DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-18 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
The objections to claim(s) 11 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 05/05/2026.
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.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in the previous Office Action mailed 11/05/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 05/05/2026.
Claim(s) 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is vague and indefinite because the (co)polyester resin in the mixture is required to be amorphous, and amorphous (co)polyesters do not have a melt peak (i.e., melting point (Tm)) -- i.e., melting point (Tm) (corresponding to the recited “melt peak”) of a (co)polyester is associated with the presence of crystallinity and crystalline lattices, while amorphous (co)polyesters, due to their lack of crystallinity, instead only exhibit a glass transition temperature (Tg) and a softening temperature.
Claim 4 may be subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 after the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are adequately resolved.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, 16-18 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);
and in view of Applicant’s Admissions.
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;
wherein an illustrative, non-limiting example of the amorphous copolyester is VITEL 1200B (or V1200B) with a Tg of about 70°C.
(c) 0.01-5 wt% of an anti-fog additive (e.g., sorbitan esters; glycerol esters; etc. or mixtures thereof -- for example: ATMER 100; ATMER 1440; ATMER 1010; ATMER 116, available from Croda Polymer Additives);
wherein illustrative, non-limiting examples of the heat-seal composition containing a mixture of: amorphous copolyester VITEL 1200B; 1.44-1.50 wt% ALTMER 1010; and 1.44-1.50 wt% ALTMER 116) exhibit Tg values of less than 0°C.
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, 0126-0131, etc.; Table 1, 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.)
Applicant admits that heat-seal compositions containing: (co)polyester; and equal amounts (within a range of 1.5-3.5 wt%) of ATMER 1010 and ATMER 116; exhibit lower Tg values (i.e., 57.3-64.2 °C) and higher heat of fusion values (i.e., 14.2-17.9 J/g) compared to the copolyester resin alone (i.e., 74°C and 1.4 J/g, respectively).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18 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 (as evidenced by NWOSU ET AL ‘563);
(iii) the working Examples in PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 utilize the same combination of the same identical anti-fogging agents (i.e., ALTMER 1010 and ALTMER 116) in substantially similar amounts (i.e., equal amounts of ALTMER 1010 and ALTMER 116 in a range of 1.44-1.50 wt%) as used in Applicant’s own Inventive Examples;
(iv) Applicant’s own Inventive Examples 1-5 show that heat-seal compositions containing amorphous copolyester and equal amounts (within a range of 1.5-3.5 wt%) of ATMER 1010 and ATMER 116 exhibits higher heat of fusion values (i.e., 14.2-17.9 J/g) compared to the amorphous copolyester resin alone (i.e., 1.4 J/g);
the Examine has reason to believe that a mixture of: (a) the amorphous copolyester component; and (c) a mixture of anti-fogging agents ALTMER 1010 and ALTMER 116 in substantially equal amounts up to 5 wt%; consistent with the heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 would have: (1) a heat of fusion (ΔHf) which is greater than the amorphous copolyester (corresponding to the recited “amorphous (co)polyester resin”) alone as recited in claims 1-2; and (2) a heat of fusion value which at least partially overlaps the recited range in claim 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 amorphous copolyesters with a Tg of 45-110 ºC, with an illustrative, non-limiting example of an amorphous copolyester with a Tg of 70°C;
(iii) the working Examples in PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 utilize the same combination of the same identical anti-fogging agents (i.e., ALTMER 1010 and ALTMER 116) in substantially similar amounts (i.e., equal amounts of ALTMER 1010 and ALTMER 116 in a range of 1.44-1.50 wt%) as used in Applicant’s own Inventive Examples, resulting in heat-seal compositions with lower Tg values than the amorphous copolyester alone (i.e., 70°C);
(iv) Applicant’s own Inventive Examples 1-5 show that heat-seal compositions containing equal amounts (within a range of 1.5-3.5 wt%) of ATMER 1010 and ATMER 116 exhibits lower Tg values (i.e., 57.3-64.2 °C) compared to the copolyester resin alone (i.e., 74°C);
the Examine has reason to believe that a mixture of: (a) the amorphous copolyester component; and (c) a mixture of anti-fogging agents ALTMER 1010 and ALTMER 116 in substantially equal amounts up to 5 wt%; consistent with the heat-seal compositions of PUTHANPARAMBIL ‘274 would have: (1) a Tg which is lower than the amorphous copolyester (corresponding to the recited “amorphous (co)polyester resin”) alone as recited in claims 1, 3; and (2) a Tg which at least partially overlaps the recited range in claim 3; 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 claim 1, the use of the open term “comprising” with respect to the recited “composition” allows for the presence of any amount(s) of any type(s) of additional components, as long as the explicitly recited components (i.e., amorphous (co)polyester; antifog agent); are present and the required Tg and heat of fusion conditions for the mixture are satisfied.
Further regarding claims 1-3, in the absence of any explicit definition or claim language to the contrary, the language “mixture of” in the phrase “mixture of: an amorphous (co)polyester resin... and an antifog agent” in claim 1 is deemed to be equivalent to the open term “comprising of” and therefore the phrase “mixture of” in claim 1 and “mixture” in claims 2-3 permit the presence of any amount(s) of any type(s) of additional components, as long as the explicitly recited components (i.e., amorphous (co)polyester; antifog agent); are present and the required Tg and heat of fusion conditions for the mixture are satisfied.
Additionally and/or alternatively, 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 anti-fogging agents; 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.
Additionally and/or alternatively, 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 anti-fogging agents; 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 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, 16-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the previous Office Action mailed 11/05/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendment filed 05/05/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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.
August 4, 2026
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights