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 § 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono et al. (US 20200047960 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kono teaches a gas barrier multilayer body formed by multilayering: a layer including a base material (sealant layer, D) in which an inorganic layer (gas barrier vapor-deposited inorganic layer, C) is formed on at least one surface, a resin layer (solvent-free gas barrier organic adhesive layer, B) provided to be in contact with the surface of the base material on which the inorganic layer is formed, and a layer (gas barrier coating film layer, E) provided to be in contact with the resin layer (Kono, Abstract, Par. 0001-0002, 0015-0017, 0033-0034, 0042, 0052-0054, and Fig. 2). Kono teaches the resin layer contains a resin having a glass transition temperature of -30°C to 80°C (Kono, Par. 0073-0076), which overlaps the claimed range of 40°C or lower and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Kono teaches the gas barrier coating film layer contains a water-soluble polymer and a metal alkoxide (Kono, Par. 0020 and 0140).
Regarding claim 2, Kono teaches the inorganic layer is formed by vapor deposition treatment (Kono, Par. 0053 and 0110).
Regarding claim 3, Kono teaches the inorganic layer contains aluminum (Kono, Par. 0113).
Regarding claim 4, Kono teaches that the resin is a urethane resin (Kono, Par. 0075).
Regarding claim 5, Kono teaches the water-soluble polymer is a vinyl alcohol polymer (Kono, Par. 0147).
Regarding claim 6, Kono teaches the metal alkoxide is a compound having an aluminum as a metal species (Kono, Par. 0140-0144).
Regarding claim 7, Kono teaches a package formed by using the gas barrier multilayer body (Kono, Abstract, and Par. 0165).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights