DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13-14 and 19-20 is 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 13 recites “The multilayer film according to claim 10”. The claim is indefinite because claim 10 has been canceled. Dependent claims 14, 19, and 20 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 20 recites “A multilayer film comprising the stretched film according to claim 13 and another layer.” Parent claim 13 is drawn to “The multilayer film according to claim 10”. In addition to the fact that claim 10 has been canceled, claim 20 would be indefinite even if claim 13 were amended to depend from claim 1 or another pending claim. Claim 20 refers to “the stretched film according to claim 13”; however, claim 13 (if amended as noted) would be drawn to a multilayer film containing a stretched film. Therefore, it would not be clear if claim 20 would require all the features of the entire multilayer film of claim 13 or merely a subset thereof (which is not permitted of a dependent claim).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9, 15-18, and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Koyanagi (JP 2014-213595; citing machine translation) discloses a multilayer film comprising an inner skin layer (F), a core layer (B), and an outer skin layer (E), wherein layer (E) comprises a polyamide made from 70 mol% or more of a diamine derived from xylylenediamine and 70 mol% or more of sebacic acid [abstract; 0001; 0008; 0009; 0017]. The layer (E) further comprises an aliphatic polyamide [0009]. Example aliphatic polyamides include nylon 6 and nylon 66 [0013]. The film is biaxially stretched [0036]. Example 2 discloses a combination of nylon 6 and a polyamide formed from m-xylylenediamine and sebacic acid in a relative ratio of 75:25 [0042-0045].
Koyanagi is silent with regard to a multilayer film comprising a sealant layer, a stretched film, and a barrier layer stacked in this order, wherein the stretched film comprises a polyamide resin (a1) and a polyamide resin (2) as claimed and the barrier layer comprises an oxygen barrier resin as presently claimed. Koyanagi teaches the order of its layers (F), (B), and (E) is crucial to its desired low-curling properties [0013], and so teaches away from the claimed structure.
Toyobo (JP S48-054176; citing machine translation) discloses a biaxially stretched film formed from 15-97 parts by weight of a polymer formed from at least 70 mol% metaxylylenediamine and an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid containing 6-10 carbon atoms; and 3-85 parts by weight of a polyamide having a different temperature (p4-5). Sebacic acid is a suitable dicarboxylic acid (p6). The polyamide having a different temperature includes nylon 6; nylon 66; and nylon 6/66 (p6).
Toyobo is silent with regard to a multilayer film comprising a sealant layer, a stretched film, and a barrier layer stacked in this order, wherein the stretched film comprises a polyamide resin (a1) and a polyamide resin (2) as claimed and the barrier layer comprises an oxygen barrier resin as presently claimed. Additionally, the reference teaches away from conventional polyamides formed from m-xylylenediamine and an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid because of pinholes (p5).
Hisazumi (EP 0514146) discloses a biaxially oriented film comprising 45-90% by weight of an aliphatic polyamide, 5-45% of a xylylene polyamide, and 5-30% by weight of a polyolefin (abstract; 2:1+; 2:39+). The aliphatic polyamide includes nylon 6 or nylon 6/66 (2:46+). The xylylene polyamide comprises 70% by weight or more of metaxylylenediamine and an aliphatic acid having 6-12 carbon atoms (2:57+). A specific polymer is polymetaxylylene-sebacamide (3:6).
Hisazumi requires the presence of a polyolefin whereas the present claim requires “a biaxially stretched film containing substantially no polyolefin”. Therefore, the reference teaches away from the claimed invention. Additionally, Hisazumi is silent with regard to the use of additional layers, including a barrier layer and a sealant layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
The examiner further notes the attached Interview Summary, which records the examiner’s request to authorize an examiner’s amendment to place the application in condition for allowance, and the lack of authorization thereof.
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