DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claim 3, was entered on 9/3/26.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Mallory does not teach or suggest coating a modifier on a surface of the corona-treated polymer layer because Mallory teaches an intervening metal layer between the modifier and the polymer layer. This is not persuasive. “On a surface” does not require direct contact and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the coating layer of Mallory is on a surface of the substrate even if another layer is deposited between the two.
Applicant also argues that Blais does not teach the claimed ranges because the claimed range is much narrower than the range disclosed in Blais and because Blais’s examples all use a range much higher than the claimed range. This is not persuasive. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). This remains true even where the disclosed range is larger than the claimed range. Applicant can demonstrate unexpected results associated with the claimed range to overcome this rejection. With respect to applicant’s arguments concerning the ranges in the examples of Blais, a prior art reference is not limited to its examples and is relevant for all that it teaches.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory et al. (US 2002/0031651, which incorporates Blais et al., US 5,547,764 by reference at ¶ 0044).
Claim 1: Mallory teaches a process for preparing a modified polymer film (Abst.) comprising the steps of: providing a polyethylene polymer layer (¶¶ 0024-0026) and subjecting it to a corona discharge treatment (¶ 0038); coating a modifier on the treated polymer layer (¶¶ 0024, 0039, 0044), wherein the coating comprises an aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) (i.e. claimed component A) and an aqueous solution of a crosslinker (i.e. claimed component B) (¶ 0044). Mallory further states that suitable PVOH coatings are disclosed in Blais. Blais explains that suitable PVOH coatings are 4-8% solids by weight, of which 20-98% is PVOH and 2-20% is cross-linking agent, such as glyoxal (3:46-63) (this corresponds to 0.8-7.8% PVOH in the coating component and 0.08-1.6% cross-linking agent). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected 0.8-2% PVOH in component A and 0.2-1.6% cross-linking agent in component B with the predictable expectation of success.
With respect to the alcoholysis degree, Mallory teaches that the PVOH includes a component a high degree of hydrolysis (analogous to alcoholysis) and a component with a lower degree and that these are blended at a ratio to achieve a desire mixture for the process (¶ 0044). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a component A PVOH with a degree of alcoholysis of 95-100% depending on the desired properties.
Claim 2: Blais teaches that the ratio of PVOH to cross-linking agent is 20-98:2-20 (3:46-63). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 6: Blais teaches that there is a direct relationship between the molecular weight of the PVOH and the viscosity of the solution (3:34-45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a molecular weight of 50,000-150,000 Da with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 7: Mallory teaches that the thickness of the coated layer is controlled and depends on the amount needed to provide the desired barrier characteristics (¶ 0040). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a coating thickness of 20-200 nm with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory in light of Berlin et al. (US 2005/0129930).
Claims 3 and 5: Mallory fails to teach the inclusion of nanoparticles. Berlin teaches a process of forming a barrier layer of PVOH (Abst.; ¶ 0007) where nanoparticles of silica having a particles size of less than 100 µm are included with the PVOH to improve gas and moisture barrier properties (¶ 0007). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included silica particles of 5-15 nm in the PVOH coating of Mallory in order to have improved the barrier properties of the film.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory in light of Khan (US 2018/0079839).
Claim 4: Mallory is silent regarding pH. Khan teaches a similar process of forming barrier coatings using polymeric coatings (Abst.) and explains that the pH of the cross-linking agent component short be lowered to below 5 to ensure effective crosslinking (¶¶ 0077-0078). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a pH of 0.8-3 in Mallory in order to have improved crosslinking.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory in light of Roullet et al. (US 4,267,143).
Claim 8: Mallory teaches drying the coating (¶ 0040), but fails to discuss drying conditions. Roullet teaches a process of forming a PVOH coating (Abst.) and explains that the drying timing should be selected to avoid any danger of softening or premature crystallization of the coating (3:5-22). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a period of 0-120 second between deposition and drying in Mallory with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory in light of Hada et al. (US 2011/0177942).
Claim 9: Mallory fails to teach separately loading and supplying the components. Hada teaches a process of forming a PVOH coating (Abst.) and explains that each of the PVOH component and the cross-linking component can be separately provided in order to extend the life of the materials (¶ 0170). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have separately supplied the two components in Mallory in order to have extended the life of the materials with the predictable expectation of success.
With respect to the feed rate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the feed rate used is a balance of factors, such as the desired film thickness, the desired uniformity/smoothness of the film, etc. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a flow rate of 50-200mL/min depending on the desired characteristics of the film.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory in light of Wolf et al. (US 2002/0197425).
Claim 10: Mallory is silent concerning the corona discharge parameters. Wolf teaches a process of pretreating a substrate using corona discharge and explains that the parameters (i.e. power, current and velocity) determine the amount of corona discharge that the substrate is exposed to (¶ 0127). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the claimed parameters depending on the desired exposure in Mallory with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
