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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and Species A1 (polyacrylates) in the reply filed on 5/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Prud’Homme et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0096595).
Regarding claim 1, Prud’Homme et al. teach a film comprising a layer including a two dimensional polymer (paragraphs [0012], [0133]), the film having a low permeability (paragraph [0156]).
Regarding claim 5, Prud’Homme et al. teach wherein the layer further includes a polyacrylate (paragraphs [0113], [0115]).
Regarding claim 6, Prud’Homme et al. teach wherein the layer further includes a polymethacrylate (paragraphs [0113], [0115]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prud’Homme et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0096595).
Prud’Homme et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 2, Prud’Homme et al. do not disclose wherein the film has an oxygen permeability of less than 6x10-5 barrer. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in oxygen permeability involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to the oxygen permeability of Prud’Homme et al. in order to improve gas barrier properties (paragraphs [0013], [0156]).
Regarding claim 3, Prud’Homme et al. do not disclose wherein the film has an oxygen permeability of less than 0.13x10-5 barrer. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in oxygen permeability involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to the oxygen permeability of Prud’Homme et al. in order to improve gas barrier properties (paragraphs [0013], [0156]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prud’Homme et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0096595) in view of Boscia et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0086956).
Prud’Homme et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 4, Prud’Homme et al. fail to teach wherein the two-dimensional polymer is polyaramide. However, Boscia et al. teach a composite material comprising polyaramide (paragraphs [0002], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyaramide of Boscia et al. in the film of Prud’Homme et al. in order to improve mechanical performance (Boscia et al., page 1, paragraph [0002]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prud’Homme et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0096595) in view of Helms et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0085744).
Prud’Homme et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 12, Prud’Homme et al. fail to teach wherein the two dimensional polymer includes a controlled porosity. However, Helms et al. teach a film comprising a layer including a two dimensional polymer (paragraph [0046]), wherein the film includes a controlled porosity (paragraph [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity of Prud’Homme et al. to that of Helms et al. in order to provide selective permeability (Helms et al., paragraph [0047]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights