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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 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 6 recites the limitation "polyvinyl alcohol" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 13, the comma between “polyglycolic acid” and “ethylene vinyl alcohol” should be replaced with: “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schumacher WO_2021175676_A1.
1. Regarding Claim 1, Schumacher discloses an aqueous polyurethane (PU) dispersion adhesive (corresponds to claimed layer A) for bonding composite foils 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).
2. Regarding Claim 2, Schumacher discloses 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) (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.
3. Regarding Claim 3, Schumacher discloses 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 (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 (Page 2, Lines 24).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher WO_2021175676_A1, as applied to Claim 1, and in view of Feng CN_111976245_A (see machine English translation).
4. Regarding Claim 4, 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.
5. 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 (Abstract), such as erucamide, that can improve the processing fluidity of the melt, increase the melt strength, improve the surface smoothness, etc. (paragraph 0036).
6. 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 agent, like erucamide, of Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain the aforementioned advantages.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher WO_2021175676_A1, as applied to Claims 1-3, in view of Chang UPSA_20160058605_A1.
7. Regarding Claim 5, Schumacher discloses 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). 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.
8. However, Schumacher does not disclose the claimed composition of its barrier layer (corresponds to claimed layer C).
9. 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).
10. 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, 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.
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 January 11, 2026