of the claim should recite “ …wherein HY(20) (°) is the contact angle measured 20 seconds after the contact of water… ”. The Examiner further notes that claim 30 , while withdrawn from consideration, also has this same grammatical error. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 26 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by JP 2014-141577 A. A machine translation of JP ‘577 was relied upon for analysis. Regarding claim 26 , JP ‘577 discloses in Example 1 (see p. 15 of the translation) a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) layer with a coating formed from a polyvinyl alcohol based resin having a saponification degree of 88 mol% and a degree of polymerization of 500. This is the same as Coating Material D described in the present specification (see p. 32, paragraph [0101] of the original disclosure) and used in Example 1 (see p. 35, [0118] of the original disclosure). Example 1 also uses a PET layer. As these are the same materials used, the same surface free energy component values are expected to be present. Regarding claim 34 , as JP ‘577 uses the same materials as described in the claims and specification as described above, the same water contact HX(1) and HX(20) relative values are expected to be present. Regarding claim 35 , as JP ‘577 uses the same materials as described in the claims and specification as described above, the same crystallinity value is expected to be present. Regarding claim 36 , Example 1 uses a polyvinyl alcohol based resin having a saponification degree of 88 mol% and a degree of polymerization of 500, see p. 15 of the translation. This is more than 200 as claimed. Claims 26, 27, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2001-150620 A. A machine translation of JP ‘620 was relied upon for analysis. Regarding claims 26 and 27 , JP ‘620 discloses a polyester film with a coating layer on one side which includes an alkali metal sulfonic acid salt-modified polyvinyl alcohol with a degree of saponification of 70-90 mol. %, see paragraph [0004] of the translation. The sulfonate-modified polyvinyl alcohol improves affinity between the coating film and the ink-receiving layer, see paragraph [0016]. The examples use resin Q which is a sodium sulfonate-modified polyvinyl alcohol with a saponification degree of 86-89 mol. %, see paragraph [0057]. This is the same as Coating Material D described in the present specification (see p. 32, paragraph [0101] of the original disclosure) and used in Example 1 (see p. 35, [0118] of the original disclosure). As these are the same materials used, the same surface free energy component values are expected to be present as recited in claim 26. Furthermore, the sulfonate-modified polyvinyl alcohol anticipates claim 27. Regarding claim 31 , In Example 25 of JP ‘620, the coating layer which includes sodium sulfonate-modified polyvinyl alcohol has a thickness of 0.03 microns (30 nm) and a surface roughness of 57 nm, see paragraph [0077] at p. 41 of the translation. The Examiner has assumed that the 57 nm surface roughness is applicable to each side of the structure. Note that the reference states that the film thickness is 100 microns and also that the film thickness is 0.03 microns. The Examiner has interpreted the 100 micron thickness to refer to the base polyester film and the 0.03 micron thickness to refer to the coating layer thickness. Thus the thickness xa of the layer is 30 nm and the surface roughness RzjisB of face B is 57 nm, and the ratio of RzjisB to xa is 57/30 or 1.9 which is within the claimed range of 1.0 to 20.0. Regarding claim 32 , In Example 25 of JP ‘620, the coating layer which includes sodium sulfonate-modified polyvinyl alcohol has a thickness of 0.03 microns (30 nm) and a surface roughness of 57 nm, see paragraph [0077] at p. 41 of the translation. The Examiner has assumed that the 57 nm surface roughness is applicable to each side of the structure. Note that the reference states that the film thickness is 100 microns and also that the film thickness is 0.03 microns. The Examiner has interpreted the 100 micron thickness to refer to the base polyester film and the 0.03 micron thickness to refer to the coating layer thickness. Thus the thickness xa of the layer is 30 nm and the surface roughness RzjisX of layer X is 57 nm, and the ratio of RzjisX to xa is 57/30 or 1.9 which is within the claimed range of 0.01 to 3.0. Regarding claim 33, In Example 25 of JP ‘620, the coating layer which includes sodium sulfonate-modified polyvinyl alcohol has a thickness of 0.03 microns (30 nm), see paragraph [0077] at p. 41 of the translation. This is within the claimed range of 10 to 500 nm. Regarding claim 34 , as JP ‘620 uses the same materials as described in the claims and specification as described above, the same water contact HX(1) and HX(20) relative values are expected to be present. Regarding claim 35 , as JP ‘620 uses the same materials as described in the claims and specification as described above, the same crystallinity value is expected to be present. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 28 and 37-42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner's statement of the reasons for allowance: The base claim is claim 28 . The present claims are deemed allowable over the references since the references do not disclose or render ob vious a layer Y having the water contact angles HY(1) and HY(20) as claimed in combination with a polyester film base layer and a layer X meeting the surface free energy requirements of claim 26. While JP ‘577 discloses a polyester film and a layer which includes a polyvinyl alcohol resin as described above, the reference does not teach or suggest a further layer having water contact angle requirements HY(1) and HY(20) as claimed. While JP ‘620 discloses a polyester film and a layer which includes a sulfonate modified-polyvinyl alcohol resin as described above, the reference does not teach or suggest a further layer having water contact angle requirements HY(1) and HY(20) as claimed. Higash ioji (U.S. Pub. 2019/0160728) describes a polyester film with a primer layer and a release layer reading structurally on layers X and Y as claimed, however the reference does not specify the surface free energy components of the primer layer and also does not specify the water contact angles of the release layer. Klein (U.S. Pub. 2005/0287380) describes a polyester film with a surface treated so that the contact angle with respect to water is less than 64°, preferably less than 60°, see abstract and paragraph [0050]. This is outside of the contact angle range of Requirement 9 in claim 28. Prior Art of Record Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Suzuki (U.S. Pub. 2023/0150250) is from the same inventors as the present application and also assigned to Toray Industries, Inc. and describes a multilayered polyester film with a layer X having contact angle HX(1) and crystallinity requirements as well as a layer Y having contact angle requirements HY(1) and HY(20) that are within the claimed ranges, but the reference is not available as prior art. Klein (U.S. Pub. 2005/0287380) describes a polyester film with a surface treated so that the contact angle with respect to water is less than 64°, preferably less than 60°, see abstract and paragraph [0050]. This is outside of the contact angle range of Requirement 9 in claim 28. Higashioji (U.S. Pub. 2019/0160728) describes a polyester film with a primer layer and a release layer reading structurally on layers X and Y as claimed, however the reference does not specify the surface free energy components of the primer layer and also does not specify the water contact angles of the release layer. Conclusion All claims are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5592 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Curtis Mayes can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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