DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/26 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
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 1-6, 10-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180009203A1 to Ball et al.
Re claims 1-6, 10-12, and 14-22, Ball teaches the claimed invention as a packaging film shown in Figs. 1 and 1B and associated text having multilayer second sealant film 120 of polyethylene [20-24] and supporting film as described [20-24] of [22] HDPE / adhesive [13] / first layer 110 of BOPP [14] /indicia [15]. See [44-43] teaching sealant layers can also be included as one or more sublayers in the second layer and also of polyethylene. The film is free of polyester and metal foil as per claims 19-20 as neither is required. Re claim 3, see [68]. Re claim 4, see [14].
Further re claims 1, and 14, Ball fails to disclose the exact thickness ranges as claimed; however, does teach thickness overall and each layer having various thicknesses for functionalities [36-37] (1 mil is 25 microns); further thickness of the individual film is within the skilled artisan to have modified it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a film with thickness, including that presently claimed, in order to fills with a degree of puncture resistance or effective functionality. Further re claim 1, a thickness of less than 70 microns includes zero and thus is not required.
Further Re claims 1 and 21-22, Ball doesn’t teach the second exterior second film is of BOPP; however, as the second film is of PE and PP [21]. This PP doesn’t mention BOPP; however, because BOPP is already taught in the first layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second exterior of PP by biaxially orienting it and achieving BOPP with puncture-resistance at least as set forth in [14]. Further any layer adjacent sealing film suffices as a second adhesive. For example, see [13] multiple adhesive and [19-20] additional sealing layers.
Re claims 2, and 10-12, see [24] – [25] and re claims and 6 and 15, see [22] to overlapping ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range effecting overall functionality taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are not convincing for the previous claims 7-8 were rejected and incorporated in claim 1. The rejection is adjusted above. The arguments to the thicknesses are not convincing despite allegations to the contrary. See the new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
The remaining references listed on form(s) 892 and/or 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
The international search report and written opinion has been considered.
US 20220363952 to Blackwell teaches a similar construction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights