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 (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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character 211 has been used to designate two different surfaces in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: 251 (e.g., page 21, line 28) and 430 (e.g., page 30, line 10). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 450 in Figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (US 2008/0063825).
Mori is directed to a medical gas barrier film comprising a multilayer gas barrier film adhered to a multilayer substrate (paragraph 0016). The multilayer substrate comprises, in order: a cyclic olefin polymer layer, an elastomer layer, and a heat sealing layer (paragraph 0017). The cyclic olefin polymer is preferably a copolymer, such as a copolymer of ethylene and norbornene (paragraph 0073). The glass transition temperature of the cyclic olefin polymer is preferably 70 to 150 oC (paragraph 0076). The elastomer layer may include a linear polyethylene having a density1 of 0.910 to 0.930 g/cm3 (paragraph 0086). The heat sealing layer preferably includes a linear polyethylene having a density of 0.925 to 0.945 g/cm3 (paragraph 0089).
The cyclic olefin polymer layer corresponds to the first layer of the claims; the elastomer layer corresponds to the second layer of the claims; the heat sealing layer corresponds to the third layer of the claims.
In the embodiment of Example 1, the multilayer substrate has: a 25 mm thick heat sealing layer comprising linear polyethylene having a density of 0.930 g/cm3, a 55 mm thick elastomer layer comprising a linear polyethylene having a density of 0.920 g/cm3, and a 10 mm thick layer of cyclic olefin polymer having a glass transition temperature of 105 oC (paragraph 0128-0132). Bags formed from the laminate have a vapor transmission rate2 of 0.18 g/m2/day (paragraph 0159).
Regarding claim 3: the cyclic olefin layer represents 10/90 ≈ 11% of the layers corresponding to the first to third layers of the claims, the elastomer layer represents 55/90 ≈ 61% of the layers corresponding to the first to third layers of the claims, and the heat sealing layer represents 25/90 ≈ 28% of the layers corresponding to the first to third layers of the claims. As such - and since the densities of the materials used in the three layers are close - one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the layers of Example 1 corresponding to layers (i) to (iii) of the claims to be present at weight percentages of about 11, 61, and 28, respectively. Additionally, a weight percentage of about 61 for the elastomer layer reads on the lower limit of about 65% for the second layer.
Regarding claim 4, a glass transition temperature of 105 oC reads on the upper limit of about 100 oC.
Regarding claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize a linear polyethylene having a density of 0.920 g/cm3 as linear low density polyethylene.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2008/0107899) in view of Yun et al. (US 2018/0099492).
Lu is directed to a metallized multi-layer film comprising, in order: a metallizable layer comprising a cyclic olefin copolymer, a core layer, and a seal layer (paragraph 0018). The film is used for packaging (paragraph 0074). The core layer comprises a polyolefin, such as polyethylene (paragraph 0029) having a thickness of 8 to 50 mm (paragraph 0032). The cyclic olefin copolymer of the metallizable layer is preferably a copolymer of ethylene and norbornene having a glass transition temperature of about 60 to 170 oC (paragraph 0036). The metallizable layer has a thickness of about 0.1 to 5 mm (paragraph 0042). The seal layer may be a polypropylene plastomer or polyethylene plastomer (paragraph 0047) with a thickness of about 0.1 to 3 mm (paragraph 0048). The film may be laminated to a substrate (paragraph 0063), such as oriented polypropylene (paragraph 0064). After metallization, the oxygen transmission rate is less than 110 cc/m2/24 hr and the water vapor transmission rate is less than 0.8 g/m2/24 (paragraph 0041), with embodiments exhibiting rates as low as 8 cc/m2/24 hr for oxygen and 0.1 g/m2/24 hr for water (Table 2). Using the ideal gas law and a molecular weight of 32 g/mol for oxygen, 8 cc of oxygen at room temperature (21 oC) and atmospheric pressure (101 kPa) would be about 0.01 grams of oxygen (( n = PV/RT ≈ (101,000 Pa ∙ 8 cm3 ∙ 1 m3/106 cm3) / (8.3 m3∙Pa∙K-1∙mol-1 ∙ 294 K) ≈ 3.4×10-4 mol O2; 3.4×10-4 mol ∙ 32 g/mol ≈ 0.01 g O2).
Lu is silent regarding the heat seal initiation temperature of the seal layer.
Yun is directed to a multilayer packaging structure comprising a sealant film (paragraphs 0002-0004). The sealant film may be a monolayer film comprising a polyolefin plastomer (paragraph 0047) having a heat seal initiation temperature of 105 oC or less (paragraph 0044).
It would have been obvious to use the sealant film of Yun as the seal layer of Lu since the courts have held the selection of a known material (e.g., the sealant film of Yun) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., seal layer of a packaging laminate) supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, based on the thickness ranges taught by Lu for the metallizable layer, core layer, and seal layer (i.e., 0.1-5 mm, 8-50 mm, and 0.1-3 mm, respectively), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resulting weight percentages of the layers to overlap the ranges recited in claim 3. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when ranges presented in the claims overlap those of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Likewise regarding claim 4, the range of glass transition temperatures taught by Lu (i.e., 60 to 170 oC) overlap the range recited in claim 4. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 10, the instant specification states that a correlation exists between the coefficient of friction and barrier properties (see paragraph bridging pages 20 and 21). Since the film of Lu has similar oxygen and water barrier properties as the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the coefficient of friction between the metallizable layer and the metal layer to satisfy the limitations of claim 10.q
Regarding claim 11, the oriented polypropylene substrate to which the multi-layer film is laminated reads on an external printable layer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2008/0107899) in view of Yun et al. (US 2018/0099492) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verghese et al. (US 2013/0180213).
Lu taken in view of Yun suggests all the limitations of claim 6, as outlined above, except for the use of linear low density polyethylene, low density polyethylene, or medium density polyethylene as the core layer. However, Lu does teach that the core layer may be comprise a film-forming polyolefin, such as high density polyethylene (paragraph 0029).
Verghese is directed to a packaging film comprising a multilayer metallized film (paragraph 0008). The film has a core layer comprising a film-forming polyolefin such as high density polyethylene or linear low density polyethylene (paragraph 0035).
Verghese shows that high density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene were known in the art as functionally equivalent film-forming polyolefins for use as a core layer in a metallized packaging film. Therefore, because these two polymers were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute linear low density polyethylene for the high density polyethylene taught by Lu.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2008/0107899) in view of Yun et al. (US 2018/0099492) and further in view of Peiffer et al. (US 6,280,833).
Lu taken in view of Yun suggest all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above in paragraph 10, except for the inclusion of a second barrier layer comprising metallized oriented polypropylene and an external printable layer comprising oriented polypropylene and/or polyethylene.
Peiffer is directed to a metallized, biaxially oriented polypropylene packaging film exhibiting reduced haze and high gloss, thus giving the packaging a lustrous appearance in addition to barrier properties (column 2, lines 15-34). The film preferably comprises three layers, base layer B with metallized layer A on one side and layer C on the other side (column 3, lines 38-45). Layer A (column 6, lines 37-45), layer B (column 2, lines 45-48), and layer C (column 3, line 42-43) are all made from polypropylene.
It would have been obvious to use the film of Peiffer as the oriented polypropylene substrate of Lu to provide the resulting laminate with a lustrous appearance, particularly in applications were additional barrier properties are required and/or desired. Additionally, it would have been obvious to laminate the film such that metallized layer A faced towards the multi-layer film of Lu to protect the layer from external abrasions. In such a configuration, layer A reads on layer (b) of claim 13 while layer C reads on layer (c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday afternoons, Eastern time.
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.
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.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
1 although paragraph 0086 reports the density in units of cm3, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize this as a typographical error that should read "g/cm3" since cm3 is not a unit of density while g/cm3 is a unit of density commonly used for polyethylenes.
2 although paragraph 0159 reports the vapor transmission rate in units of cm3/m3/day one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize this as a typographical error that should read " cm3/m2/day" since cm3/m3/day is not a unit of vapor transmission rate while cm3/m2/day is a unit of vapor transmission rate commonly used for films.