DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al. (US 6218017 B1).
Yamashita et al. disclose a laminated structure that can be adhered to a container. FIG. 1 shows a laminated structure comprising a heat sealant layer 2. The heat sealant layers 2, 12 and 22 of the laminated structures (as shown in the Figures of the disclosed invention) may be formed of an elastomer (a styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer, a styrene-isobutylene-styrene block copolymer or a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer), or one of the thermoplastic elastomers tabulated in Tables 1-1 to 1-3 and examples include styrene-isoprene block copolymers, ethylene-butadiene block copolymers, styrene-ethylene-butylene block copolymers (equivalent to the thermoplastic elastomer (B) that contains a styrene unit and meeting the limitations of claims 3, 12, and 13), and ethylene-vinyl acetate thermoplastic elastomers. The thickness of the heat sealant layers 2, 12 and 22 is in the range of 0.1 to 60 microns (meeting the limitations of claim 8). The component layers of the laminated structure (covering structure) include a heat-resistant base layer (equivalent to the base layer of the claimed invention) that may be a uniaxially oriented or biaxially oriented film of a polyester resin, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) or a polyolefin resin, such as polypropylene (equivalent to the thermoplastic resin (A) and meeting the limitation of claims 5 and 10). The thickness of the heat-resistant layer may be determined in compliance with the use of the laminated structure and is in the range of about 12 to about 50 microns (meeting the limitation of claim 9). As shown in FIG. 14, the surface of the heat-resistant base layer 4 may be finished by a surface treatment improve the adhesion between the heat-resistant base layer 4 and the adjacent layer. Furthermore , the rigidity, the Young's modulus and the stiffness of the heat sealant layer 2 can be enhanced by adding a hardener (equivalent to the crosslinker (C) of the claimed invention and meeting the limitiosn of claim 4) to a thermoplastic resin forming the heat sealant layer 2. A desirable hardener content of the thermoplastic resin is in the range of 0.5 to 30% by weight. The addition of such a hardener to the heat sealant layer 2 improves the heat resistance of the heat sealant layer 2 and provides the heat sealant layer 2 with an antiblocking property. (see Abstract and Column 1, lines 5-15; Column 2, lines 50-57; Column 6, lines 20-65; Column 7, lines 25-67; Column 11, lines 20-67; Column 41, lines 25-35; Column 39, lines 20-45; Table 1-1 and Table 1-2).
With regards to the limitation that the sealant layer is composed of a resin composition which satisfies the claimed storage modulus and the slope of the storage modulus, the Examiner takes the position that such property limitations are inherent in the sealant layer taught by Yamashita et al. given that the sealant layer as taught by Yamashita et al. and that of the claimed invention are identical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 6218017 B1).
Yamashita et al. does not teach that the thermoplastic elastomer (B) content of the resin composition is 50 mass% or more and 100 mass% or less.
However, the Examiner would like to point out that concentrations are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties.
4. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 6218017 B1) in view of Sangmule et al. (US 2022/0063252 A1).
Yamashita et al., as discussed above, do not teach that the laminate further has a print layer of a liquid toner.
However, Sangmule et al. teach that making packaging material can include steps of printing ink onto a polymer film and forming a heat resistant coating on the print film. The coated and printed film can further be laminated to a sealant film of a same or similar recyclable polymer to form a recyclable laminate material suitable for heat sealable pouching applications. Many types of flexible packaging (such as pouch packaging) are constructed from multilayer films which include multiple materials. The multiple materials can each be selected to impart various properties to the package, including processability, barrier and sealant performance, and aesthetics. Any number of inks and printing approaches that are used in printing on flexible packaging can be used in the printing step. Digital printing, flexographic printing, and gravure printing methods can be used in accordance with various embodiments to print inks suitable for the particular printing method. In certain embodiments, the ink is digitally printed on the print film. Inks include various liquid inks, such as liquid toners, water-based inks, solvent-based inks. Radiation-curable polymeric inks, such as those curable by ultraviolet radiation and electron beam radiation are also contemplated. The ink and the printing method may be selected for particular suitability for either surface or reverse printing as applicable, based on adhesion, clarity, color strength, compatibility with lamination adhesives, and the like. In some embodiments, the surface to be printed can be treated or conditioned to assist the adhesion of ink. (see Abstract and paragraphs 0012, 0017, 0018, and 0019).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to print the laminated structure taught by Yamashita et al. given that Sangmule et al. specifically teach that making packaging material can include the step of printing ink onto a polymer film and the ink is digitally printed on the print film and may be selected for particular suitability for either surface or reverse printing as applicable, based on adhesion, clarity, color strength, compatibility with lamination adhesives, and the like.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights