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 .
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 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 “an adhesive” in line 9, but does not define whether this refers to the adhesive of line 5 or requires an additional adhesive.
Claim 2 recites “a resin” in line 3, but does not define whether this is the resin of line 2 or a separate resin.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURIYAMA et al. (US 2011/0189416).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, KURIYAMA teaches a first coating device 35 with a pair of facing rollers, coating a solventless adhesive on first film 34 by passing between the rollers, laminating a second film 37 superimposed with the adhesive layer (paras. 15 and 131-132; fig. 3), aging to solidify the adhesive (para. 139), and a laminate produced thereby comprising a first and second film attached via adhesive 3, with a layer 7 comprising an aluminum foil (paras. 120-121). KURIYAMA does not explicitly teach duplicating the coating device and lamination step to create the 3-layer structure shown in figure 2, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the coating and lamination devices in order to create laminates having a variety of properties, where duplication of apparatus components and method steps has been held per se obvious, and KURIYAMA teaches producing laminates having seven or more different layers (para. 120).
Regarding claim 2, KURIYAMA teaches a first layer comprising polyolefin based film (para. 117), a second film comprising a urethane base (para. 99), both of which are resin-based, and an intermediate layer comprising aluminum foil (para. 121).
Regarding claim 3, KURIYAMA teaches an outer layer comprising polyamide or polyester based resin (para. 110).
Regarding claim 4, KURIYAMA teaches an inner layer comprising a polyolefin based resin (para. 117).
Regarding claim 5, KURIYAMA teaches both adhesive layers 3 comprise solventless adhesive (para. 42; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, KURIYAMA teaches a two-part adhesive with polyester based main agent and an aliphatic isocyanate curing agent (para. 19). KURIYAMA teaches utilizing an adhesive viscosity from 300 to 1000 mPa-s at 70 degrees Celsius (para. 50), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a viscosity from 700 to 2000 mPa-s at 50 degrees Celsius because there would have been a reasonable expectation of producing the same adhesion (MPEP 2141) and the materials utilized in KURIYAMA are those utilize in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 7, KURIYAMA teaches applying adhesive in an amount 1.5 to 3.5 g/m^2 (para. 105), such that it would have been obvious to apply adhesive in a range of 0.5 to 3.0 g/m^2 because the range claimed overlaps that of the prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights