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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-7 and 19 in the reply filed on 5/23/26 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga et al. (US 2018/0304573) in view of Henderson (US 2016/0186309).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 19, Tokunaga teaches a multilayer barrier film (Tokunaga para 32) that may be formed into packaging (Tokunaga para 3) with an exemplary embodiment of 5 layers (Tokunaga para 32), which may be considered ‘alternately laminated’ as the barrier layer (item 12) is sandwiched between biodegradable resin layers (10a, b) (Tokunaga para 32, 36, 41), where the biodegradable resin layers form the first resin layers and may be any one of polylactic acid (Tokunaga abs), polycaprolactone, polyhydroxyalkanoate, polyglycolic acid, and/or polybutylene succinate (Tokunaga para 38). Tokunaga further teaches that the barrier material may be a polyvinyl alcohol, including PVOH copolymers (Tokunaga para 42, 43).
Tokunaga is silent with respect to the second-a resin layer (i.e. barrier/PVOH layer) being butenediol vinyl alcohol copolymer, and thus that the degree of saponification of the BVOH is 30% or more, that the oxygen permeability is 30 cc/m2∙atm∙day or less, and that that the haze is 10% or less.
Tokunaga and Henderson are related in the field of multilayer packagings utilizing polyvinyl alcohol copolymers as an oxygen barrier layer. Henderson teaches the use of 80-97.9% saponified butenediol vinyl alcohol (BVOH) (Henderson para 68) due to its improved oxygen barrier performance over PVOH and EVOH (Henderson para 69) with an oxygen transmission rate of about 0.0023 cc/m2∙atm∙day at 20 °C (Henderson para 69, 70, Table 1) and a haze of 30% or less to achieve transparency in the visible range (Henderson para 75). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize BVOH as the oxygen barrier layer in Tokunaga as taught by Henderson because this would improve the oxygen barrier behavior of Tokunaga compared to PVOH or EVOH, as shown by the substantial reduction in oxygen transmittance and low haze.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the degree of saponification, oxygen transmission rate, and haze taught by Tokunaga in view of Henderson overlaps with the instantly claimed values of the degree of saponification, oxygen transmission rate, and haze and are therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Tokunaga in view of Henderson teaches a multilayer barrier film as above for claim 1. Tokunaga further teaches that the thickness of each of the two exterior layers (“first resin layers”) should at least 10% the total thickness of the film to inhibit rupture and breakage (Tokunaga para 37). One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the thickness relationship taught by Tokunaga overlaps with the instantly claimed thickness relationship and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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 (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 6/27/26
Prosecution Insights