Claims 1, 4-16, and 28 are currently pending with claims 2, 3, 17-27 and 29-35 being cancelled.
All of the 103 rejections have been maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-16, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0121716 to Welsh et al. (hereinafter “Welsh”) in view of US 4,444,828 to Anthony et al. (hereinafter “Anthony”), and US 2011/0285048 to Barger et al. (hereinafter “Barger”).
As to claims 1, 5, 6, and 28, Welsh discloses a coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of 3 layers: foam/film/foam or film/foam/film (paragraph 15). The foam and film layers are made of polyethylene, polystyrene or ethylene-octene copolymer corresponding to the claimed thermoplastic elastomeric polymer (paragraph 10). The foam layer and the film layer are formed from resin formulations devoid of crosslinking agents (example 1). The composite structure has a thickness of 0.1 to 15 mm (paragraph 19). The composite structure has a thickness of 1.4 mm or 55 mils (example 1). The composite structure has an average gauge variation across the width of the composite structure of less than 6%; and an average density variation across the width of the composite structure of less than 4% (paragraph 20). The average gauge variation across the width of the composite structure encompasses the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A weight per unit area is a product of the gauge and density. Hence, the composite structure would have an average variation of a weight per unit area of less than 0.24% (0.06 x 0.04 x100%). This is within the claimed range.
Welsh does not explicitly disclose the composite structure comprising (i) a width of 0.5 to 3.2 m, and (ii) the foam layer made of TPO.
Anthony, however, discloses a multilayer plastic film having a core layer and at least one film layer provided on at least one surface of the core layer (abstract). The core layer comprises low pressure, low density polyethylene wherein the at least one film layer comprises high pressure, low density polyethylene. The multilayer plastic film is a coextruded multilayer film having a width of 108 in or 2.7 m (column 2, lines 25-30 and column 3, lines 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure disclosed in Welsh having a width disclosed in Anthony because such is one of typical widths of the coextruded multilayer plastic film and Anthony provides necessary details to practice the invention of Welsh.
Barger, however, discloses a coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of three layers wherein the foam layer is an exterior layer (paragraph 6, and table 1). Hence, the composite structure consists of a film layer sandwiched between two foam layers. The foam layer is a thermoplastic olefin (TPO) foam layer whereas the film layer is an AFFINITY ethylene/1-octene copolymer layer (table 1). The TPO and the ethylene/1-octene copolymer are thermoplastic elastomeric polymer.
The multilayer foam-film composite structure has an anisotropic cell orientation with an aspect ratio of length to thickness in the range of from 2:1 to 10:1 to enhance toughness, tear resistance and puncture resistance (paragraph 5). The foam layer and the film layer are formed from resin formulations devoid of crosslinking agents (examples 1-18 and paragraph 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute TPO for the ethylene-octene copolymer for the polymer of the foam layer because the TPO and the ethylene-octene copolymer have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent polymers for the foam layer of the foam-film composite structure and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as polymers for the foam layer of the foam-film composite structure will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 4, Welsh discloses that the foam and film layers are interdigitated without an adhesive layer disposed between adjacent layers (example 1).
As to claims 7, 9 and 15, Welsh discloses that the composite structure has a thickness of 0.1 to 15 mm. In particular, the resulting composite structure has a thickness of 1.4 mm or 55 mils (table 1).
As to claims 8, 10-14 and 16, the combined disclosures of Welsh, Anthony and Barger do not disclose the multilayer foam-film composite structure having a bending stiffness of less than 20 in Taber stiffness configuration according to TAPPI/ANSI T 489 om-15, a tear strength greater than 38 kN/m according to ASTM D624, a maximum puncture greater than 30 N according to ASTM F1306 and an elongation at break greater than 500%.
However, it appears that the resulting coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The resulting coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of 3 layers: foam/film/foam or film/foam/film. The foam and film layers are made of polyethylene, polystyrene or ethylene-octene copolymer corresponding to the claimed thermoplastic elastomeric polymer. The resulting foam layer is TPO foam layer. The foam layer and the film layer are formed from resin formulations devoid of crosslinking agents. The resulting composite structure has a thickness of 0.1 to 15 mm and a width of 2.7 m. In particular, the resulting composite structure has a thickness of 1.4 mm or 55 mils. The resulting composite structure has an average gauge variation across the structure of less than 6% and an average density variation across the structure of less than 4%.
A weight per unit area is a product of the gauge and density. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the composite structure would have an average variation of the weight per unit area of less than 0.24% (0.06 x 0.04 x100%). That is within the claimed range.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the bending stiffness of less than 20 in Taber stiffness configuration according to TAPPI/ANSI T 489 om-15, a tear strength greater than 38 kN/m according to ASTM D624, a maximum puncture greater than 30 N according to ASTM F1306 and an elongation at break greater than 500% would be present as like material has like property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that there is no reasonable expectation of success in combing the teachings of Welsh, Anthony and Barger to arrive at the claimed multi-layer sheet having the claimed average gauge variation across the web of the sheet of less than 5%, and an average variation of a weight per unit area across the web of the sheet of less than 5%. Applicant’s allegation is simply a statement without any factual evidence to support it.
As previously discussed, Welsh discloses a coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of 3 layers: foam/film/foam or film/foam/film (paragraph 15). The foam and film layers are made of polyethylene, polystyrene or ethylene-octene copolymer corresponding to the claimed thermoplastic elastomeric polymer (paragraph 10). The composite structure has an average gauge variation across the width of the composite structure of less than 6%; and an average density variation across the width of the composite structure of less than 4% (paragraph 20). A weight per unit area is a product of the gauge and density. Hence, the composite structure would have an average variation of a weight per unit area of less than 0.24% (0.06 x 0.04 x100%). This is within the claimed range.
Welsh does not explicitly disclose the composite structure comprising (i) a width of 0.5 to 3.2 m, and (ii) the foam layer made of TPO.
Anthony, however, discloses a multilayer plastic film having a core layer and at least one film layer provided on at least one surface of the core layer (abstract). The multilayer plastic film is a coextruded multilayer film having a width of 108 in or 2.7 m (column 2, lines 25-30 and column 3, lines 25-30).
Barger, however, discloses a coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of three layers wherein the foam layer is an exterior layer (paragraph 6, and table 1). Hence, the composite structure consists of a film layer sandwiched between two foam layers. The foam layer is a thermoplastic olefin (TPO) foam layer whereas the film layer is an AFFINITY ethylene/1-octene copolymer layer (table 1). The TPO and the ethylene/1-octene copolymer are thermoplastic elastomeric polymer.
As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Welsh, Anthony and Barger, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist. Therefore, the rejection over Welsh in view of Anthony and Barger has been maintained.
Claims 1, 4-16, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welsh in view of US 2008/0199645 to Julien (hereinafter “Julien”) and Barger.
As to claims 1, 5, 6, and 28, Welsh discloses a coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of 3 layers: foam/film/foam or film/foam/film (paragraph 15). The foam and film layers are made of polyethylene, polystyrene or ethylene-octene copolymer corresponding to the claimed thermoplastic elastomeric polymer (paragraph 10). The foam layer and the film layer are formed from resin formulations devoid of crosslinking agents (example 1). The composite structure has a thickness of 0.1 to 15 mm (paragraph 19). The composite structure has a thickness of 1.4 mm or 55 mils (example 1). The composite structure has an average gauge variation across the structure of less than 6% and an average density variation across the structure of less than 4% (paragraph 20). The average gauge variation encompasses the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A weight per unit area is a product of the gauge and density. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the composite structure would have an average variation of the weight per unit area of less than 0.24% (0.06 x 0.04 x100%). This is within the claimed range.
Welsh does not explicitly disclose the composite structure comprising (i) a width of 0.5 to 3.2 m, and (ii) the foam layer made of TPO.
Julien, however, discloses a multilayer plastic film having an outer layer of PVDF copolymer or an alpha-olefin polymer, and a backing layer of a TPU copolymer and a gas barrier layer attached to the side of the backing layer opposite the outer layer (abstract and figure 1). The multilayer plastic film is a coextruded multilayer film having a width up to 60 in or 1.5 m (paragraphs 52, 54, and 111).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure disclosed in Welsh having a width disclosed in Julien because such is one of typical widths of the coextruded multilayer plastic film and Julien provides necessary details to practice the invention of Welsh.
Barger, however, discloses a coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of three layers wherein the foam layer is an exterior layer (paragraph 6, and table 1). Hence, the composite structure consists of a film layer sandwiched between two foam layers. The foam layer is a thermoplastic olefin (TPO) foam layer whereas the film layer is an AFFINITY ethylene/1-octene copolymer layer (table 1). The TPO and the ethylene/1-octene copolymer are thermoplastic elastomeric polymer.
The multilayer foam-film composite structure has an anisotropic cell orientation with an aspect ratio of length to thickness in the range of from 2:1 to 10:1 to enhance toughness, tear resistance and puncture resistance (paragraph 5). The foam layer and the film layer are formed from resin formulations devoid of crosslinking agents (examples 1-18 and paragraph 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute TPO for the ethylene-octene copolymer for the polymer of the foam layer because the TPO and the ethylene-octene copolymer have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent polymers for the foam layer of the foam-film composite structure and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as polymers for the foam layer of the foam-film composite structure will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 4, Welsh discloses that the foam and film layers are interdigitated without an adhesive layer disposed between adjacent layers (example 1).
As to claims 7, 9 and 15, Welsh discloses that the composite structure has a thickness of 0.1 to 15 mm. In particular, the resulting composite structure has a thickness of 1.4 mm or 55 mils (table 1).
As to claims 8, 10-14, and 16, the combined disclosures of Welsh, Julien and Barger do not disclose the multilayer foam-film composite structure having a bending stiffness of less than 20 in Taber stiffness configuration according to TAPPI/ANSI T 489 om-15, a tear strength greater than 38 kN/m according to ASTM D624, a maximum puncture greater than 30 N according to ASTM F1306 and an elongation at break greater than 500%.
However, it appears that the resulting coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The resulting coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of 3 layers: foam/film/foam or film/foam/film. The foam and film layers are made of polyethylene, polystyrene or ethylene-octene copolymer corresponding to the claimed thermoplastic elastomeric polymer. The resulting foam layer is TPO foam layer. The foam layer and the film layer are formed from resin formulations devoid of crosslinking agents. The resulting composite structure has a thickness of 0.1 to 15 mm and a width of 2.7 m. In particular, the resulting composite structure has a thickness of 1.4 mm or 55 mils. The resulting composite structure has an average gauge variation across the structure of less than 6% and an average density variation across the structure of less than 4%.
A weight per unit area is a product of the gauge and density. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the composite structure would have an average variation of the weight per unit area of less than 0.24% (0.06 x 0.04 x100%). That is within the claimed range.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the bending stiffness of less than 20 in Taber stiffness configuration according to TAPPI/ANSI T 489 om-15, a tear strength greater than 38 kN/m according to ASTM D624, a maximum puncture greater than 30 N according to ASTM F1306 and an elongation at break greater than 500% would be present as like material has like property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that there is no reasonable expectation of success in combing the teachings of Welsh, Julien and Barger to arrive at the claimed multi-layer sheet having the claimed average gauge variation across the web of the sheet of less than 5%, and an average variation of a weight per unit area across the web of the sheet of less than 5%. Applicant’s allegation is simply a statement without any factual evidence to support it.
As previously discussed, Welsh discloses a coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of 3 layers: foam/film/foam or film/foam/film (paragraph 15). The foam and film layers are made of polyethylene, polystyrene or ethylene-octene copolymer corresponding to the claimed thermoplastic elastomeric polymer (paragraph 10). The composite structure has an average gauge variation across the width of the composite structure of less than 6%; and an average density variation across the width of the composite structure of less than 4% (paragraph 20). A weight per unit area is a product of the gauge and density. Hence, the composite structure would have an average variation of a weight per unit area of less than 0.24% (0.06 x 0.04 x100%). This is within the claimed range.
Welsh does not explicitly disclose the composite structure comprising (i) a width of 0.5 to 3.2 m, and (ii) the foam layer made of TPO.
Julien, however, discloses a multilayer plastic film having an outer layer of PVDF copolymer or an alpha-olefin polymer, and a backing layer of a TPU copolymer and a gas barrier layer attached to the side of the backing layer opposite the outer layer (abstract and figure 1). The multilayer plastic film is a coextruded multilayer film having a width up to 60 in or 1.5 m (paragraphs 52, 54, and 111).
Barger, however, discloses a coextruded multilayer foam-film composite structure consisting of three layers wherein the foam layer is an exterior layer (paragraph 6, and table 1). Hence, the composite structure consists of a film layer sandwiched between two foam layers. The foam layer is a thermoplastic olefin (TPO) foam layer whereas the film layer is an AFFINITY ethylene/1-octene copolymer layer (table 1). The TPO and the ethylene/1-octene copolymer are thermoplastic elastomeric polymer.
As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Welsh, Julien and Barger, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist. Therefore, the rejection over Welsh in view of Julien and Barger has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571) 272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788