Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/906,600

MULTILAYER STRUCTURE, CONTAINER, AND FOOD PACKAGING CONTAINER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 04, 2024
Examiner
SHUKLA, KRUPA
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
15%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 8m
To Grant
38%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 15% of cases
15%
Career Allow Rate
64 granted / 432 resolved
-50.2% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 8m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
504
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
59.4%
+19.4% vs TC avg
§102
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 432 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2024 and 04/09/2025 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forloni et al. (WO 2020/025148 A1). Regarding claims 1-9, Forloni et al. disclose a thermoplastic multilayer packaging film (multilayer structure) comprising a thermoplastic base layer B which comprises an inner gas barrier layer (i.e. claimed layer A) and a thermoplastic heat-sealable layer A made of linear ethylene-a-olefin copolymer in amount of more than 60 wt% (i.e. claimed layer B) (see page 48, claim 1 and claim 3, page 49, claim 10 and page 17, lines 13-15). The inner gas barrier layer comprises EVOH (see page 24, lines 1-2). The thermoplastic heat-sealable layer can be made of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) with a density in the range from about 0.910 to about 0.930 g/cm3 (see page 17, lines 20-22). A specific example of LLDPE includes Exceed 1012MA by ExxonMobil (page 37, Table 1). Exceed 1012MA is identical to polyethylene resin utilized in the present invention (see page 29, lines 16-20 of present specification). As evidenced by the present specification, Exceed 1012MA has a density of 0.912 g/cm3 and a weight average molecular weight of 258000 when calibrated with polystyrene, and Exceed 1012MA is LLDPE comprising copolymerization component having 6 carbons (see page 29, lines 16-20 of present specification). Forloni et al. do not disclose the thermoplastic multilayer packaging film (multilayer structure) having an impact strength A and an impact strength B as presently claimed. However, given that the thermoplastic multilayer packaging film (multilayer structure) including the ethylene-vinyl alcohol polymer layer and the polyethylene resin layer is identical to that presently claimed, with amount of polyethylene resin, density of polyethylene resin and weight average molecular weight of polyethylene resin overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the thermoplastic multilayer packaging film (multilayer structure) necessarily inherently has an impact strength A and an impact strength B as presently claimed. In light of the overlap between the claimed multilayer structure and that disclosed by Forloni et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a multilayer structure that is both disclosed by Forloni et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claims 10-18, Forloni et al. disclose the thermoplastic multilayer packaging film (multilayer structure) as set forth above. Further, Forloni et al. disclose a specific embodiment of the thermoplastic multilayer packaging film comprising layers C/A/D/F/D/E, wherein layer C is a super-hydrophobic coating layer, layer A is heat sealable layer, layer D is a tie layer, layer F is an inner gas barrier layer and layer E is an outer abuse layer (see page 25, lines 10-17). As noted above, the heat sealable layer A comprises polyethylene resin and the inner gas barrier layer F comprises ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer. The layer D improves adhesion between the layers (see page 22, lines 16-17). The layer D read on an adhesive resin layer. The layer C and layer E read on additional layers on outermost layers of the multilayer structure. Based on this structure, the layer A (polyethylene resin layer B) is provided between the layer C (additional layer D) and the layer F (ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer layer A). Further, there is no disclosure of the thermoplastic multilayer packaging film (multilayer structure) comprising layer containing a polyamide resin as a main component. Regarding claims 19 and 20, Forloni et al. disclose a flexible container prepared from the thermoplastic multilayer packaging film (multilayer structure) (see page 50, claims 19 and 20). The flexible container (a food packaging container) can be in form of a non-heat shrinkable pouch containing a food product (see page 50, claim 21 and page 51, claim 25 and claim 26). Citation of Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parkinson et al. (US 2017/0348950 A1) disclose a multi-layer structure comprising a layer comprising a polyolefin component such as ethylene homopolymer and a polar layer comprising a polar polymer such as ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer (see Abstract and paragraph 0056). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12509589
CORROSION RESISTANT ADHESIVE SOL-GEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12508749
MULTILAYER BODY FOR ROLLING, ROLLED BODY AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ROLLED BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12344518
TELEHANDLER WITH IMPROVED CAB
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 2025
Patent 12344689
SHEET-SHAPED PHOTOCURABLE COMPOSITION, PHOTOCURABLE COMPOSITION SOLUTION, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SHEET-SHAPED PHOTOCURABLE COMPOSITION, AND LAMINATED BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 2025
Patent 12312224
TELEHANDLER PROVIDED WITH IMPROVED CAB
2y 5m to grant Granted May 27, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
15%
Grant Probability
38%
With Interview (+23.2%)
4y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 432 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month