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
Claim(s) 1 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangou et al. (US 2018/0236757).
Regarding claim 1:
Nangou discloses a water barrier laminate that also has gas barrier properties [abstract; 0001; 0016; 0065; 0148; 0193]. One embodiment comprises a plastic base material 1, a water-trapping (WTR) layer 5, and an inorganic barrier layer 7 placed on an organic layer 9 in this order [0060; Fig. 1]. Nangou further teaches providing an adhesive between adjacent layers [0258].
Nangou teaches the water vapor permeability of the inorganic layer is not more than 10-3 g/m2/day at 40°C and 90% RH, which can be adjusted by the thickness of the inorganic layer [0073]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the inorganic layer to adjust the permeability, including over values within the claimed range, to provide the properties desired for a given end use. 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).
Nangou discloses several layer configurations of the laminate, several of which meet the claimed configurations [0215-0258; Fig. 1 and 3-30]. In view of the large number of claimed configurations, the examiner provides only a few illustrative examples. For instance, Nangou’s configurations of:
PLA/INOR/WTR/INOR/ORG/AS-WTR, and
PLA/INOR/WTR/INOR/ORG/AS-WTR/ORG
meet at least either claimed configuration of:
the plastic layer (x)/the inorganic barrier layer (a2)/the moisture trapping layer (B1)/the adhesive layer (D)/the plastic layer (C); or
the plastic layer (x)/the inorganic barrier layer (a2)/the moisture trapping layer (B1)/the adhesive layer (D)/the inorganic barrier layer (a3)/the plastic layer (C);
wherein PLA is a plastic base material, INOR is an inorganic barrier layer, WTR is a water-trapping layer, and ORG is an organic layer. The examiner again notes Nangou teaches the use of adhesive layers, even if they are not explicitly represented in the description or drawings [0258]. Furthermore, the present claims use inclusive language (“comprising”) and so remain open to elements not specifically recited in the claimed configurations, including additional layers.
Regarding claim 8:
Nangou teaches the inorganic barrier layers comprise metal oxides [0067].
Regarding claims 9 and 11:
Nangou teaches the organic layer 9 comprises the same materials used for the plastic base material 1, which comprises olefins, polyester, or polyimide [0064; 0147].
Regarding claim 10:
Nangou teaches the WTR layers comprise moisture absorbing agents dispersed in ionic polymer [0074; 0153].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous claim objections and the rejections under 35 USC 112.
Regarding rejections based on Nangou, Applicant argues the reference uses two or more moisture trapping layers whereas the present claims are “limited to novel layer configurations including only one moisture trapping layer” (p6).
The examiner has reviewed the claimed layer configurations with the disclosure of Nangou and maintains the prior art discloses layer configurations that meet the claimed layer configurations. As noted in the rejection, Nangou discloses one embodiment of PLA/INOR/WTR/INOR/ORG/AS-WTR and further teaches adhesive layers can be used between the layers. This disclosure meets several of the claimed layer configurations. Although this embodiment uses two water-trapping layers (WTR) and each layer configuration in the claimed list of specific layer configurations only recites one moisture trapping layer, the present claims use inclusive language (“comprising”) and so remain open to additional layers, including a second WTR layer. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejections.
Applicant argues the claimed moisture permeability is an order of magnitude less than the vapor permeability taught by Nangou (p6). Applicant additionally argues Nangou’s Examples use an inorganic barrier having a vapor permeability that is outside the claimed range (p6).
Nangou, however, discloses a range of water vapor permeability that is not more than 10-3 g/m2/day. This range overlaps with the presently claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a lower water vapor permeability, including values within the claimed range, to provide the desired degree of moisture resistance. Furthermore, while Nangou discloses an inorganic layer having a water vapor permeability outside the claimed range, the reference nevertheless provides a broader range of permeability which overlaps with the presently claimed range. Applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others. In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Applicant argues the present invention provides excellent gas barrier properties (p7).
Present claim 1 recites a “gas barrier multilayer film” comprising “an inorganic barrier layer” and a specific moisture permeability. As noted in the rejection, Nangou discloses a water barrier laminate having gas barrier properties, and an inorganic barrier layer having a water vapor permeability that overlaps with the presently claimed permeability as discussed above. Therefore, the reference meets the claimed requirements.
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 JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights