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 .
Status of claims
Receipt is acknowledged of Claims, filed on 10/29/2024, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-7 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 10/29/2024, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roehrig et al. (US 20110223434 A1), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roehrig et al. (US 20110223434 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roehrig discloses a discloses a food packaging barrier film ([0047]), comprising:
a base film (110);
an inorganic laminated film (130) formed on a surface of the base film (110), wherein the inorganic laminated film (130) includes at least one first inorganic material deposition layer (134) and a second inorganic material deposition layer (136) stacked upon each other (Fig. 1), and
the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer (134) and the second inorganic material deposition layer (136) are formed in a same vacuum deposition process and in a vacuum condition ([0028]-[0029] via sputter deposition process in a vacuum chamber), and
wherein the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer and the second inorganic material deposition layer are respectively formed by different inorganic metal oxides in the same vacuum deposition process ([0022] “the first inorganic material is silicon oxide; and the second inorganic material is aluminum oxide” and [0026], [0031]; Fig. 2)
a barrier coating layer (150) formed on the inorganic laminated film (130), wherein the barrier coating layer (150) is formed by coating a barrier coating solution on the inorganic laminated film and then curing the barrier coating solution ([0033]-[0034]).
Wherein an argument is made that Roehrig the first and second inorganic material deposition layer are stacked upon each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first and second inorganic materials as discreet stacked layers as such configuration represent predictable variations of depositing multiple inorganic oxides in sequence in the same vacuum process, yielding the same barrier function and motivated by routine process optimization.
Additionally, this limitation is considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Roehrig, the barrier film (Fig. 1), is the same as the product claimed, meeting the limitation of Claim 1.
Roehrig further teaches:
Regarding claim 4, wherein the base film is a polyester film (110 of Roehrig; [0025], [0040]) and has a thickness that is within a range from 5 µm to 300 µm ([0025]; 0.01 to about 1mm falls within the range; see also [0041]),
wherein the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer has a thickness that is within a range from 1 nm to 100 nm ([0043]; “1 to 3nm”), and the second inorganic material deposition layer has a thickness that is within a range from 1 nm to 100 nm ([0042]; 35nm).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the inorganic metal oxides is at least one material selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxide and silicon oxide ([0020], [0022], [0026]), and wherein the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer is aluminum oxide deposition layer, and the second inorganic material deposition layer is silicon oxide deposition layer ([0022]).
Although Roehrig lists silicon oxide as first inorganic layer and aluminum oxide as second, reversing the order of known barrier oxides would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as both materials are known barrier oxides, and selection of which material is adjacent the substrate is a routine design choice.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehrig et al. (US 20110223434 A1) in view of Ettridge et al. (US 20180170017 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Roehrig teaches wherein a material hardness of the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer (134; Silicone oxide) is greater than a material hardness of the second inorganic material deposition layer (136; aluminum oxide layer; [0022], [0026] and [0033]; its also inherently known that silicone oxide is slightly harder than aluminum oxide in Mohs rating; also a gradient in composition between different oxide (silicone and aluminum) necessarily produces a gradient in mechanical properties, including hardness), but is silent with regards wherein, when the food packaging barrier film is bent, the second inorganic material deposition layer is configured to buffer a stress that is provided by the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer.
Ettridge teaches multilayer structures designed to maintain barrier properties after mechanical flexing i.e. bending (Gelbo test; [0012], [0019], [0045] and [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Roehrig inorganic layer to include regions of differing hardness such that a relatively more compliant second region buffers stress during bending, as taught by Ettridge to improve flex durability.
Regarding claim 3, Roehrig teaches the food packaging barrier film (Fig. 1), having a visible light transmittance that is not less than 90% ([0025]) but is silent regarding having an oxygen transmission rate that is no more than 1 cc/m2．day．atm, a water vapor transmission rate that is no more than 1 g/m2．day．atm, , and a haze value that is no more than 3%.
Ettridge teaches a packaging barrier film having an oxygen transmission rate that is no more than 1 cc/m2．day．atm ([0122]), a water vapor transmission rate that is no more than 1 g/m2．day．atm ([0045]-[0046]), , and a haze value that is no more than 3%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roehrig packaging barrier film to include an oxygen transmission rate that is no more than 1 cc/m2．day．atm, a water vapor transmission rate that is no more than 1 g/m2．day．atm, as taught by Ettridge which constitute routine and predictable optimization of known barrier film parameters.
Ettridge further teaches (implied ≥90% transmittance, low haze for clear packaging; Examples; Table 1; Detailed Description: optically clear EVOH/PVOH layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roehrig as modified packaging barrier film to include a haze value that is no more than 3%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehrig et al. (US 20110223434 A1) in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 6656602 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Roehrig discloses the barrier coating solution but is silent regarding contains a resin material, a crosslinking agent, filler particles treated with surface modification treatment agent, an additive, and a water solvent, and wherein based on a total weight of the barrier coating solution being 100 wt%, a content of the resin material is within a range from 2 wt% to 20 wt%, a content of the crosslinking agent is within a range from 1 wt% to 10 wt%, a content of the filler particles treated with the surface modification treatment agent is within a range from 0.05 wt% to 40 wt%, a content of the additive is within a range from 0.05 wt% to 10 wt%, and a content of the water solvent is within a range from 25 wt% to 85 wt%.
Ishikawa teaches a barrier coating solution contains a resin material (Col 1 lines 66 to Col 2 lines 1-2 and Col 3 lines 1-20), a crosslinking agent (Col 4 lines 1-30 and Col 7 lines 1-20), filler particles treated with surface modification treatment agent (Col 6 lines 45-60, Col 7 lines 1-15), an additive (Col 9 lines 1-25), and a water solvent (Col 8 lines 1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roehrig coating solution to include the above materials, as taught by Ishikawa to improve to improve gas and barrier performance while maintaining flexibility (Col 1 lines 5-15 and Col 11 lines 20-35).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roehrig barrier solution as modified to include the percentage weights of each material, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Adjusting components amounts within known ranges to obtain desired coating viscosity, barrier performance, and film formation would have been routine experimentation.
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehrig et al. (US 20110223434 A1) in view of Ettridge et al. (US 20180170017 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Roehrig discloses a discloses a food packaging barrier film ([0047]), comprising:
a base film (110);
an inorganic laminated film (130) formed on a surface of the base film (110), wherein the inorganic laminated film (130) includes at least one first inorganic material deposition layer (134) and a second inorganic material deposition layer (136) stacked upon each other (Fig. 1), and
the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer and the second inorganic material deposition layer are respectively formed by different inorganic metal oxides ([0022] “the first inorganic material is silicon oxide; and the second inorganic material is aluminum oxide” and [0026], [0031]; Fig. 2), and
wherein a material hardness of the at least one first inorganic material deposition (134) layer is greater than a material hardness of the second inorganic material deposition layer (136; aluminum oxide layer; [0022], [0026] and [0033]; its also inherently known that silicone oxide is slightly harder than aluminum oxide in Mohs rating; also a gradient in composition between different oxide (silicone and aluminum) necessarily produces a gradient in mechanical properties, including hardness), and
a barrier coating layer (150) formed on the inorganic laminated film (130), wherein the barrier coating layer (150) is formed by coating a barrier coating solution on the inorganic laminated film and then curing the barrier coating solution ([0033]-[0034]);
Roehrig does not discloses wherein, when the food packaging barrier film is bent, the second inorganic material deposition layer is configured to buffer a stress that is provided by the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer.
but is silent with regards wherein, when the food packaging barrier film is bent, the second inorganic material deposition layer is configured to buffer a stress that is provided by the at least one first inorganic material deposition layer.
Ettridge teaches multilayer structures designed to maintain barrier properties after mechanical flexing i.e. bending (Gelbo test; [0012], [0019], [0045] and [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Roehrig inorganic layer to include regions of differing hardness such that a relatively more compliant second region buffers stress during bending, as taught by Ettridge to improve flex durability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References cited. The art cited is generally related to the field of a food packaging barrier film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731