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.
Claims 1-36 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I and the following species, claims 9-11, 13-18, 24, 26-27, 29-36 in the reply filed on 05/18/26 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12, 19-23, 25, 28 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/26.
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 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.
If this application currently names joint inventors: in considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, 24, 26, 30, 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa (U.S. 2024/0010404) in view of Furuya (U.S. 2022/0402250) in view of Majima (U.S. 2024/0009976) with evidence from the Polymer Data Handbook (1999).
Regarding claims 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, 24, 26, 30, 32-35, Yoshikawa teaches a laminate of a gas barrier film and a heat seal layer with an adhesive directly therebetween (as in claim 10 and 35), wherein the gas barrier film includes a base material of unstretched HDPE (characterized by a density overlapping claims 16, see NPL evidentiary reference, pages 493-507, and unstretched because stretching is discloses as merely preferred in [0047] such that non-stretched is a non-preferred embodiment within the scope of Yoshikawa, as in claim 17) with a thickness of 10 microns or more, with an aluminum oxide or silicon oxide (as in claim 18) vapor deposited inorganic coating thereon at a thickness of more than 10 nm, and with the heat seal layer of polyolefin (e.g., including LLDPE as in claim 26) having a thickness of 20-100 microns being bound to the inorganic side of the gas barrier film via an adhesive layer of Maxive (the same as in the present application, inherently as in claims 11 and 34) (see abstract, [0038]-[0055], [0064]-[0066], [0072]-[0073], [0121]).
Based on the unstretched HDPE base material disclosed above, it will inherently have a probe descent property as in claims 1 and 30 based on the present examples and comparative examples and the disclosure provided in the present application.
As explained above, Yoshikawa discloses that the heat seal layer directly contacting the adhesive maybe a polyolefin but does not disclose that it includes LLDPE as a main component (a heat seal layer of PP and LLDPE is preferred but the reference is not limited to that preferred embodiment and explicitly suggests generic olefin resins, [0066]). Furuya is also directed to gas barrier laminates with a vapor deposited inorganic oxide on a polyolefin layer joined to an olefin heat seal layer via an intervening adhesive layer (like Yoshikawa) and discloses the LLDPE (i.e., a film entirely of LLDPE) was a know suitable material that can be fused together by heat for forming packaging as in Yoshikawa such that it would have been obvious to have used LLDPE as the heat seal material called for in Yoshikawa because Furuya discloses that such a material was known for providing heat fusing functionality suitable for packaging (see abstract, [0113]-[0114], [0229]-[0230], [0241]).
Modified Yoshikawa discloses the same adhesive as in the present application but does not disclose its thickness. However, Majima is also directed to gas barrier laminates formed by a gas barrier layer including an inorganic oxide coating and a heat seal olefin layer connected via the Maxive adhesive and teaches that 0.1-10 microns is an suitable thickness for providing the desired adhesive functionality (adhering the gas barrier layer to the olefin heat seal layer) such that it would have been obvious to use such a thickness for the Maxive adhesive already disclosed in Yoshikawa in order to achieve the functionality taught by Majima and sought by Yoshikawa (see abstract, [0049], [0052], [0058], [0185]). The above adhesive thickness overlaps claims 14, 33 and 36, and inherently results in the barrier property of claim 13 and 32.
Based on the materials and thicknesses disclosed above, the overall amount of polyethylene is more than 90% as claimed.
No water swellable mica is required in the above references as in claim 24.
Claim(s) 15, 27, 29, 31, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa (U.S. 2024/0010404) in view of Furuya (U.S. 2022/0402250) in view of Majima (U.S. 2024/0009976) with evidence from the Polymer Data Handbook (1999), as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Takeuchi (U.S. 2016/0237557).
Regarding claims 15, 27, 29, 31, 36, modified Yoshikawa discloses all of the above subject matter, but does not disclose the undercoat/anchor layer between the base material and inorganic layer (or the adhesive strength of the base material). However, the other aspects of claims 29 and 36 (not related to the underlayer) are already rendered obvious by modified Yoshikawa as explained above.
Takeuchi is also directed to a laminate with a gas barrier layer formed of a polyolefin having a vapor deposited inorganic oxide layer thereon and discloses that adhesion between those two layers may be beneficially improved by using a polyurethane (acrylic polyol and isocyanate reaction product, as in claim 29) undercoat anchor layer, as in claim 15, of 0.05-0.5 microns, as in claim 36, such that it would have been obvious to have used such an undercoat anchor layer in modified Yoshikawa in order to improve adhesion as in Takeuchi (see abstract, [0035]-[0040]). The resulting laminate includes layer materials and thicknesses that overlap the materials and thicknesses of the present application and will inherently have the same strength as in claims 27 and 31.
Conclusion
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights