DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-12, 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/20/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024, 12/11/2024 and 03/31/2025 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “sheet-like composite”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what is encompassed by the phrase or what would be considered “like” a sheet composite. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claims 2-6 each recite “sheet-like composite”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what is encompassed by the phrase or what would be considered “like” a sheet composite.
Claim 2 recites “preferably” and “more preferably”. The scope of the claim is confusing since the use of the phrase “preferably” and “more preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the claim actually requires the limitations following these phrases.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochsmann et al. (WO 2017/114705 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Tavernier (EP 1108749 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ochsmann et al. disclose a sheet-like composite comprising a carrier layer, a barrier layer and a polymeric internal layer, wherein the polymeric internal layer comprises a first internal layer, a second internal layer (inner polymer layer F) and a third internal layer (inner polymer layer H) (see page 61, claim 1 and page 6, lines 5-13), in that order. The barrier layer can be a composite composed of a plastic layer (barrier substrate layer) with a metal oxide layer (barrier material layer) (see page 25, lines 22-25 and lines 28-31). An example of the barrier layer includes vapor deposited metal oxide layer (barrier material layer) on an oriented polypropylene film (polyolefin) (barrier substrate layer) (see page 25, lines 22-25). The second internal layer (inner polymer F) comprises 20 to 100 wt% of LDPE (see page 7, lines 2-5).
Ochsmann et al. do not disclose the second internal layer (inner polymer F) comprising a blend of LDPE and metallocene catalyzed polyethylene (mPE).
Tavernier discloses a composition comprising a blend of 0.5 to 99.5 wt% of a metallocene catalyzed medium density polyethylene (mMDPE) with 0.5 to 99.5 wt% of LDPE (see Abstract). The composition has good optical properties as well as good mechanical and processing properties (see Abstract). The metallocene catalyzed medium density polyethylene (mMDPE) reads on metallocene catalyzed polyethylene (mPE).
In light of motivation for using a blend of 0.5 to 99.5 wt% of low density polyethylene (LDPE) with 0.5 to 99.5 wt% of metallocene catalyzed medium density polyethylene (mMDPE) disclosed by Tavernier as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a blend of 0.5 to 99.5 wt% of low density polyethylene (LDPE) with 0.5 to 99.5 wt% of metallocene catalyzed medium density polyethylene (mMDPE) in the second internal layer (inner polymer layer F) in Ochsmann et al. in order to provide good optical properties as well as good mechanical and processing properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Ochsmann et al. in view of Tavernier disclose the sheet-like composite as set forth above. Ochsmann et al. in view of Tavernier disclose the second internal layer (inner polymer layer F) comprising metallocene catalyzed medium density polyethylene (mMDPE) as noted above. Tavernier discloses that the mMDPE comprises 1-olefin units derived from hexene or octene (see paragraph 0044). That is, the inner polymer layer F meets the feature d].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ochsmann et al. in view of Tavernier disclose the sheet-like composite as set forth above. Ochsmann et al. in view of Tavernier disclose the second internal layer (inner polymer layer F) comprising 0.5 to 99.5 wt% of low density polyethylene (LDPE) with 0.5 to 99.5 wt% of metallocene catalyzed medium density polyethylene (mMDPE) as noted above.
Regarding claim 6, Ochsmann et al. in view of Tavernier disclose the sheet-like composite as set forth above. Oschmann et al. disclose an example of the barrier layer includes vapor deposited metal oxide layer (barrier material layer) on an oriented polypropylene film (polyolefin) (barrier substrate layer) (see page 25, lines 22-25). That is, the barrier material layer is superimposed to the barrier substrate layer. The metal oxide layer provides a barrier effect with respect to light, vapor and/or gas (see page 25, lines 18-19). Given that the outer surface of the sheet-like composite is exposed to light, vapor and/or gas, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to superimpose the barrier material layer on a side of the barrier substrate layer which faces the outer surface of the sheet-like composite to prevent passage of light, vapor and/or gas from the outer surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights