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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The previously applied 112 rejections have been withdrawn based on Applicant’s persuasive and clarifying remarks of 8/18/25 (see p. 5).
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (JP 2017226161, “Sawada” a machine translation of which has been appended and is used as the citation copy) in view of Osada et al. (US 2004/0247879, “Osada”) in view of Potter et al. (US 2016/0304681, “Potter”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Sawada teaches a biaxially oriented polypropylene film (pp. 1-2) having a half width of a peak from an oriented crystal in a width direction of the film in an azimuth dependence of a 110 plane of polypropylene (and measured by X-ray diffraction) of 25o or less (see p. 6 final paragraph – p. 7). Sawada additionally teaches that the heat shrinkage ratio in both machine and transverse directions of 2.0% or less (p. 6 lines 5-20, additionally the longitudinal shrinkage may be smaller than the transverse shrinkage). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05. Sawada fails to specifically teach the tensile elongation at break of the film. However, in the same field of endeavor of polypropylene films ([0009], [0018]), Osada teaches that it is known to provide a polypropylene film with elongation properties such that its tensile elongation at break is on the range of from 100% to 300% in order to provide good protective properties when used on glass ([0065]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the tensile elongation at break of the film of Sawada to within the range of from 100% to 300% in order to provide a film that is effective as a protective film for glass to prevent glass from scattering on breakage (Osada [0065]). Sawada fails to specifically teach the tensile strength at break of the film. However, in the same field of endeavor of biaxially oriented polypropylene films ([0002]), Potter teaches that it is known to provide a polypropylene film with greater toughness or stiffness and a tensile strength in the transverse direction of from 300 to 450 N/mm^2 (or 300 to 450 MPa, [0056], [0057]). Potter teaches that such properties provide favorable mechanical properties like high stiffness and high toughness compared with other biaxially oriented polypropylene films ([0002] – [0004], [0056], [0057]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the tensile strength in the transverse direction of from 300 to 450 N/mm^2 (or 300 to 450 MPa, [0056], [0057]) in order to provide the film with favorable mechanical properties like high stiffness and high toughness compared with other biaxially oriented polypropylene films ([0002] – [0004], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sawada additionally teaches that the haze should be kept below 5.0% in order to ensure that objects are visible through the film and therefore such a haze would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (Osada, [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Sawada additionally teaches that the mesopentad fraction of the polypropylene may be greater than 97.0% (Sawada, p. 6 lines 25-60).
Regarding claim 7, Sawada additionally teaches that the melt flow rate may be greater than 4.0g/10mins (Sawada, p. 6, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Sawada additionally teaches that the propylene resin component having a molecular weight of 100,000 or less may be 35 mass% or more (see, e.g., p. 7, lines 5-50).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Osada in view of Potter as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kinoshita et al. (WO 2017221781, “Kinoshita”).
Regarding claim 3, Sawada fails to specifically teach the refractive index of the polypropylene film. In the same field of endeavor of biaxially oriented polypropylene films (pp. 1-2), Kinoshita teaches a polypropylene film having a refractive index Ny in a lateral direction of greater than 1.523 (p. 6, Refractive Index section, lines 35-50) and Nx, Ny, and Nz substantially similar to those of the present specification such that ΔNy would necessarily be substantially similar and read on the presently claimed range (Kinoshita, p. 6, Refractive Index section, lines 35-50; and see present specification at [0053] – [0056]). For example Kinoshita teaches values such as an Nx of 1.4950, an Nz of 1.4960, and an Ny of 1.5230, which results in an ΔNy of 1.339 (i.e., ΔNy = Ny-((Nx+Nz)/2) = 1.5230-((1.4950+1.4960)/2) = 0.0275) and thus reads on the claimed range of values for ΔNy. It therefore would have been obvious to have adopted the refractive index properties for a polypropylene film as described by Kinoshita as these refractive index properties are suitable for use in a film for various application such as packaging, insulating films, and the like (see Kinoshita, p. 21).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Osada in view of Potter as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Denifl et al. (US 2014/0220236, “Denifl”).
Regarding claim 6, Sawada teaches that the melt temperature may be higher than 160C (see, e.g., p. 9, paragraph 4) but Sawada fails to specifically teach the crystallization temperature is 105C or higher. In the same field of endeavor of biaxially oriented polypropylene films (e.g., [0056]), Denifl teaches that it is known to provide such a film with a crystallization temperature of 105C or more in order that the film may be used as a capacitor film and thus the adjustment of the crystallization temperature to that range would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing ([0121], [0122] and see properties associated with such films such as good mechanical properties, self-healing character etc., [0002]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Osada in view of Potter as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (JP 2017-186561, “Ikeda,” a machine translation of which has been appended and is used as the citation copy).
Regarding claim 9, Sawada fails to specifically teach that the orientation degree of the film is 0.85 or more. However, in the same field of endeavor of polypropylene films (p. 2), Ikeda teaches that such films may have an orientation degree of greater than 85% or more in order to improve the mechanical properties of the film and thus in order to improve the mechanical properties of the film of Sawada it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adjusted the orientation degree of the film to greater than 85% (Ikeda, p. 2 lines 12-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/18/25 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Sawada fails to teach the heat shrinkage ratio at 150C. But Sawada teaches to provide the film with a low heat shrinkage ratio at high temperatures (including at temperatures of 150C, see, e.g., p. 2, para. 4, p. 7) and thus the heat shrinkage ratios described by Sawada would be substantially similar at 150C and adjusting the heat shrinkage ratios such that they were on the range of less than 2.0% in MD and TD directions at 150C would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan in order to address the described heat shrinkage ratio issues facing such films at 150C (see pp. 1-2).
Applicant argues that Osada is directed to a different field of endeavor than Sawada. However both inventions are directed to polymer films, including polypropylene films, that may be used for their protective properties (Sawada, pp. 1, 12; Osada [0018], [0037]). Further, both films are directed to the same field of endeavor (biaxially stretched polypropylene films) as the present invention (see Osada [0073], [0018], [0037], Sawada pp. 1, 12).
Therefore, claims 1-9 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights