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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1, 3, 8 – 9, 13, 15, & 18, the addition of new claim 21, and the cancellation of claims 4 – 7, 10, 12, & 16 – 17. Claims 1 -3, 8 – 9, 13 – 15, 18 – 21 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 & 7 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcoxen et al. (US 2020/0368995 A1), in view of Unger et al. (EP 0158454 A1).
With regard to claims 1 & 13, Wilcoxen et al. teach a thermoplastic film for various commercial and consumer products, such as packaging materials, diapers, and hygiene products (paragraph [0003]). The thermoplastic film comprises a first layer (10) (i.e., “first thermoplastic component”) that has a first color, transparency, or translucency. The first layer (10) is bonded to a second layer (10’) (“second thermoplastic component”) (paragraph [0097]). The color of a layer is formed using pigment (paragraph [0048]).
A laminate includes adhering by means of heat sealing (i.e., “welding”) (paragraphs [0050] – [0051], [0060], & [0083]), and thus interconnection area where the first layer (10) and the second layer (10’) are sealed to each other. One or more layers contain different colors or are transparent such that visually-distinct regions where the two films are in intimate contact with each other (paragraphs [0090] – [0091]).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, each of the first layer (10) (Applicant’s “first thermoplastic component”) and the second layer (10’) (Applicant’s “second thermoplastic component”) may be configured as a tri-layered thermoplastic film ply (“first thermoplastic component”) having an ABC configuration (paragraph [0084] & Fig. 1C). As such, the C layer can comprise a first colorant (“first visualization agent” of layer 10 and “third visualization agent” of layer 10’), the B layer can comprise a second colorant (“second visualization agent” of layer 10 and “fourth visualization agent” of layer 10’), and the A layer can comprise a colorant (“third visualization agent”) or be clear (paragraph [0088]).
PNG
media_image2.png
214
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wilcoxen et al. teaches one or more layers contain different colors (i.e., visualization agents) or are transparent such that visually-distinct regions (i.e., visual contrast) where the two films are in intimate contact with each other (i.e., interconnecting area) (paragraphs [0090] – [0091]). The extent of the mixture of the first and second layers (10) and (10’) would be inherent by the mixing of two different colors from the two different layers where the films heat sealed (i.e., “welded”) to form intimate contact with each other.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Wilcoxen et al. teach the visually-distinct regions can provide a cue about the strength and quality of the film (paragraphs [0008] & [0046]). Wilcoxen et al. do not explicitly teach the mixture of the components provides a visualization of a quality of the weld joint for optimization of a manufacturing process of the thermoplastic component assembly. However, the color changes that inherently occur at the heat-sealed areas where different pigments mix inherently provide visual cues of the quality of the welded joints during manufacturing process.
Wilcoxen et al. fail to teach the interconnection area between the first layer (10) and the second layer (10’) is a stochastic blurred boundary.
Unger et al. teach spin welding device for the manufacture of plastic overpacks (i.e., packaging) (pg. 1), wherein a welded joint is formed between two heat fusible plastic pieces (i.e., “first and second [thermoplastic] components are welded to each other to define a welded joint”). The joint is properly formed by a spin welding process that forms a seamless fusion weld (i.e., “blurred interconnection area”), such that the melted heat fusible plastic material is mixed (“stochastic”). Seamless (blurred) welds are much stronger than welds having a (distinct) seam (pg. 3, lines 6 – 23 & pg. 8, lines 5 – 23).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Unger et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a seamless fusion weld composed of a mixture of the first and second components (i.e. “stochastic blurred interconnection area”) taught by Wilcoxen et al. because seamless fusion welds are much stronger than distinct seam welds.
With regard to claims 8 – 9, Wilcoxen et al. teach the layers of the film plies 10 & 10’ (“first thermoplastic component” and “second thermoplastic component”) can have thicknesses that are different or substantially equal (i.e., “uniform”) (paragraph [0116]).
With regard to claim 10, although Wilcoxen et al. do not teach an explicit example of a multi-layer ply comprising four or more layers, Wilcoxen et al. teach the multi-layer film can comprise any number of co-extruded layers of clear/transparent layers or different colors (paragraph [0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a fourth layer that is clear (free of colorant) or colored.
With regard to claim 11, as discussed above for claim 1, Wilcoxen et al. teach different colors for each layer within the multi-layer plies 10 & 10’, and as such the first visualization agent, second visualization agent, and fourth visualization agent may all be different.
With regard to claim 12, as discussed in claim 6 above, the layer (10) may be formed of as a multi-layer ply (“first thermoplastic component comprises a plurality of first thermoplastic layers of the first thermoplastic polymer material”). The layers 11c, 11d, 11e can have different additives (paragraph [0084]) and formed as different colors (different pigment), the same, or a combination of both (e.g. two black layers and a two white layers) (“first thermoplastic layers…with the first visualization agent” and “first thermoplastic layers…with the second visualization agent” (paragraph [0088] – [0090]). Wilcoxen et al. teach the multi-layer film can comprise any number of co-extruded layers of clear/transparent layers or different colors (paragraph [0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of first thermoplastic layers of the first thermoplastic polymer material with the first visualization agent, and a plurality of second thermoplastic layers of the first thermoplastic material with the second visualization agent.
Claim(s) 2 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcoxen et al. and Unger et al., as applied to claims 1 & 13 above, and further in view of Richeson et al. (WO 2011/041575 A1).
With regard to claims 2 & 14, Wilcoxen et al. fail to teach the first thermoplastic component or the second thermoplastic component is a thermoplastic-based composite component, the thermoplastic-based component comprising reinforcing fibers.
Richeson et al. teach a multi-layered construction use to make diapers, feminine hygiene products, adult incontinence products, bags, food packaging, and other single use disposable items (paragraph [00139]). The layers of the multi-layered components are joined by fusion, wherein fusing may be achieved by any means such as by heating the layers to form an adherence between at least two layers (i.e., “welding”) (paragraph [00115]). The multi-layered construction may be a laminate comprising a facing layer formed of a staple fibers or discontinuous fibers, wherein the length and diameter of the staple fibers can vary depending the desired toughness and stiffness of the fiber reinforced composition (paragraph [0108]). The facing layer composition is olefin based, such as composed of polypropylene resin (i.e., “thermoplastic”) (paragraph [0035]). Furthermore, middle or intermediate layers can also include a mixture of fibers (paragraphs [0086] & [0095]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Richeson et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate fibers for reinforcing the toughness and stiffness of a thermoplastic composition formed into a layer of a multi-layered component, such as taught by Wilcoxen et al., for use in numerous disposable articles, such as the diapers, feminine hygiene products, adult incontinence products, bags, and food packaging.
Claim(s) 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcoxen et al. (US 2020/0368995 A1), in view of Savitski (US 2004/0244509 A1) and Unger et al. (EP 0158454 A1).
With regard to claim 18, Wilcoxen et al. teach a thermoplastic film for various commercial and consumer products, such as packaging materials, diapers, and hygiene products (paragraph [0003]). The thermoplastic film comprises a first layer (10) (“first thermoplastic component”) that has a first color, transparency, or translucency. The first layer (10) is bonded to a second layer (10’) (“second thermoplastic component”) (paragraph [0097]). The color of a layer is formed using pigment (paragraph [0048]).
A laminate includes adhering by means of heat sealing (i.e., “welding”) (paragraphs [0050] – [0051], [0060], & [0083]), and thus interconnection area where the first layer (10) and the second layer (10’) are sealed to each other. One or more layers contain different colors or are transparent such that visually-distinct regions where the two films are in intimate contact with each other (paragraphs [0090] – [0091]).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, each of the first layer (10) (Applicant’s “first thermoplastic component”) and the second layer (10’) (Applicant’s “second thermoplastic component”) may be configured as a tri-layered thermoplastic film ply (“first thermoplastic component”) having an ABC configuration (paragraph [0084] & Fig. 1C). As such, the C layer can comprise a first colorant (“first visualization agent” of layer 10 and “third visualization agent” of layer 10’), the B layer can comprise a second colorant (“second visualization agent” of layer 10 and “fourth visualization agent” of layer 10’), and the A layer can comprise a colorant (“third visualization agent”) or be clear (paragraph [0088]).
PNG
media_image2.png
214
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wilcoxen et al. teaches one or more layers contain different colors (i.e., visualization agents) or are transparent such that visually-distinct regions (i.e., visual contrast) where the two films are in intimate contact with each other (i.e., interconnecting area) (paragraphs [0090] – [0091]). The extent of the mixture of the first and second layers (10) and (10’) would be inherent by the mixing of two different colors from the two different layers where the films heat sealed (i.e., “welded”) to form intimate contact with each other.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Wilcoxen et al. teach the visually-distinct regions can provide a cue about the strength and quality of the film (paragraphs [0008] & [0046]). Wilcoxen et al. do not explicitly teach the mixture of the components provides a visualization of a quality of the weld joint for optimization of a manufacturing process of the thermoplastic component assembly. However, the color changes that inherently occur at the heat-sealed areas where different pigments mix inherently provide visual cues of the quality of the welded joints during manufacturing process.
Wilcoxen et al. fail to teach removal of excess portion of the first and second thermoplastic components along a first removal surface.
Savitski teaches it is known in the art to make cross-sectional cuts through a welded material (remove excess) and make visual inspection using heating techniques to bring out joint defections, such destructive testing is useful only for training purposes.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Savitski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cut and remove portions of a welded material for visual inspection of joint defections.
The teaching by Savitski is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which is removing excess material for “monitoring of structural behavior during operation of assembly 10 and/or under testing with applied load of assembly 10, and can provide key input on potential risks and ways for their mitigation” (see spec paragraph [0072]). See MPEP 214.01(a).I.
Wilcoxen et al. fail to teach the interconnection area is a stochastic blurred boundary.
Unger et al. teach spin welding device for the manufacture of plastic overpacks (i.e., packaging) (pg. 1), wherein a welded joint is formed between two heat fusible plastic pieces (i.e., “first and second [thermoplastic] components are welded to each other to define a welded joint”). The joint is properly formed by a spin welding process that forms a seamless fusion weld (i.e., “blurred interconnection area”), such that the melted heat fusible plastic material is mixed (“stochastic”). Seamless (blurred) welds are much stronger than welds having a (distinct) seam (pg. 3, lines 6 – 23 & pg. 8, lines 5 – 23).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Unger et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a seamless fusion weld composed of a mixture of the first and second components (i.e. “stochastic blurred interconnection area”) taught by Wilcoxen et al. because seamless fusion welds are much stronger than distinct seam welds.
With regard to claim 19, as discussed above for claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make cross-sectional cuts through welded material for making visual inspection of possible join defections. The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcoxen et al., Savitski, and Unger et al., as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Richeson et al. (WO 2011/041575 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Wilcoxen et al. fail to teach the first thermoplastic component or the second thermoplastic component is a thermoplastic-based composite component, the thermoplastic-based component comprising reinforcing fibers.
Richeson et al. teach a multi-layered construction use to make diapers, feminine hygiene products, adult incontinence products, bags, food packaging, and other single use disposable items (paragraph [00139]). The layers of the multi-layered components are joined by fusion, wherein fusing may be achieved by any means such as by heating the layers to form an adherence between at least two layers (i.e., “welding”) (paragraph [00115]). The multi-layered construction may be a laminate comprising a facing layer formed of a staple fibers or discontinuous fibers, wherein the length and diameter of the staple fibers can vary depending the desired toughness and stiffness of the fiber reinforced composition (paragraph [0108]). The facing layer composition is olefin based, such as composed of polypropylene resin (i.e., “thermoplastic”) (paragraph [0035]). Furthermore, middle or intermediate layers can also include a mixture of fibers (paragraphs [0086] & [0095]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Richeson et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate fibers for reinforcing the toughness and stiffness of a thermoplastic composition formed into a layer of a multi-layered component, such as taught by Wilcoxen et al., for use in numerous disposable articles, such as the diapers, feminine hygiene products, adult incontinence products, bags, and food packaging.
Claim(s) 3 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcoxen et al. and Unger et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merdan et al. (US 2003/0015284 A).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcoxen et al., Savitski, and Unger et al., as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Merdan et al. (US 2003/0015284 A).
With regard to claims 3, 15, & 21, Wilcoxen et al. teach each of the first layer (10) and second layer (10’) are tri-layered thermoplastic film ply (“first thermoplastic component” comprising a “third thermoplastic layer”) having an ABC configuration (paragraph [0084] & Fig. 1C). The C layer can comprise a first colorant (“first visualization agent”), the B layer can comprise a second colorant (“second visualization agent”), and the A layer can comprise a colorant (“third visualization agent”) or be clear (paragraph [0088]), wherein each colorant may be a pigment (paragraph [0048]). Furthermore, as discussed above for claims 1, 13, & 18, Wilcoxen et al. teach different colors for each layer within the multi-layer plies 10 & 10’, and as such, each visualization agent of each layer may be different.
PNG
media_image2.png
214
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Wilcoxen et al. fail to teach the visualization agents are fluorescent agents.
Merdan teach light emitting markers for use with thermoplastic substrates (paragraph [0034]) joined by fusion or welding (paragraph [0017]). The substrates may comprise a light emitting material, such as fluorescent materials, dyes or pigments. The light emitting will be selected so that its emission spectrum will change at the temperature at which an optimal welded or fused bond occurs. If a fluorescent dye has been selected, it may stop fluorescing altogether, or its fluorescent emission spectrum may be shifted. The change in emission reflects a change in the light emitting material which further reflects a change in the polymeric substrate. This method allows for non-destructive observation of the bond site (paragraphs [0022], [0036] – [0046], [0061], [0067] – [0071], [0100], & [0103]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Merdan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use different fluorescent dye materials as the different colorant dyes for each layer taught by Wilcoxen because fluorescent agents may be chosen based on temperature change that occurs during the welding process, enabling easier observation of the bond site (i.e., the welded joints).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “The claims are amended to address the rejections under section 112 a/b by amending the claims utilizing language in the independent claims from the specification as identified in the office action, and cancelling claims 7 and 12. Removal the rejections under section 112 a/b is requested” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Wilcoxen teaches thin plastic bags with non-metallic pigments that provide a metallic appearance without having to utilize metallic pigments. Wilcoxen teaches at para. 0090, which is cited in the Office Action, that combining the layers results in the desired metallic visual effect. The reference does not teach, and rather teaches away, from a weld process that provides a random visual result, as recited with regard to the claimed welded joints” (Remarks, Pgs. 8 – 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Wilcoxen et al. do not require or claim a metallic visual effect.
Second, paragraph [0090] of Wilcoxen et al. states:
[0090] In any event, one or more implementations involve forming a multi-layer film with a metallic or color that is distinct from the color and appearance of the individual layers of the multi-layer film. For example, a pigmented first layer can have a black appearance while the second layer has a clear or transparent appearance. When combined to form a multi-layer film in accordance the principles described herein, the resultant multi-layer film can have a metallic, silvery metallic or light grey color rather than a black appearance or color as would be expected. Once such a multi-layer film with a unique appearance is formed, one or more implementations of the present invention involve bringing regions or areas of the two layers into intimate contact with each other to create visually-distinct regions that have the color or appearance of the pigmented layer. For example, a multi-layer film with a black first layer and a transparent second layer can have a silver metallic appearance and black visually-distinct regions where the two films are in intimate contact with each other.
As demonstrated in paragraph [0090], Wilcoxen et al. teach metallic visual effect as an example, but not a requirement of the product. MPEP 2123 [R-6]. II. states:
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Third, Applicant provides no evidence to support their assertion that Wilcoxen et al. teaches away from a visually distinctive stochastic (random) welding portion.
Applicant argues, “Salah teaches a step joint. A step joint as shown in Salah is neither random (stochastic) nor unclear (blurred)” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As previously discussed, Salah taught a distinct stochastic interconnection area, based on the definition of “distinct stochastic boundary” provided by Applicant in the specification (spec, paragraph [0049], Fig. 4).
However, in light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, the rejection based on Salah et al. is withdrawn and a new rejection has been written based on the teachings of Unger et al.
Applicant argues, “It is submitted that there is no teaching in the art, and no reasonable expectation of success, of obtaining the metallic visual effect that is desired in Wilcoxen if the thin film welds were formed with fluorescent agents to provide stochastic blurred interconnection areas” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, Applicant has mischaracterized the disclosure of Wilcoxen et al. The primary reference of Wilcoxen describes metallic visual effect as an example, but not a requirement. See Wilcoxen’s claims and paragraph [0090] discussed above.
Applicant argues, “Regarding Savitski, the reference is cited for teaching the use of cross-sectional cuts through a welded pipes for training purposes. However, Wilcoxen is directed to utilizing pigments that, when combined in layers of a thin filmed material such as a plastic bag, provides a metallic appearance without using metallic pigments. One of ordinary skill would have no reason to cut through the layers of a thin filmed plastic bag as taught in Wilcoxen to examine a cross section and determine a quality of the welds as performed in Savitski” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Wilcoxen et al. do not teach removal of excess material to training purposes. Wilcoxen et al. do not require the plastic bags to be transparent. Wilcoxen et al. teach the thermoplastic material may be opaque, transparent, translucent, or tinted (paragraph [0071]). Therefore, in cases of thermoplastic pieces that are not transparent, a cutting step may be desirable for inspection of a sample.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights