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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gringoire et al. (US 2006/0029824) in view of Hamada et al. (US 2003/0191243).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Gringoire discloses sealable packaging film, i.e. a sealable lidstock, (0002, 0005, 0015) comprising metal substrate (0014, 0021) and heat sealable coating film, i.e. sealing layer (abstract, 0014) wherein the sealing layer comprising 60 to 99 phr of ethylene acrylic acid copolymer, i.e. 60 to 99 wt% copolymer A comprising one or more polymerized olefin monomers and one or more polymerized ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomers, (0025-0026) and 0.1 to 2 phr of silica particle with particle size of 3 to 5 microns, i.e. 0.1 to 2 wt% of inorganic particles with mass median diameter of 3 to 5 microns, (0038).
Gringoire does not disclose copolymer B and its amount.
Hamada discloses acrylic polymer composition for packaging material (abstract, 0051) comprising 10 to 50 wt% of methacrylic copolymer (0024, 0045) comprising mixture of methyl methacrylate and butyl acrylate (0021-0023, 0026) to obtain improved dispersibility, transparency and mechanical strength (0008, 0020, 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use copolymer of Hamada in the sealing layer of Gringoire to obtain improved dispersibility, transparency and mechanical strength. Given that the sealing layer of Gringoire in view of Hamada discloses the same composition and their amounts as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the sealing layer of Gringoire in view of Hamada would have the same properties such as peelable.
Regarding claims 2 and 6-7, Gringoire in view of Hamada discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein given that the particles have particle size of Gringoire in view of Hamada is 3 to 5 microns, it meets the presently claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Gringoire in view of Hamada discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein copolymer A comprises 65 to 95 wt% of ethylene and 5 to 35 wt% of acrylic acid (0026) and copolymer B comprising polymerized acrylate C1-C8 ester monomer (Hamada: 0021).
Regarding claim 4, Gringoire in view of Hamada discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein given that present claim recites up to 30% by weight of carboxylic acid, it is considered 0.
Regarding claims 10-11, Gringoire in view of Hamada discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein Hamada discloses methacrylic copolymer comprising mixture of methyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate and methacrylic acid (0021-0023, 0026).
Regarding claims 13-15, Gringoire in view of Hamada discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein Gringoire discloses the thickness of the layer is depended on desired sealability and coefficient of friction (0040).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thickness of the film is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the sealability and coefficient of friction are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of layer of Gringoire in view of Hamada the precise thickness amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of layer in the lidstock to obtain the desired sealability and coefficient of friction (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gringoire et al. (US 2006/0029824) in view of Hamada et al. (US 2003/0191243) and further in view of Eggers et al. (US 2002/0168512).
Regarding claim 5, Gringoire in view of Hamada discloses the lidstock of claim 1 but fails to teach talc.
Eggers discloses heat sealable layer comprising silica or talc in an amount of 0.1 to 2 wt% to obtain antiblocking properties (0025, 0037).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use talc of Eggers in the sealing layer of Gringoire in view of Hamada to obtain antiblocking properties.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 2019/0143658) in view of Hamada et al. (US 2003/0191243) and Read (US 2015/0291825).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Inoue discloses packaging container comprising metal foil layer D with sealing layer A, i.e. a sealable lidstock comprising a metal substrate and a sealing layer (fig. 1, 0032, 0056) wherein the sealing layer comprising 70 wt% or more of ethylene acrylic acid copolymer (0034-0035) and a filler (0037).
Inoue does not disclose copolymer B and inorganic particles C.
Hamada discloses acrylic polymer composition for packaging material (abstract, 0051) comprising 10 to 50 wt% of methacrylic copolymer (0024, 0045) comprising mixture of methyl methacrylate and butyl acrylate (0021-0023, 0026) to obtain improved dispersibility, transparency and mechanical strength (0008, 0020, 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use copolymer of Hamada in the sealing layer of Gringoire to obtain improved dispersibility, transparency and mechanical strength.
Inoue in view of Hamada does not disclose inorganic particles C.
Read discloses film for packaging comprising 0.1 to 2 wt% of silica with particle size of 3 to 5 micron, i.e. 0.1 to 2 wt% of inorganic particles with mass median diameter of 3 to 5 microns, (0146) to obtain reduced tack at room temperature (0146).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the silica of Best in the sealing layer of Inoue in view of Hamada to obtain reduced coefficient of friction and reduced tack at room temperature. Given that the sealing layer of Inoue in view of Hamada and Read discloses the same composition and their amounts as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the sealing layer of Inoue in view of Hamada and Read would have the same properties such as peelable.
Regarding claims 2 and 6-7, Inoue in view of Hamada and Read discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein given that the particle size of Inoue in view of Hamada and Read is 3 to 5 microns, it meets the presently claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Inoue in view of Hamada and Read discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein copolymer A comprises 65 to 95 wt% of ethylene and 5 to 35 wt% of acrylic acid (0026) and copolymer B comprising polymerized acrylate C1-C8 ester monomer (Hamada: 0021).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue in view of Hamada and Read discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein given that present claim recites up to 30% by weight of carboxylic acid, it is considered 0.
Regarding claim 8, Inoue in view of Hamada and Read discloses the lidstock of claim 1, wherein the metal layer is aluminum foil with a thickness of 1 to 300 microns (0056).
Regarding claims 13-15, Inoue in view of Hamada and Read discloses lidstock of claim 1, wherein Inoue discloses the thickness of the sealing layer is 5 microns to 250 microns (0036).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 2019/0143658) in view of Read (US 2015/0291825) and Hamada et al. (US 2003/0191243) and further in view of Eggers et al. (US 2002/02168512).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue in view of Read discloses the lidstock of claim 1 but fails to teach talc.
Eggers discloses heat sealable layer comprising silica or talc in an amount of 0.1 to 2 wt% to obtain antiblocking properties (0025, 0037).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use talc of Eggers in the sealing layer of Inoue in view of Hamada and Read to obtain antiblocking properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specific blend of Hamada is formulated to overcome problems of previous blends and therefore Hamada does not lead one to understand that a single component of that blend can be added to a completely separate composition with the expectation of any particular outcomes. However, it is noted that Hamada does disclose the use of claimed copolymer B with a motivation as explained above. Further, there is nothing in the present claims that excludes having other component of the composition of Hamada.
Applicant argues that Hamada discloses desired characteristics of the composition are highly dependent of the ratio of the components therein. However, applicant’s attention is drawn to paragraphs 0020 and 0045 of Hamada which disclose the motivation to use methacrylic copolymer. Further, as noted above, there is nothing in present claims that excludes any other components in sealing layer.
Applicant argues that the asserted rationale does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the particular manner claimed not does it demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success. According to MPEP 2143.02, “A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Also, MPEP 2143.02, II, states “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability, however, at least some degree of predictability is required.” Applicant’s argument regarding whether one of ordinary skill in the art would be “reasonable expectation of success” is interpreted by the Examiner as "predictability". In the present case, the Examiner believes some degree of predictability is present, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to believe modifying the sealable coating film of Gringoire/Inoue with copolymer of Hamada would result in a similar sealing layer in Gringoire/Inoue. The difference between a sealing layer for packaging container of Gringoire/Inoue and an acrylic polymer composition for packing material of Hamada would not be sufficient to reduce the level of predictability below that required for obviousness by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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 at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights