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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 11/13/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 2, 9, and 12 are amended, claims 1 and 19-23 are canceled and claims 2-18 are pending.
Previous formal rejection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and comments.
Previous Double Patenting rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s submission of Approved Terminal Disclaimers.
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 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riis et al. (WO 2015/123211 A1).
Claims 2 and 4-8: Riis teaches a film comprising a base film and a sealant film on the base film, wherein the sealant film is a three-layer coextrusion of ethylene acrylic acid EAA {instant claims 6 and 7}, low density polyethylene LDPE {instant claim 6} and cyclic olefine copolymer (COC) such as ethylene-norbornene copolymer ([0018] and [00174]). The EAA and LDPE meet the claimed tie layer, and the COC meets the claimed contact layer. Riis teaches the COC has a glass transition temperature of 50-138 ˚C {instant claim 4} [0053]. Riis does not teach a melting point of EAA and a melting point of LDPE. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the melting point of EAA and the melting point of LDPE {instant claims 5 and 8}, and the motivation would be to control film flexibility and film forming property. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
With respect to the claimed extrusion temperature, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the extrusion temperature, and the motivation would be to control viscosity and flow behavior which in turn controls strength, degradation and layer adhesion of the film. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 3: The EAA of Riis meets the claimed first layer, and the LDPE of Riis meets the claimed second layer. Riis teaches the COC has a glass transition temperature of 50-138 ˚C [0053]. Riis does not teach a melting point of LDPE. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the melting point of LDPE, and the motivation would be to control film flexibility and film forming property. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riis et al. (WO 2015/123211 A1).
Claims 9-12 and 14: Riis teaches a film comprising a base film and a sealant film on the base film, wherein the sealant film is a three-layer coextrusion of ethylene acrylic acid EAA {instant claims 11 and 14}, low density polyethylene LDPE {instant claim 11} and cyclic olefine copolymer {instant claim 14} (COC) such as ethylene-norbornene copolymer ([0018] and [00174]). The EAA meets the claimed first layer, the LDPE meets the claimed second layer, and the COC meets the claimed contact layer. Riis teaches the COC has a glass transition temperature of 50-138 ˚C [0053].
Riis does not teach a melting point of EAA and a melting point of LDPE. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the melting point of EAA and the melting point of LDPE {instant claim 10}, and the motivation would be to control film flexibility and film forming property. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Riis does not teach a loading of EAA and a loading of LDPE. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the loading of EAA and the loading of LDPE {instant claim 12}, and the motivation would be to control lamination property and film forming property. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
With respect to the claimed extrusion temperature, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the extrusion temperature, and the motivation would be to control viscosity and flow behavior which in turn controls strength, degradation and layer adhesion of the film. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 13: Riis teaches the EAA, LDPE and COC are formed by a method of coextrusion coating [00174], and the EAA is positioned between the base layer and the LDPE [00168].
Claim 15: Riis does not teach a loading of COC. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the loading of COC, and the motivation would be to control toughness/strength, and gas and moisture properties. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 16-17: Riis does not teach a loading ration between EAA and LDPE. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the loading ratio, and the motivation would be to control lamination property, film forming property and flexibility. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 18: Riis does not teach a loading ration between EAA/LDPE and COC. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the loading ratio, and the motivation would be to control film forming property, flexibility, toughness/strength, and gas and moisture properties. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As to the claimed extrusion temperature, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the extrusion temperature, and the motivation would be to control viscosity and flow behavior which in turn controls strength, degradation and layer adhesion of the film.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
February 25, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785