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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12, 15, 16, 21 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 2014172928 A), taken in view of evidence by Kuraray (EVAL E171B, 2016) and Basbas et al. (WO 2008/003605 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Kobayashi et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in the action mailed 10/12/2023.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21 and 25-29, Kobayashi et al. disclose a multilayer structure (multilayer article) comprising a layer (a) (i.e. first layer) comprising a resin composition comprising 100 parts by mass of an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) with an ethylene content of 10 to 60 mol% and saponification degree of 95 mol% or more, and 0.01 to 1 parts by mass of a hindered amine compound such as TINUVIN NOR 371 or ADEKASTAB LA-81, and a layer (b) hydrophobic thermoplastic resin layer (i.e. second layer) made of a polyolefin resin such as linear low density polyethylene and a hindered amine compound similar to the resin composition of the layer (a) (see Abstract; page 3, paragraph 3; page 2, paragraphs 4, 5 and last paragraph, and page 4, paragraph 7). TINUVIN NOR 371 and ADEKASTAB LA-81 are hindered amine compounds having 2,2,6,6-tetraalkylpiperidine structure in which an alkoxy group is bonded to a nitrogen atom on the piperidine ring (see page 3, paragraph 3). As evidenced by Basbas et al., Tinuvin Nor 371 has a formula (1) wherein R1 is propyl (see page 9, lines 7-13 and page 12, lines 9-10). The structure of Tinuvin Nor 371 reads on hindered amine compound as presently claimed. Based on the 100 parts by weight of EVOH and 0.01 to 1 parts of the hindered amine compound in the layer (a) (i.e. first layer), the amount of EVOH is 99.01 to 99.99 wt% (99.01 = 100/101 x 100 and 99.99 = 100/100.01 x 100) and the amount of the hindered amine is 0.01 to 0.99 wt% (0.01 = 0.01/100.01 x 100 and 0.99 = 1/101 x 100). A specific example of EVOH includes EVAL E171 by Kuraray (page 7, paragraph 5). As evidenced by Kuraray, EVAL E171 has a melt flow rate of 1.7 g/10 minutes measured at a temperature of 190 °C and a load of 2160 g using ISO1133 (see Typical Properties). While Kuraray do not disclose the melt flow rate of EVAL E171 measured in accordance with JIS K 7210, absence criticality of JIS K 7210, the melt flow rate of EVAL E171 meets as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Kobayashi et al. disclose the layer (b) (i.e. the second layer) can comprise the hindered amine stabilizer similar to the layer (a), wherein the hindered amine stabilizer is TINUVIN NOR 371 and ADEKASTAB (i.e. page 4, paragraph 7 and page 3, paragraph 3). Kobayashi et al. do not disclose amount of hindered amine stabilizer in the layer (b) (i.e. second layer).
Kobayashi et al. disclose the hindered amine compound provides durability over a long period of time and high weatherability (page 8, paragraph 5). The hindered amine compound is used in amount of 0.1 to 1 parts by mass to provide object of the present invention (i.e. durability and weatherability) as well as prevent coloring of a film (see page 3, paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to use 0.01 to 1 parts of the hindered amine stabilizer with respect to 100 parts by mass of hydrophobic thermoplastic resin, i.e. polyethylene in the layer (b) (i.e. second layer) of Kobayashi et al. in order to provide durability over a long period of time and high weatherability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Based on the 100 parts by weight of the hydrophobic thermoplastic resin and 0.01 to 1 parts of the hindered amine compound in the layer (b) (i.e. second layer), the amount of the hydrophobic thermoplastic resin is 99.01 to 99.99 wt% (99.01 = 100/101 x 100 and 99.99 = 100/100.01 x 100) and the amount of the hindered amine compound is 0.01 to 0.99 wt% (0.01 = 0.01/100.01 x 100 and 0.99 = 1/101 x 100).
Kobayashi et al. disclose the multilayer structure has a thickness of 5 to 500 microns, wherein the thickness of the layer (a) (i.e. first layer) is 0.1 to 100 microns and the thickness of the layer (b) (i.e. second layer) is 0.5 to 200 microns (see page 6, paragraph 1).
Further, Kobayashi et al. disclose the hydrophobic thermoplastic layer (b) (second layer) is formed on at least one surface of the layer (a) (first layer) (see page 2, paragraph 4). The hydrophobic thermoplastic layer (b) is an outer surface layer and the layer (a) is an intermediate layer, wherein the hydrophobic thermoplastic layer (b) protects the layer (a) from mechanical impact such as rubbing and piercing (see page 2, paragraph 6 and page 5, paragraph 2). That is, the hydrophobic thermoplastic layer (b) (second layer) is an outer layer on the other side of the layer (a) (first layer). Given that hydrophobic thermoplastic layer (b) forms the outer surface layer, the layer (a) is the inner layer that is configured to face inside of a container house system. Further, given that Kobayashi et al. disclose first layer identical to that presently claimed, it is clear that the first layer is inherently configured to face inside of a container house system.
In light of the overlap between the claimed multilayer article and that disclosed by Kobayashi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a multilayer article that is both disclosed by Kobayashi et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 24, Kobayashi et al. disclose the multilayer article as set forth above. Kobayashi et al. disclose an adhesive layer between the layer (a) (i.e. first layer) and the layer (b) (i.e. the second layer) (see page 5, paragraph 4). The adhesive layer can comprise an acid-functionalized polymer resin composition (see page 5, paragraph 5). A specific example includes maleic anhydride graft modified polyethylene (see page 5, paragraph 4). The thickness of the adhesive layer can be 0.5 to 50 microns (see page 6, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi et al. disclose that the layer (a) (i.e. first layer) can comprise heat stabilizer such as phosphoric acid (see page 3, paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi et al. disclose the hydrophobic thermoplastic resin layer (i.e. second layer) can contain an adhesive component such as polyisobutene resin , i.e. polyolefin other than polyethylene or polyethylene copolymer resin (see page 4, paragraph 9).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 2014172928 A) in view of Tsukushi et al. (JP 2006289671 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Kobayashi et al. and Tsukushi et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in the action mailed 10/12/2023.
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi et al. disclose a multilayer structure (multilayer article) comprising a layer (a) (i.e. first layer) and a layer (b) (i.e. second layer) as set forth above. Further, Kobayashi et al. disclose the multilayer structure has the layer (b) (i.e. second layer) as an outer surface layer and layer (a) as the inner layer, wherein the layer (b) (i.e. second layer) protects the layer (a) (i.e. first layer) from mechanical impact (see page 5, paragraph 2 and page 5, paragraph 7). The multilayer structure has high weatherability (see page 8, paragraphs 4 and 5).
Kobayashi et al. do not disclose a container house system used under an environment exposed to UV light, fungicide and/or pesticides, wherein the multilayer structure covers the container house system.
Tsukushi et al. disclose an agricultural film comprising two layers of polyethylenic resin and at least one of the layers comprising the polyethylene resin comprises ≥5 wt% ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (see Abstract). The agricultural film can contain a hindered amine light stabilizer in any layer or all of the layers (see page 3, paragraph 4). Accordingly, Tsukushi et al. disclose the agricultural film comprises one layer comprising polyethylenic resin and hindered amine light stabilizer (i.e. second layer) and another layer comprising ≥ 5 wt% ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer and hindered amine light stabilizer (i.e. first layer). The agricultural film can be used as a covering film for a horticultural house, i.e. container house system (see page 4, paragraph 5).
Therefore, as taught by Tsukushi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a horticulture house, wherein the multilayer structure of Kobayashi et al. covers the horticulture house in order to provide high weatherability to the horticulture house, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The horticulture house will be necessarily under an environment exposed to UV light, fungicide and/or pesticides.
Further, given that Kobayashi et al. disclose that the multilayer structure has the layer (b) (i.e. second layer) as an outer surface layer and layer (a) as the inner layer, wherein the layer (b) (i.e. second layer) protects the layer (a) (i.e. first layer) from mechanical impact (see page 5, paragraph 2 and page 5, paragraph 7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the horticulture house wherein the multilayer structure is arranged so that the layer (a) (i.e. first layer) faces inside of the horticulture house and the layer (b) (i.e. the second layer) is located outside of the layer (a) (i.e. first layer) in Kobayashi et al. in view of Tsukushi et al. in order to protect the layer (a) (i.e. first layer) from mechanical impact, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's declaration and arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered. The previous rejection is maintained in this office action.
Applicants submit declaration and argue that the present claim provide superior results across the entire claimed ranges including type and amounts for each feature in the independent claims as compared to the configuration in which the layer comprising EVOH was an intermediate layer.
However, the data and declaration are not persuasive given that data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims given that the examples use a first layer made of EVOH as innermost layer having a side that faces inside of a container house and a second layer made of LLDPE as outermost layer on the other side of the first layer, while the present claim has broad recitation of a first layer as an outer layer and a second layer as an outer layer, which would include embodiments such as LLDPE (T1)/adhesive (AD1)/EVOH (E1)/(AD1)/LLDPE (T1), LLDPE/EVOH/LLDPE, or layer(s)/LLDPE/EVOH/LLDPE/layer(s).
It is suggested that claim 1, lines 3-4 is amended to change ““the first layer is an outer layer having a side that faces inside of a container house system” to recite “the first layer is an innermost layer having a side that faces inside of a container house system” while line 6 is amended to change “the second layer is an outer layer on the other side of the first layer” to recite “the second layer is an outermost layer on the other side of the first layer”. Similarly, it is suggested that claim 19, line 5 is amended to change “the first layer is an outer layer” to “the first layer is an innermost layer” while line 7 is amended to change “compound,” to “compound, wherein the second layer is an outermost layer”. Such amendments would overcome the rejection of record.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tashiro et al. (JP2002137342A) disclose a laminate comprising a heat seal resin layer A made of LLDPE, a steam barrier resin layer B made of biaxially stretched polypropylene (OPP), an oxygen barrier resin layer C made of EVOH and a heat resistant resin layer D made of biaxially oriented polypropylene (OPP), in that order (see Abstract and paragraphs 0009, 0012, 0014, 0016).
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
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787