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 .
Priority
An English translation of the foreign priority has been submitted on 8/17/26, the claims are given an effective date of the filing of the foreign priority: 3/30/21
Response to Argument/Amendments
Applicant argues Sannan merely teaches preferable ranges and does not teach the relationships of the claims. Applicant argues the calculated values are based on hypothetical compositions and the Examples of Sannan do not include a formulation using instantly claimed compound B.
The Examiner disagrees. Though the relationship is not disclosed in Sannan, Sannan embraces wt% which, when inputted, meet the claimed relationships. The relationship values are shown to be embraced by the reference. Applicant can show unexpected results stemming from the relationship, however the examples do not show those endpoints to be unexpected. Applicant is reminded that any showings of unexpected results must also be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant argues the examples of the specification show that when the claimed relationship is not met the properties of the coating are poor. Applicant argues these effects would not be predictable.
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not claimed any properties. Applicant’s current burden is to show unexpected results and the examples are not sufficient to show such. Thus arguments herein are not found persuasive. Applicant may wish to claim property limitations that are shown by the examples to not necessarily be inherent.
Applicant argues the new water limitation is not met by Sannan because organic solvents are preferred.
The Examiner disagrees. Sannan broadly discloses water to be used as a solvent, and discloses amounts of such that embrace the new claim. Arguments herein are thusly not found persuasive. Sannan is not limited to a preferred embodiment or the disclosure mentioned by Applicant in the remarks.
Applicant argues the calculated relationship values for Fukuhara are merely hypothetical. Applicant argues the examples of Fukuhara do not contain ether compounds.
The Examiner disagrees. The calculations were put forth to show that Fukuhara embraces the claimed relationships. Though hypothetical, they are within the four corners of the reference and thusly embrace the claim limitations thereof. That ethers are not exemplified is moot, the reference embraces using ether compounds and is not limited to the exemplified embodiments. Arguments herein are thusly not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/11/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sannan (US 2011/0091771).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics. Regarding the amendments to claims 1-3: the calculations previously set forth below show that a value of 1 can be obtained for both formulas, meeting the relationship requirements of these claims. Regarding new claim 8: [0037] discloses the use of water as a solvent and [0040] discloses the composition may comprise 1-40% polymer thus the remaining 60-99% may be the water solvent. Such embraces claim 8
Sannan discloses coating compositions (title) comprising a polar solvent, a hydroxyl containing resin and an organic acid (abstract). The hydroxyl containing resin may be an ethylene-vinyl alcohol (EVOH) copolymer (abstract), said copolymer having an ethylene content ranging from 10-70 mol% [0014, 0029] [meeting the resin A and ethylene content thereof of claim 1]. This range embraces and thusly renders the ethylene content of claim 1 prima facie obvious in light of the overlapping nature thereof. See In re Wertheim.
Sannan discloses the use of an active material such as those metal compounds of [0041] [meeting the metal compound C of claim 1] and the use of crosslinking materials such as a polyethylene glycol diglycidyl [0046] [meeting the ether compound B comprising a glycidyl group] or silane coupling agent [0048] [also alternatively meeting the metal compound C of claim 1, and, claim 4].
Though picked from a list of possible combinations it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985). Thus, claim 1 is prima facie obvious over Sannan.
Per 100p active material there is 0.1-20p EVOH and 0.01-200p crosslinking agent based on EVOH [0042, 0048]. In light of the above the following calculation is embraced by the reference: using a 50:50 mix of crosslinking agents diglycidyl and silane crosslinking agents this can calculate to 20 p EVOH (Ma) / (10 p glycidyl (Mb) + 10 p silane (Mc)) = 1, which meets the ratio of claims 1 and 2
Using the crosslinking agent as a 50:50 mix of glycidyl and silane, 10 p glycidyl (Mb) / 10 p silane (Mc) = 1, which meets second ratio of claim 1 and the ratio of claim 3.
The silane crosslinking agent discussed above meets claim 4, coating and drying the composition is disclosed in [0051], and, the substrate may be aluminum foil (abstract), as required by claim 5, this coated substrate meets claim 6.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuhara (WO 2020/213554, where US 2022/0153891 is used as an equivalent English document).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics. Regarding the amendment to claims 1-3, the calculations previously set forth show that a value of 1 is embraced for both formulas thus rending prima facie obvious the ranges of the claims in light of the overlapping nature thereof. Regarding new claim 8, Fukuhara discloses in [0041] the use of a solid content of 1-50 mass% and discloses in [0045] the amount of organic solvent to be 10 parts by mass or less, thus embracing the use of 50-99% water solvent, as required by the claim.
Fukuhara discloses aqueous solutions of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymers (title). The copolymer has an ethylene content of 1-15 mol% ethylene (abstract) [meeting resin A and the ethylene content thereof of claim 1]. The composition may further comprise a filler [0048-0050], said filler may include an inorganic filler such as aluminum hydroxide and titanium oxide [0048] [meeting the metal compound C of claim 1] and/or carboxymethylcellulose [0050] [meeting the hydroxyl containing resin B of claim 1].
Though the above combination of the above specified fillers and EVOH is picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
The filler is added in amounts of 20-500p based on 100p EVOH. This can calculate to: 100 parts EVOH (Ma) / (50 p aluminum oxide (Mc) + 50 p carboxymethylcellulose (Mb)) = 1. Thus the relationship of claims 1 and 2 is embraced and prima facie obvious over Fukuhara in light of the overlapping ranges thereof. See In re Wertheim.
50 p carboxymethylcellulose (Mb) / 50 parts aluminum oxide (Mc)= 1, alternatively 100 p carboxymethylcellulose (Mb) / 50 parts aluminum oxide (Mc) = 2, etc, meeting/embracing the second formula of claim 1 and claim 3.
Elements above meet all elements of claims 1-3
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
See the action dated 5/26/26 for reasons for allowance and closest prior art.
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 ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights