DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 contains abbreviations without the associated polymer name. Abbreviations should be accompanied by the term associated with the abbreviation for at least the first occurrence of the abbreviation in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 15 are vague and indefinite because the phrases "preferably" and “most preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 is vague and indefinite because the claim is dependent on itself (i.e., claim 15).
Claims 4, 9-14 are dependent on one or more of the above claims and therefore incorporate the above-described indefinite subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• PUTHANPARAMBIL (US 2019/0337274),
in view of NWOSU ET AL (US 2023/0357563).
PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 discloses extrudable anti-fog copolyester heat-seal compositions, wherein the heat-seal composition comprise:
(a) a semi-crystalline copolyester derived from diols and diacids (or diester derivatives thereof) with:
• a glass transition temperature (Tg) of -30 ºC to 0 ºC;
• a melting point (Tm) of 100-160 ºC;
• a ring melt point of 70-160 ºC;
(b) an amorphous copolyester (corresponding to the recited “(co)polyester resin”) derived from diols (e.g., ethylene glycol, etc.) and diacids (e.g., terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid, etc.) or diester derivatives thereof (e.g., dimethyl terephthalate, dimethyl isophthalate, etc.)) -- for example, but not limited to, an amorphous copolyester made from ethylene glycol, terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid; wherein the amorphous copolyester has:
• a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 45-110 ºC;
• a ring melt point of 130-200 ºC;
(c) an anti-fog additive (e.g., sorbitan esters; glycerol esters; etc.);
The heat-seal compositions are utilized to form anti-fog heat-sealable films comprising:
• a film layer (corresponding to the recited “core layer”);
• a heat-seal layer comprising the above anti-fog heat-seal composition;
wherein the anti-fog heat-sealable films are useful for forming:
• lidding films for containers wherein the heat-seal layer is bonded to the container;
• bags or pouches wherein the heat-seal layer is bonded to another portion of the heat-seal layer.
(entire document, paragraph 0003, 0033-0038, 0040, 0042-0049, 0058, 0061-0064, 0074-0075, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss heat of fusion of copolyesters or compositions.
NWOSU ET AL ‘563 discloses that it is well known in the art that:
• amorphous polyesters can be generally categorized as having a heat of fusion (ΔHf) of less than 5 J/g;
• semi-crystalline polyesters can be generally categorized as having a heat of fusion (ΔHf) of 5 J/g or more;
(paragraph 0023, etc.)
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the extrudable anti-fog copolyester heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 to form heat-sealable packaging materials.
Further regarding claims 1-2, since: (i) the heat of fusion of a multi-component composition can be approximated by a weighted average (based on mass) of the heats of fusion of the individual components; (ii) amorphous polyesters are generally categorized as having a heat of fusion (ΔHf) of less than 5 J/g; and (ii) semi-crystalline polyesters are generally categorized as having a heat of fusion (ΔHf) of 5 J/g or more; the Examine has reason to believe that the heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 containing a mixture of amorphous copolyester and semi-crystalline copolyester would have a heat of fusion (ΔHf) which is greater than the amorphous copolyester (corresponding to the recited “(co)polyester resin”) alone as recited in claims 1-2, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Further regarding claims 1, 3 since: (i) the Tg of a multi-component composition generally lies between the Tg values of the individual components and can be approximated by a weighted average (based on mass) of the Tg values of the individual components; (ii) PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 discloses heat-seal compositions containing a mixture of amorphous polyesters with a Tg of 45-110 ºC and semi-crystalline polyesters with a Tg of -30 ºC to 0 ºC; the Examine has reason to believe that the heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 containing a mixture of amorphous copolyester and semi-crystalline copolyester would have a Tg which is lower than the amorphous copolyester (corresponding to the recited “(co)polyester resin”) alone as recited in claims 1, 3, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected: (i) the relative amount and heat of fusion of the amorphous copolyester; and (ii) the relative amount and heat of fusion of the semi-crystalline copolyester; in the heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 in order to produce heat-seal compositions with the optimal crystallization characteristics and/or performance properties (e.g., seal initiation, seal strength, flexibility, etc.) for specific packaging applications and/or heat-sealing conditions and/or apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected (i) the relative amount and Tg of the amorphous copolyester; and (ii) the relative amount and Tg of the semi-crystalline copolyester; in the heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 in order to produce heat-seal compositions with the optimal performance properties (e.g., resistance to blocking, flexibility and/or peel strength at low or elevated temperatures, etc.) for specific packaging applications and/or heat-sealing conditions and/or apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized amorphous copolyesters and semi-crystalline copolyesters with Tm and/or ring melt points which are substantially similar (as represented by a similarity between the melt peak of the recited “(co)polyester resin” and the melt peak of the composition) in the heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 in order to prevent incompatibility or non-uniformity during extrusion and/or melt-coating processes.
Regarding claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the ratio of terephthalate units and isophthalic acid-based units in the amorphous copolyester in the heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 in order to optimize the thermal and heat-seal characteristics (e.g., melt points, Tg, heat-seal initiation, optimal heat-seal temperature, etc.) of the heat-seal composition for specific packaging applications and/or heat-sealing conditions and/or apparatus.
Claim(s) 10-11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• PUTHANPARAMBIL (US 2019/0337274), in view of NWOSU ET AL (US 2023/0357563),
as applied to claims 1-10, 12-14 above,
and further in view of TROUILHET ET AL (US 2013/0029553),
and further in view of BARDIOT ET AL (US 2004/0077759) or BARDIOT ET AL (US 7,622,176).
TROUILHET ET AL ‘553 discloses that it is well known in the art to form peelable / reclosable packaging films comprising:
(a) heat-sealable layer comprising an amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (APET) copolyester;
(b) a hot-extrudable pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer (corresponding to the recited “pressure sensitive adhesive” and the recited “hot-melt self-adhesive composition”) optionally in direct contact with the heat-sealable layer (a) -- e.g., but not limited to, a PSA composition as disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 7,622,176 (BARDIOT ET AL) which comprises a blend of:
(i) 45-85 wt% of at least one styrene block copolymer formed from at least one styrene monomer and at least one other comonomer (e.g., ethylene, propylene, isoprene, butadiene, butylene, etc.), wherein:
• the styrene block copolymer(s) can have a diblock, triblock or multiblock structure;
• the styrene block copolymer(s) comprises 10 and 35% of a styrene phase in the copolymer(s);
• the styrene block copolymer(s) contains greater than 30% of diblocks in the polymer;
• the styrene block copolymer(s) have a melt flow index (MFI) of 2-40 g/10 min;
(ii) 15-55 wt% of at least one compatible tackifying resin with a softening point of 5-150° C;
wherein the peelable / reclosable PSA layer provides peel forces of 2 N/cm or more for 5 or more reopenings;
(c) a tie layer;
(d) a structural layer (corresponding to the recited “core layer”);
wherein the peelable / reclosable packaging film is useful for forming: (i) lidding films for containers; or (ii) bags or pouches in which the heat-sealable layer (a) is bonded to another portion of the heat-sealable layer (a). (paragraph 0002, 0018-0022, 0052, 0058-0064, 0067, 0108-0110, etc.)
BARDIOT ET AL ‘759 and BARDIOT ET AL ‘176 further disclose that styrene-based hot-melt pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) compositions suitable for peelable / resealable packaging films (e.g., as suggested in TROUILHET ET AL ‘553) can comprise:
(i) 45-85 wt% of a blend of styrene block copolymer(s) -- e.g., comprising:
• at least one styrene diblock-containing copolymer, wherein the intermediate block of the styrene di-block-containing copolymer comprises isoprene, butadiene, butylene, or a combination thereof (corresponding to the recited “at least one diblock copolymer chosen from the group comprising SI, SBI, SIB, SB, SEB and SEP”);
• other styrene polymer(s) comprising linear, radial, or star-shaped triblock structures, formed from styrene monomers and at least one other comonomer (e.g., ethylene, propylene, isoprene, butadiene, butylene) (corresponding to the recited “at least one triblock copolymer chosen from the group comprising SIS, SIBS, SBS, SEBS and SEPS”);
wherein the diblock structures in the blend of styrene block copolymer(s) comprises at least 30 wt%;
(ii) 15-55 wt% of at least one tackifying resin.
(BARDIOT ET AL ‘759, paragraph 0002-0004, 0011-0012, 0017-0019, 0027-0036, 0039-0041, 0044-0048, 0057-0058, etc.; claims 1-2, 6, 10-16, etc.) (see corresponding portions of BARDIOT ET AL ‘176)
Regarding claims 10-11, 14-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the extrudable anti-fog copolyester heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 in known peelable / reclosable packaging films as disclosed in TROUILHET ET AL ‘553 utilizing known styrene-based block copolymer hot-melt PSA materials (as suggested in TROUILHET ET AL ‘553; as disclosed in BARDIOT ET AL ‘759 or BARDIOT ET AL ‘176) in order to produce known packaging products that can be repeatedly peeled open, then resealed.
Further regarding claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the amount of styrene diblock-containing copolymer in the PSA layer in TROUILHET ET AL ‘553 in order to provide the desired diblock content of at least 30 wt% in the PSA composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FORLONI ET AL (US 2019/0389188) disclose anti-fog heat-sealable polyester compositions.
PETKE ET AL (US 4,554,303) disclose heat-sealable polyester compositions.
HEEMANN ET AL (US 2016/0289504) disclose styrene-based hot-melt pressure-sensitive adhesive compositions.
HAEDT ET AL (US 2006/0172131) and ARISANDY ET AL (US 2010/0035001) disclose peelable / resealable packaging films.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
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.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
November 1, 2025
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787