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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 12/17/2024, 8/4/2026 have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/17/2024 are accepted.
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 4, 5, 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.
With regards to claims 4 and 5, it is unclear what is meant by the vapor deposited metal layer is deposited “ on a surface of the base film comprising’ the first or third layer, respectively. For examination purposes, said claims are understood to require the metal layer to be on the surface of the base layer adjacent to either the first or third layers.
5. (Original) The compostable multilayer film according to claim 3, wherein the vapor
deposited metal layer is deposited on a surface of the base film comprising the first
layer.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8-12, 16,17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cham et al (US 2022/0032586) in view of Dou et al (US 2010/0323196).
Cham teaches a compostable multilayer film (0001) comprising an outer print layer located on a first surface of the compostable multilayer film(see Figures; said print layer is understood to read on the claimed “first film”). The first film may comprise polylactic acid (PLA) film (0026) or paper (0080). The multilayer film further comprises an inner product side layer (abstract). In some embodiments, the inner product-side layer includes (i) a core layer and (ii) a barrier layer and (iii) a sealant layer (0028). In such embodiments the sealant layer is understood to read on the claimed “second film located on a second surface of the compostable multilayer film” and the barrier and core layer are understood to read on the claimed “barrier film located between the first film and the second film, the barrier film comprising a base film...and a vapor deposited metal layer located on the surface of the base film.” Specifically, Cham teaches the barrier may be a metal layer (0032); the examiner takes the position that the limitation “vapor deposited” is a method limitation that does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art as applicant has not shown said limitation inherently results in a materially different product. The core layer may comprise PLA (0121) and herein reads on the claimed “base film” of claim 1.
Cham teaches the inner layer may comprise a sealant but does not teach said sealant layer (“second film”) should comprise a blend of PLA and poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT). However, Dou teaches a biodegradable packaging film comprising a polylactic acid layer and a heat sealable layer wherein the heat sealable layer comprises a blend of PLA and poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT) (abstract). Said heat sealable layer exhibits improved the heat seal initiation and heat seal performance while maintaining good optical clarity of the film's appearance (0002). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the blend of PLA and poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT) taught in Dou as the sealant composition taught in Cham. The motivation for doing so would have been such compositions exhibit improved the heat seal initiation and heat seal performance while maintaining good optical clarity of the film's appearance
With regards to claim 2, Cham teaches laminate may further comprise a first adhesive layer (0081) and a second adhesive layer (0091; 0092), the first adhesive layer located between the first film and the barrier film (the lamination layer) and the second adhesive layer located between the second film and the barrier film, and each of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer comprise a compostable adhesive material (102).
With regards to claim 4, Chen teaches the metal layer may be deposited on the surface of the base film comprising the third layer (0037).
With regards to claim 5, Cham teaches the metal layer is deposited on a surface of the base film comprising the first layer (0146).
With regards to claim 6, Cham teaches the metal layer is deposited on a surface of the base film, and the base film may comprise PLA.
With regards to claim 8, Cham teaches the first layer is PLA.
With regards to claim 9, when the first layer is a PLA< said laminate is understood to be “free from paper and cellulose.”
With regards to claim 10, Cham teaches the first layer may be printed (abstract).
With regards to claims 11 and 12, Cham teaches a compostable multilayer film (0001) comprising an outer print layer located on a first surface of the compostable multilayer film(see Figures; said print layer is understood to read on the claimed “first film”). The first film may comprise polylactic acid (PLA) film (0026) and may be printed on the first or second sides (0146). The multilayer film further comprises an inner product side layer (abstract). In some embodiments, the inner product-side layer includes (i) a core layer and (ii) a barrier layer and (iii) a sealant layer (0028). In such embodiments the sealant layer is understood to read on the claimed “second film located on a second surface of the compostable multilayer film” and the barrier and core layer are understood to read on the claimed “barrier film located between the first film and the second film, the barrier film comprising a base film...and a vapor deposited metal layer located on the surface of the base film.” Specifically, Cham teaches the barrier may be a metal layer (0032); the examiner takes the position that the limitation “vapor deposited” is a method limitation that does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art as applicant has not shown said limitation inherently results in a materially different product. The core layer may comprise PLA (0121) and herein reads on the claimed “base film” of claim 1.
With regards to claim 16, Cham teaches the film may be used as a package for a product (claim 50).
With regards to claim 17, Cham teaches the product may be a beverage (claim 53-herein understood to read on the claimed fluid).
With regards to claims 19 and 20, the package may comprise more than one film hermetically sealed to one another (0002).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cham et al (US 2022/0032586) in view of Dou et al (US 2010/0323196), as applied to claims above, and further in view of JP2021160135 (herein referred to as JP)
Cham in view of Dou is relied upon as above. While Cham teaches the laminate may comprise a polylactic base film, said reference does not teach the use of a 5-layer film comprising outer layers of PLA, a second layer of PBAT, and a core of BOVH. However, JP teaches fiver layer film (3a/3b/3c/3b/3a) wherein 3a comprise polylactic acid, 3b may comprise PBAT, and 3c comprises BVOH (see all). Said film is said to be useful in packages and exhibits enhanced oxygen barrier properties. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the 5-layersd film of JP in place of the polylactic acid core film disclosed in Cham. The motivation for doing so would have been such films exhibit enhance packaging and barrier properties.
With regards to claim 14, none of the references explicitly teaches the base film of claim 13 further includes a sixth layer located between the second layer and the third layer, and a seventh layer located between the third layer and the fourth layer, each of the sixth layer and the seventh layer comprising a compostable tie material. However, Cham teaches that compostable adhesives may be utilized between adjacent layers of the packaging film. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a sixth layer located between the second layer and the third layer, and a seventh layer located between the third layer and the fourth layer, each of the sixth layer and the seventh layer in order to enhance the adhesion of the laminate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cham et al (US 2022/0032586) in view of Dou et al (US 2010/0323196) and JP2021160135 (herein referred to as JP), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 2023/0071141).
Cham in view of Dou is relied upon as above but does not teach the outer print layer (first layer) comprise a 3-layer film comprising a first skin layer comprising PLA, a second skin layer comprising PLA, and a core layer comprising PBAT. However, Chen teaches a biodegradable facestock material comprising a first skin layer comprising PLA, a second skin layer comprising PLA, and a core layer comprising PBAT (0011;0018). Said laminates are useful as facestocks, are compostable, and can conform to the shapes of the item to which they are applies (0007). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the three layer film of Chen as the outer print layer of Cham. The motivation for doing so would have been said l3-layer film is taught to be useful as a facestock and have improved conformability and compost ability.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cham et al (US 2022/0032586) in view of Dou et al (US 2010/0323196), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 6,126,981)
With regards to claim 18, Cham does not explicitly teach the pH of the packaged beverage. However, Lee teaches that fruit-flavored beverages are typically formulated to a pH of about 2.9 (see Background). Thus, it would have been obvious to package a fruit favored beverage(with a pH of about 2.9) in the packaging of Cham as Cham teaches the packaging may be used with beverages.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cham et al (US 2022/0032586) in view of Dou et al (US 2010/0323196), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 2023/0071141).
Cham in view of Dou is relied upon as above but does not teach the outer print layer (first layer) comprise a 3-layer film comprising a first skin layer comprising PLA, a second skin layer comprising PLA, and a core layer comprising PBAT. However, Chen teaches a biodegradable facestock material comprising a first skin layer comprising PLA, a second skin layer comprising PLA, and a core layer comprising PBAT (0011;0018). Said laminates are useful as facestocks, are compostable, and can conform to the shapes of the item to which they are applies (0007). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the three layer film of Chen as the outer print layer of Cham. The motivation for doing so would have been said l3-layer film is taught to be useful as a facestock and have improved conformability and compost ability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
KEVIN R. KRUER
Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
