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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2002/0094396) in view of Horii (US 4928908), Yializis (US 6106627),Shepard et al. (US 6068933), and Hurst (US 4077588).
As to claims 1, 6, and 11, Ward et al. discloses a lighter than air balloon (see 0006) formed of a heat-sealing layer (70 of Fig. 2), a primer, a gas barrier layer and a metallization layer (see Fig. 2). The barrier layer is formed of nylon, EVOH, and nylon (see Fig. 2, 0040). Ward et al. states the balloon structure allows for the balloon to have improved barrier properties and extended shelf life (see 0006-0008).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ward et a. fails to disclose the applying the metal layer to the gas barrier core by depositing a metal adhesion prevention agent comprising oil on the non-conductive film to create a pattern; and vapor depositing a metal comprising copper over the patterned outer layer of the film resulting in a patterned copper layer comprising islands of electrically isolated, continuous, conductive deposits of metal; or the core is formed of a set of gas barrier layers sandwiched between a first and second adhesive layer where the gas barrier layers comprises a set of transparent polymeric gas barrier layers as required by claims 1, 6, and 11.
Horii disclose a balloon that has a discontinuous metallic layer formed over the plastic film. Horii states by forming the patterned metallic layer with a metallic and insulating surface provides a balloon that does not have an electroconductive property resulting in a balloon without negative effects when in contact with electric wires (see col. 1, lines 15-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use provide the metallic coating over the balloon in Ward et al. in a patterned form as taught by Horii. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming balloon capable of being decorated and having a metal layer where Horii teaches by patterning the metal layer, the balloon prevents electrical issues and damage by providing a nonconductive surface.
As to the limitation of forming the patterned metal layer, Yializis teaches a method of forming a discontinuous metal layer on a polymer substrate via oil masking. Yializis states aluminum patterns can be formed on polymeric films by forming an oil pattern and depositing the aluminum and removing the oil (see col. 7, lines 28-67). Yializis creates conductive metal deposits that are surrounded by polymer dielectric material which act as electrical insulator (see col. 7, lines 44-46 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the process of Ward et al. modified by Horii to include using the method taught by Yializis. to apply the metal layer in a discontinuous manner. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to the metallization of plastic films for barrier properties where Yializis discloses an operable method of patterned aluminum onto polymeric film to provide metallic deposits and clear spaces between the metallic deposits.
The patterned aluminum layer meets the limitation of applying a metal layer to the gas barrier core, the claim does not state the metal layer is part of the non-conductive film, therefore it can be applied after the heat-sealing layer. The claim does not further limit the metal layer as a different layer than the patterned aluminum layer therefore the patterned layer meets the limitation of the application of the metal layer.
As to the limitation of the core consisting of a layer of EVOH sandwiched between two barrier layers that are sandwiched between two adhesive layers, Shepard discloses a clear transparent ((see multilayer polymeric film that comprises a core layer of EVOH sandwiched between two nylon layers improves physical properties of the film, gloss properties and clarity thereby providing packaging with improved structure and appearance (see col. 4, lines 1-18). Shepard teaches the films provides gas barrier properties while also providing high strength, stiffness and abrasion resistance. Shepard discloses a film, which comprises a heat-sealing layer (46 of Fig. 4); a first adhesive layer (43 of Fig. 4); a gas barrier core consisting of a layer of nylon (41 of Fig. 4), EVOH layer (40 of Fig. 4) and another layer of nylon (42 of Fig. 4); and a second adhesive (44 of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multilayer gas barrier film with the adhesive layers of Shepard in the balloon of Ward et al. in order to have improved gas barrier properties and bonding between the layers (see col. 4, lines 1-18 of Shepard). One would have been motivated to do so since both are using the same layers (EVOH sandwiched with NYLON and a heat- sealing layer) where Shepard further teaches the adhesive provides added security to the film.
As to the limitation of applying copper as the vapor deposited metal, Ward et al. teaches the use of aluminum and fails to teach copper as claimed.
Hurst discloses a balloon that is filled with a lighter than air gas made of an envelope of non-elastomeric polymer material having a vapor deposited metal formed thereon. Hurst states the metal layer can be aluminum, copper, gold, silver, etc. (see col. 6, lines 5-15). Hurst shows that copper is an alternative metal used for lighter than air balloons for aluminum.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process, film, and apparatus of Ward et al. Horii, Yializis, and Shepard to include the use of copper as the patterned metallized film as taught by Hurst. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed the lighter than air balloons have a metallized layer where Hurst further teaches copper as alternate metal for the metallized layer. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known element for another having the same intended purpose provides predictable results especially absent any evidence in criticality in using one over the other.
As to claims 4 and 9, the heat-sealing layer formed on a second surface of the cure (see 70 of Fig. 2 of Ward).
As to claims 5 and 10, the limitation of the gas barrier core prevents egress of lighter than air gases is taught by Ward et al. (improves the shelf-life of the balloon – stays inflated longer – see 0006-0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 9-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As to the use of Horii, the response to the arguments is as stated in the previous office actions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712