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 .
1.Claims 10-17 are 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.
Claims 10 and 11, line 1 and lines 1-2 respectively, the recitation “or the vapor-deposited multi-layer film” lacks antecedent basis from claim 1 since it is first recited in claim 9.
2.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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai et al 2005/0147778 (see paragraphs 0008-0012, 0108, 0110, 0194, 0203-0205, 0227, 0228, 0234, 0280 and 0287).
Tai et al (see paragraph 0203) discloses a multilayer film with the instant layered structure of an epoxy modified EVOH (see paragraphs 0011-0012) as the outermost layer, followed by an adhesive and then a resin layer (ie, Barrier/Ad/R), wherein the resin layer is a polyethylene resin (see paragraphs 0205-0206), the melting point of the modified EVOH being below 160 deg C and above 120 deg c (see paragraph 0110 for the upper limit and the last line of paragraph 0194 for the lower limit of 120 deg C) and the modified EVOH contains between .1 to 1000 micromols/gram of alkali metal salt (see paragraph 0108). This range is obtained by multiplying the sulfonic acid ion content of .1 to 20 micromol/gram (paragraph 0107) by 1-50 times as taught in paragraph 0108. Also, it is noted that the melting point of polyethylene is generally known to be in the 110-140 deg C range. As such, it is submitted that the polyethylene of Tai et al would have a melting point of less than 150 deg C, or that such certainly is obvious. Essentially, the applied reference fails to explicitly teach the exact range of 110-150 deg C for the melting point of the modified EVOH resin, the adhesive having a melting point of less than 150 deg C and the exact ppm for the alkali metal salt. Given that the melting point for the EVOH layer has substantial overlap with the instant, it is submitted that the instant would have been obvious thereover. Further, it would have been obvious to have used an adhesive with a similar melting point—ie, at least the upper limit therefor—in order to process the resins by extrusion as disclosed in paragraph 0227. Certainly, a coextrusion of different layers would be facilitated by the individual layers having a similar melting point as is generally well known in the art. It is further submitted that the inclusion of the alkali metal salt at the instant amount of 20-1500 ppm would have been obvious over the amount disclosed in Tai et al in that each constitute a fairly small amount—ie, the exact amount would have been within the skill level of the art. Instant claim 2 is obvious over the 5-55 mol% taught in paragraph 0008 and the formula of instant claim 3 is disclosed in paragraphs 0008 and 0009 of Tai et al. The mol percentage range of instant claim 4 is encompassed by the range of .3-40 mol% taught in paragraph 0008. The adhesive of instant claim 5 is obvious over the acid anhydride modified polyolefins disclosed at paragraph 0287. Tai et al teaches a thickness of the EVOH layer to be 2-200 microns, overlapping with the thickness of .2-20 microns recited in instant claim 6. It is submitted that the exact thickness of the EVOH layer and its relation to the thickness of the entire film would have been parameters well within the skill level of the art dependent on the exact oxygen barrier desired for the film. Tai et al (see paragraph 0229) teaches uniaxially and biaxially stretching the multilayer films and the exact degree of stretch as set forth in instant claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious dependent on the degree of orientation desired for the film. Instant claim 9 is submitted to be conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been an obvious modification to the film of Tai et al to improve gas barrier properties. Tai et al teaches suitable oxygen transmission rates at paragraph 0113 which would render that set forth in instant claim 10 as obvious thereover. The laminate constructions taught in paragraph 0203 are submitted to render instant claims 11 and 12 as obvious, with the employment of polyethylene as the main component certainly obvious since this resin is already taught as part of the multilayer laminate. Instant claims 13 and 14 are submitted as being obvious aspects in the multilayer film of Tai et al dependent on the exact use for the final film. Instant claim 15 is taught at paragraph 0234 and claims 16 and 17 at paragraph 0194 of Tai et al.
3.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights