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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanetaka et al. (JP 2004/314562 A, published 11 Nov. 2004, hereinafter Kanetaka) in view of Hashimoto et al (JP H07/330922 A, published 19 Dec. 1995, hereinafter Hashimoto).
Note: Citations to Kanetaka reference are to the Description section of the as-suppled English translation, unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13, Kanetaka teaches a ceramic vapor deposited film in which the plastic film is treated with a plasma, after which a ceramic vapor deposition is mounted, and the ceramic is aluminum oxide or silicon oxide, and a polymer compound containing a metal alkoxide and a polymer is mounted on the ceramic layer (Abstract). Kanetaka teaches the plastic film is polyethylene or polypropylene (claim 2). Kanetaka teaches that the plasma treatment is a corona treatment (page 3, line 118). Kanetaka teaches the polymer in the coating applied to the ceramic layer is a mixture of a polyvinyl alcohol-based water-soluble resin and a tetraethoxysilane hydrolyzate (page 3, line 121 (last line) – page 4, line 123). In his Example 2, Kanetaka teaches his film is formed combining a vapor deposited ceramic and a corona-treated polymer film, after which a composite coating layer is coated onto the ceramic layer, a composite coating layer (cover layer) comprising a mixture of a polyvinyl alcohol-based water-soluble resin and a tetraethoxysilane hydrolysate, and then a polyurethane adhesive is used to attach a polyethylene film (sealant layer) (page 3, line 118 – page 4, line 123).
Kanetaka does not disclose the oxygen/carbon ratio of the corona treated surface of his polymer film.
Hashimoto teaches an atomic ratio of oxygen to carbon (O/C) on at least one surface is preferably in the range of 0.04 to 0.30 (paragraph 0009).
Given that Kanetaka and Hashimoto are drawn to vapor depositing a metal-containing layer onto a polypropylene surface that have been corona treated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to corona treat the polymeric surface to an oxygen/carbon ratio as taught by Hashimoto on the polyolefin film in the ceramic vapor deposition film taught by Kanetaka. Since Kanetaka and Hashimoto are both drawn to vapor depositing a metal-containing layer onto a polyolefin surface that has been corona treated, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in corona treating the polyolefin film to achieve the oxygen/carbon ratio taught by Hashimoto on the polyolefin film in the ceramic vapor deposition film taught by Kanetaka. Further, Hashimoto teaches if the oxygen/carbon ratio is in this range the gas barrier properties and moisture proof properties of the film are further improved (paragraph 0009).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected O/C ratios from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hashimoto because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Kanetaka in view of Hashimoto does not disclose that peel strength between his substrate and his ceramic layer (gas barrier layer). However, given that the ceramic vapor deposition film of Kanetaka in view of Hashimoto has the same polymer with the same ceramic coating and the polymer has been corona treated to the same oxygen/carbon ratio, and the ceramic coating is coated with a cover layer comprising the same polymer and same alkoxide, the peel strength between the substrate and the ceramic layer of Kanetaka in view of Hashimoto would inherently have the same peel strength after hot water treatment at a temperature of 98°C or higher for 30 minutes or more as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for peel strength after hot water treatment at a temperature of 98°C or higher for 30 minutes or more.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanetaka et al. (JP 2004/314562 A, published 11 Nov. 2004, hereinafter Kanetaka) in view of Hashimoto et al (JP H07/330922 A, published 19 Dec. 1995, hereinafter Hashimoto) and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US Patent Application 2013/0196099 A1, published 01 Aug. 2013, hereinafter Sakamoto).
Note: Citations to Kanetaka reference are to the Description section of the as-suppled English translation, unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 11-12, Kanetaka in view of Hashimoto teaches the elements of claims 1 and 8.
Kanetaka in view of Hashimoto does not disclose that the layer adhered with an adhesive is a sealant layer.
Sakamoto teaches laminating a sealant layer via an adhesive to a gas barrier film (Abstract and paragraph 0039). Sakamoto teaches that his sealant layer has the function of melting by heating and fusing together (paragraph 0137); thus, his sealant layer is thermally fusible. Sakamoto teaches his sealant layer comprises linear low-density polyethylene.
Given that Kanetaka and Sakamoto are drawn to barrier films adhered to films comprising polyethylene, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere a sealant film with an adhesive to a barrier film as taught by Sakamoto to the ceramic vapor deposition film as taught by Kanetaka in view of Hashimoto. Since Kanetaka and Sakamoto are both drawn to barrier films adhered to films comprising polyethylene, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success adhering a sealant film with an adhesive to a barrier film as taught by Sakamoto to the ceramic vapor deposition film as taught by Kanetaka in view of Hashimoto. Further, Sakamoto teaches that since the packaging film consists of two films, a gas barrier film and a sealant film, laminated through an adhesive, the packaging film is thin and lightweight, which reduces its overall volume, which lowers transport costs for packaged products (paragraph 0039).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 issued US Patent 12,090,734 B2, issued 17 Sep. 2024 (Application No. 17/588,551). Although some of the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of overlapping ranges. As shown in Table 1, the claims and their interdependencies are identical or not patently distinct to corresponding claims in US Patent 12,090,734 B2.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1: Listing of corresponding claims for double patenting rejections
Application 18/797,393
US Patent 12,090,734
Application 17/588,551
Claim 1. A gas barrier film, comprising: a substrate mainly composed of polyethylene or polypropylene; a gas barrier layer formed on the substrate; and a cover layer formed on the gas barrier layer, wherein a surface of the substrate on which the gas barrier layer is formed has an element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon from 0.03 to 0.07
Claim 6. The gas barrier film of claim 1, wherein a peel strength between the substrate and the gas barrier layer is 1 N/15 mm or more after hot water treatment is performed at a temperature of 98°C or higher for 30 minutes or more.
Claim 8. A gas barrier film, comprising: a substrate mainly composed of polyethylene or polypropylene; a gas barrier layer formed on the substrate; and a cover layer formed on the gas barrier layer, wherein a surface of the substrate on which the gas barrier layer is formed has an element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon of 0.03 or more, wherein the peel strength between the substrate and the gas barrier layer is from 2.0 N/15 mm to 4.7 N/ 15 mm after hot water treatment is performed at a temperature of 98°C or higher for 30 minutes or more.
Claim 1. A gas barrier film, comprising: a substrate mainly composed of polyethylene or polypropylene; a gas barrier layer formed on the substrate; and a cover layer formed on the gas barrier layer, wherein a surface of the substrate on which the gas barrier layer is formed has an element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon of 0.03 or more and wherein an oxygen permeability of the gas barrier film measured at 30°C. at 70% relative humidity after hot water treatment performed at a temperature of 98°C. or higher for 30 minutes or more is from 0.3 to 0.9 cc/m2·day·atm.
Claim 6. The gas barrier film of claim 1, wherein a peel strength between the substrate and the gas barrier layer is 1 N/15 mm or more after the hot water treatment.
Claim 7. The gas barrier film of claim 1, wherein the surface of the substrate on which the gas barrier layer is formed has an element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon of from 0.03 to 0.07.
Claim 8. The gas barrier film of claim 1, wherein the peel strength between the substrate and the gas barrier layer is from 2.0 N/15 mm to 4.7 N/15 mm after the hot water treatment.
Claim 2. The gas barrier film of claim 1, wherein the gas barrier layer contains one of aluminum, aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, or silicon oxide containing carbon.
Claim 9. The gas barrier film of claim 8, wherein the gas barrier layer contains one of aluminum, aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, or silicon oxide containing carbon.
Claim 2. The gas barrier film of claim 1, wherein the gas barrier layer contains one of aluminum, aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, or silicon oxide containing carbon.
Claim 3. The gas barrier film of claim 1, wherein the cover layer contains one or more alkoxides or hydrolyzates thereof, and a water soluble polymer.
Claim 10. The gas barrier film of claim 8, wherein the cover layer contains one or more alkoxides or hydrolyzates thereof, and a water soluble polymer.
Claim 3: The gas barrier film of claim 1, wherein the cover layer contains one or more alkoxides or hydrolyzates thereof, and a water soluble polymer.
Claim 4. The gas barrier film of claim 1, further comprising a sealant layer that is thermally fusible.
Claim 11: The gas barrier film of claim 8, further comprising a sealant layer that is thermally fusible.
Claim 4. The gas barrier film of claim 1, further comprising a sealant layer that is thermally fusible.
Claim 5. The gas barrier film of claim 4, wherein the sealant layer is bonded to the cover layer via an adhesive layer.
Claim 12: The gas barrier film of claim 11, wherein the sealant layer is bonded to the cover layer via an adhesive layer.
Claim 5. The gas barrier film of claim 4, wherein the sealant layer is bonded to the cover layer via an adhesive layer.
Claim 7. A method of producing a gas barrier film, comprising the steps of: applying a treatment to a surface of a substrate mainly composed of polyethylene or polypropylene to provide the surface with an element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon from 0.03 to 0.07; forming a gas barrier layer on the surface; and forming a cover layer on the gas barrier layer.
Claim 13. A method of producing a gas barrier film of claim 8, comprising the steps of: applying a treatment to a surface of a substrate mainly composed of polyethylene or polypropylene to provide the surface with an element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon of 0.03 or more; forming a gas barrier layer on the surface; and forming a cover layer on the gas barrier layer to form the gas barrier film of claim 8.
Claim 8. A gas barrier film, comprising: a substrate mainly composed of polyethylene or polypropylene; a gas barrier layer formed on the substrate; and a cover layer formed on the gas barrier layer, wherein a surface of the substrate on which the gas barrier layer is formed has an element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon of 0.03 or more, wherein the peel strength between the substrate and the gas barrier layer is from 2.0 N/15 mm to 4.7 N/ 15 mm after hot water treatment is performed at a temperature of 98°C or higher for 30 minutes or more.
Claim 9. A method of producing a gas barrier film, comprising the steps of: applying a treatment to a surface of a substrate mainly composed of polyethylene or polypropylene to provide the surface with an element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon of 0.03 or more; forming a gas barrier layer on the surface; and forming a cover layer on the gas barrier layer, wherein the produced gas barrier film has an oxygen permeability of the gas barrier film measured at 30°C at 70% relative humidity after hot water treatment performed at a temperature of 98°C or higher for 30 minutes or more is from 0.3 to 0.9 cc/m2 day·atm.
Claim 10. The method of claim 9, wherein said applying provides the surface with the element ratio O/C between oxygen and carbon from 0.03 to 0.07.
Claim 11. The method of claim 9, wherein the produced gas barrier film has a peel strength between the substrate and the gas barrier layer from 2.0 N/15 mm to 4.7 N/15 mm after the hot water treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bichler et al. (“The substrate–barrier film interface in thin barrier film coating,” Surf.& Coat.Tech, Vol. 97, pp. 299-307, published 1997) teaches a substrate-barrier film laminate with data showing dependence of surface O/C ratio to plasma pretreatment time. Fukagai et al (JP H10/323938 A, published 08 Dec. 1998, hereinafter Fukagai) teaches a polypropylene film with a vapor-deposited metal layer in which the polypropylene film is treated to have an oxygen/carbon surface ratio of 0.08 to 0.10. Matsui et al. (JP 2014/114493 A, published 26 Jun. 2014) teaches a plastic film with a vapor-deposited metal layer in which the oxygen content of the treated surface of the plastic film is higher than in the interior of the treated film. Strobel et al. (“A Comparison of Corona-Treated and Flame-Treated Polypropylene Films,” Plasmas & Polymers, Vol. 8, pp. 61-95, published March 2003) teaches O/C ratios of 0.04 to 0.09 for polypropylene films subjected to corona treatment after washing of the surface. Tsuchiya et al. (US Patent 5,137,955, published 11 Aug. 1992) teaches a polypropylene film for vacuum deposition of aluminum, in which the polypropylene film is first corona treated such that its surface has an oxygen/carbon ratio of 0.10 to 0.35, and a polypropylene layer is laminated to the first film to provide a sealant layer. Urbain et al. (US Patent Application 2011/0308719 A1, published 22 Dec. 2011) teaches a metallized polymeric film with a 20% oxygen level on the corona-treated surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-9603. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights