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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 19 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 19 recites “a blend of one or more…”; however a blend suggests two or more components and it is unclear if the blend is of the listed components (and thus should read two or more) or whether the blend is a blend with one or more of the listed components.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/164093 (Kravitz), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Kravitz discloses a laminate comprising a first film (first substrate); a continuous coating comprising a clay mineral on the first film (adhesive layer); and a second film (second substrate); wherein the first film is laminated to the second film and the coating is contained at the interface between the first film and the second film (see claim 1). While Kravitz does not state the surface roughness of the first substrate, this claimed feature would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Kravitz teaches that the substrate may be a polyethylene film such as low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, or high density polyethylene that is directionally oriented, including biaxially (see paragraph 0034). As explained at page 5, lines 9-25 of the present disclosure, the biaxial orientation process reduces the surface roughness substantially. Thus, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature or method step that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 2, Kravitz also discloses that the first film is directionally (biaxially) oriented (see paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 3, Kravitz also discloses that the first film is biaxially oriented (see paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 5, Kravitz also discloses that the second film directionally (biaxially) oriented (see paragraph 0034).
Regarding claims 6-8, Kravitz also discloses that the coating has a coat weight from 0.5 to 7 grams per square meter (see paragraph 0018), which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 9, Kravitz also discloses that the clay may be vermiculite or montmorillonite (see paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 10, while Kravitz does not state thickness of the final laminate, it is disclosed that the thickness of each substrate is typically 0.3 to 3 mils (see paragraph 0035), and the thickness of the adhesive may range from 1-3 micrometer (see paragraph 0047), thus a laminate having two substrates of 0.3 to 3 mils plus adhesive layer of 1-3 micrometers (0.039-0.118 mils) would yield a laminate ranging from 0.639 to 6.118 mils, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 3.0 mils. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, while Kravitz does not state the surface roughness of the first substrate, this claimed feature would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Kravitz teaches that the substrate may be a polyethylene film such as low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, or high density polyethylene that is directionally oriented, including biaxially (see paragraph 0034). As explained at page 5, lines 9-25 of the present disclosure, the biaxial orientation process reduces the surface roughness substantially. Thus, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature or method step that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 14, Kravitz also discloses that the first film and the second film may comprises a co-extruded film structure (see paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 16, while Kravitz does not state the surface roughness of the first substrate, this claimed feature would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since Kravitz teaches that the substrate may be a polyethylene film such as low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, or high density polyethylene that is directionally oriented, including biaxially (see paragraph 0034). As explained at page 5, lines 9-25 of the present disclosure, the biaxial orientation process reduces the surface roughness substantially. Thus, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature or method step that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claims 17-20, Kravitz also discloses that one or both the first film and the second film comprise low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, or high density polyethylene that is directionally oriented, including biaxially (see paragraph 0034), and may be a blend of one or more types or have two more layers (see paragraph 0037).
Claims 4, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/164093 (Kravitz) as evidenced by US 2021/0213721 (Wang et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Kravitz discloses a laminate as discussed above where the substrate may be a polyethylene film such as low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, or high density polyethylene that is directionally oriented, including biaxially (see paragraph 0034). Paragraph 0002 of Wang teaches that biaxially oriented films are oriented in the machine direction.
Regarding claim 13, Kravitz also discloses that the first film may be a high-density polyethylene (see paragraph 0034). While Kravitz does not state the actual density of the HDPE film used, Wang teaches that HDPE films conventionally have densities within the range of 0.94 to 0.97 g/cm3 (see paragraph 0026), as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Kravitz also discloses that the first layer may be a high-density polyethylene and the second layer may be a linear low density polyethylene (see paragraphs 0034 and 0037). While Kravitz does not state the actual density of the HDPE and LLDPE film used, Wang teaches that HDPE films conventionally have densities within the range of 0.94 to 0.97 g/cm3 (see paragraph 0026), and LLDPE films conventionally have densities within the range of 0.910 to 0.940 g/cm3 (see paragraph 0030), as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights