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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mutha (EP3715105A1).
Mutha teaches a laminated tube made from a laminate comprising an inner layer (10) comprising PP, an outer layer (20) comprising PP and an barrier layer (30) comprising an oxide material barrier (32) made from aluminium oxide or silicon oxide and a carrier or substrate layer (34) coated by said oxide material barrier (32), and an adhesive layer (50) made from PU between layers (10) and (34), said carrier or substrate layer (34) being made of PP, wherein the total thickness of the laminated material (1) is comprised between 200 and 250 µm and wherein the inner layer (10) and the outer layer (20) are sealed together by heat to from the laminated tube and wherein in the examples, layers (10) and (20) have the same thickness (paragraph [0082]; paragraph [0023]; paragraph [0026]; paragraph [0039] -- paragraph [0040]; paragraph [0064]; paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0074]; paragraph [0073]; paragraph [0075] - paragraph [0076]; paragraph [0077] - paragraph [0078]; paragraph [0084]; claims 1-15).
Regarding claim 5, the PP comprises at least 95% in mass of the laminated material (paragraph [0055]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mutha (EP3715105A1).
Mutha teaches a laminated tube as described above. Mutha teaches a melting temperature T1 of the adhesive layer (50) as less than 120C (paragraph [0029]), but does not specify the Tg of the adhesive. However, the range for the melting temperature results in a group of adhesives which will have Tg values overlapping the claimed value and Tg will be less than the melting temperature. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Srilakshmi 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.
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782