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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/4/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 7/6/26. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claims 7-11 are canceled. Claims 1-6 and 12-17 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 4, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher WO_2021175676_A1 in view of Feng CN_111976245_A (see machine English translation) and Kaschel WO_0136518_A1 (see machine English translation).
1. Regarding Claims 1, 4, Schumacher discloses an aqueous polyurethane (PU) dispersion adhesive (corresponds to claimed layer A) for bonding composite foil substrates which are bio-disintegratable; wherein said at least two substrates can be made of aliphatic polyester (corresponds to claimed layer B), which according to Schumacher is “particularly suitable” (Page 16, Lines 4-21). Schumacher further discloses that the thickness of said aliphatic polyester substrate foil (corresponds to claimed layer B) can range from 5 to 100 microns (Page 16, Lines 33-36). Schumacher also discloses that said PU adhesive (corresponds to claimed layer A) can have a thickness of 3 microns (Page 24, Lines 11). Schumacher discloses that the thickness of said aliphatic polyester substrate foil (corresponds to claimed layer B) can range from 5 to 100 microns (Page 16, Lines 33-36). Schumacher does not disclose the use of erucic acid amide.
2. Feng discloses a fully biodegradable film (Title and Abstract) that uses an aliphatic-aromatic polyester that can comprise 0.1 to 2 parts of a slipping agent (corresponds to claimed lubricant or release agent) (Abstract), such as erucamide (corresponds to claimed erucic acid amide), that can improve the processing fluidity of the melt, increase the melt strength, improve the surface smoothness, etc. (paragraph 0036). Furthermore, Kaschel discloses a single or multilayer biologically degradable film (Title) that can comprise polyesters (Claim 7) that can have lubricants and release agents ranging up to 5 wt%, such as stearic acid amide and/or erucic acid amide (Page 7). Thus, Kaschel indicates a degree of alternative equivalence between the two.
3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the aliphatic-aromatic polyester, of Schumacher, by including a slipping/lubricating/release agent, like erucamide and stearic acid amide, of Feng and Kaschel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain the aforementioned advantages of processability, melt strength, etc.
4. Regarding Claim 2, Schumacher in view of Feng and Kaschel suggests that its polymer foil substrate can alternatively be formed of aliphatic-aromatic polyester (corresponds to claimed b1), such as the use of Ecoflex F (corresponds to claimed b1-i) and Ecoflex FS (corresponds to claimed b1-ii) (Schumacher Page 16, Lines 4-17). Given that Applicants explicitly mention in their Specification that the aforementioned commercial materials correspond to the claimed b1 ingredients, it would therefore be expected for it to inherently fulfill the claimed mol% concentrations of instant Claim 1, from which dependent Claim 2 depends. It would also meet the concentrations of instant Claims 5 and 6.
5. Regarding Claim 3, Schumacher in view of Feng and Kaschel suggests that said PU aqueous dispersion adhesive (corresponds to claimed layer A) can have at least 60% by weight of diisocyanate, polyesterdiol (corresponds to claimed polyesterol), dihydroxycarboxylic acid (Schumacher Abstract). Furthermore, Schumacher discloses that its PU dispersion adhesive has a glass transition temperature of below 20C and an enthalpy of fusion lower than 10 J/g (Schumacher Page 2, Lines 24).
6. Regarding Claim 13, Schumacher in view of Feng and Kaschel suggests using 100% of the afore-described aliphatic-aromatic polyesters that meet the claimed group for its corresponding layer B (Schumacher: Page 16, Lines 4-17).
7. Regarding Claims 12, 14, and 15, Schumacher in view of Feng and Kaschel suggests using using the afore-described aliphatic-aromatic polyesters that meet the claimed group for its corresponding layer B, as well as in combination with polylactic acid, and/or polyhydroxyalkanoate (Schumacher: Page 16, Lines 4-17), and carbon black in an amount of 3 pbw (Feng: Example 2, paragraph 0068). Although the concentrations do not explicitly meet the claimed concentrations it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to try different mixtures since Schumacher explicitly states that trying different mixtures with its aliphatic-aromatic polyesters with polylactic acid is preferred (Page 16, Lines 18-21).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher WO_2021175676_A1 in view of Feng CN_111976245_A (see machine English translation) and Kaschel WO_0136518_A1 (see machine English translation), as applied to Claims 1-4, in view of Chang UPSA_20160058605_A1.
8. Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Schumacher in view of Feng and Kaschel suggests having “at least two substrates” (Abstract); which suggests that additional substrates, like that of said polyester foil substrate (corresponds to claimed layer B) can be in plurality, even though an exemplified embodiment is not explicitly stated. Schumacher also discloses that barrier layers (corresponds to claimed layer C) can be used on that side of the polyester foil substrate that faces away from the PU adhesive (corresponds to claimed layer A) (Page 18, Line 36 – Page 19, Line 2) and how these and other functional layers can have adhesive layers on multiple sides (corresponds to claimed adhesion promoting layer of instant Claim 6) (Schumacher: Page 18, Line 36 – Page 19, Line 2). As such, in the case where more than two substrate layers exist along with the use of the barrier layer, an embodiment corresponding the claimed A/B/C/B arrangement.
9. However, Schumacher in view of Feng and Kaschel does not disclose the claimed composition of its barrier layer (corresponds to claimed layer C).
10. Chang discloses a biodegradable film (Title) comprising outer layers that can comprise an aliphatic-aromatic polyester with a barrier layer attached to one of the surfaces (paragraph 0031) that can be made of polyglycolic acid (Abstract). Chang further discloses that said barrier layer provides excellent mechanical properties (Abstract). Chang also discloses that tie layers (corresponds to claimed adhesion promoting layer) can be used in between the barrier layers (paragraph 0035), as is being claimed in instant Claim 6.
11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the barrier layer, of Schumacher in view of Feng and Kaschel, by trying the use of polyglycolic acid film material, of Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain excellent mechanical properties.
12. Regarding Claims 16 and 17, given that Schumacher in view of Feng and Kaschel and further in view of Chang suggests the same barrier layer, it would be expected for it to inherently possess an aroma and oxygen barrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights