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 1-3 and 10-20) in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-8 and 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/29/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2024 and 05/12/2026 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, line 2 recites “the shrinkage”, which should be “a shrinkage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18, line 1 recites “one or more”, which should be “one or both”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-16 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 13 recites the limitation "the shrinkage value of each of the first base layer, the second base layer, and the sealing layer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the shrinkage value” with respect to the first base layer and the sealing layer in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the shrinkage value of each of the first base layer, the second base layer, and the sealing layer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the shrinkage value” with respect to the first base layer and the sealing layer in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the shrinkage value of each of the first base layer, the second base layer, and the sealing layer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the shrinkage value” with respect to the first base layer and the sealing layer in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the shrinkage value of each of the first base layer, the second base layer, and the sealing layer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the shrinkage value” with respect to the first base layer and the sealing layer in the claim.
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 1-3 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (EP 3957475 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Osgood (WO 03/072454 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13-20, Martin et al. disclose a multilayer packaging film a plurality of polypropylene containing layers, wherein at least two layers comprises biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) and at least one layer comprises cast polypropylene (CPP) (see page 7, claims 1, 5, 7 and 8). Further, at least one of the biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) is coated with AlOx and/or SiOx (inorganic coating) (see page 7, claim 6 and paragraph 0026). Accordingly, Martin et al. disclose the multilayer packaging film comprising an inorganic coated biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) layer (first base layer with an inorganic coating), a biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) layer (second base layer) on the inorganic coated biaxially oriented polypropylene layer and a cast polypropylene layer (sealing layer) on the biaxially oriented polypropylene layer.
Martin et al. do not disclose the second base layer has a shrinkage value as presently claimed.
Osgood disclose biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) film having substantially balanced physical properties, wherein BOPP film is produced using sequentially stretching process such as a double bubble process (see page 9, paragraph 3).
In light of motivation for biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) film disclosed by Osgood 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 BOPP film produced using sequentially stretching process such as a double bubble process in each of the first base layer and the second base layer in Martin et al. in order to provide substantially balanced physical properties.
Accordingly, Martin et al. in view of Osgood disclose the multilayer packaging film comprising an inorganic coated BOPP layer (first base layer with an inorganic coating), a BOPP layer (second base layer) on the inorganic coated BOPP layer and a cast polypropylene layer (sealing layer) on the BOPP layer, wherein BOPP layer is produced using a sequential stretching process as claimed. The first base layer and the second base layer are identical to that utilized in the present invention (see present claims 17-20). The sealing layer is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0092 of present specification). Given that the second base layer of Martin et al. in view of Osgood is identical to that utilized in present invention, the second base layer necessarily inherently has a shrinkage value as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Martin et al. in view of Osgood disclose the multilayer packaging film as set forth above. The first base layer and the second base are identical to that utilized in the present invention. Therefore, the shrinkage value of the second base layer is necessarily inherently greater than or equal to a shrinkage value of the first base layer.
Regarding claim 3, Martin et al. in view of Osgood disclose the multilayer packaging film as set forth above. The second base layer and the sealing layer are identical to that utilized in the present invention. Therefore, the shrinkage value of the second base layer is necessarily inherently greater than or equal to a shrinkage value of the sealing layer.
Regarding claim 10, Martin et al. in view of Osgood disclose the multilayer packaging film as set forth above. The first base layer and the second base layer are identical to that utilized in the present invention. Therefore, the difference in shrinkage value of the first base layer and the second base layer is necessarily inherently greater than or equal to 0.3%.
Regarding claim 11, Martin et al. in view of Osgood disclose the multilayer packaging film as set forth above. The second base layer and the sealing layer are identical to that utilized in the present invention. Therefore, the difference in shrinkage value of the second base layer and the sealing layer is necessarily inherently greater than or equal to 0.3%.
Regarding claim 12, Martin et al. in view of Osgood disclose the multilayer packaging film as set forth above. The sealing layer is identical to that utilized in the present invention. Therefore, the sealing layer necessarily inherently has shrinkage value as presently claimed.
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
