DETAILED ACTION
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
1. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, of record in the previous Action, are withdrawn.
NEW REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 – 8 are 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. The phrase ‘blend – based’ is indefinite as it is unclear what the exact structure is of a copolymer that is a blend instead of a single polymer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1 and 3 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0143627 A1) in view of Rhee et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0081756 A1) and Hassell et al (U.S. Patent No. 3,480,696).
With regard to Claim 1, Inoue et al disclose a film (paragraph 0012) comprising a first layer comprising a propylene – ethylene random copolymer and a polypropylene homopolymer (paragraph 0012) and a second layer comprising a propylene – ethylene random copolymer and an olefin elastomer (paragraph 0012) and a fifth layer comprising a propylene – ethylene random copolymer and a polypropylene homopolymer in the weight ratio of 90:10 to 10:90 (paragraph 0012), therefore mass ratio, since weight is proportional to mass. The first layer is therefore a first outer layer and the second layer is an inner layer and the fifth layer is a second outer layer. The propylene – ethylene random copolymer in the inner layer is a block copolymer (paragraph 0044). The olefin elastomer is an ethylene – olefin elastomer (paragraph 0054) and the olefin is propylene (paragraph 0053). The propylene – ethylene random copolymer of the first layer comprises 1 to 5 mole% ethylene by weight (paragraph 0044). Although the disclosed range of amount of ethylene is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05. Although the disclosed range of amount of polypropylene homopolymer is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05. Inoue et al fail to disclose a first outer layer comprising 30 – 70% propylene – ethylene random copolymer by weight and 30 – 70% polypropylene homopolymer by weight and an inner layer comprising a blend that is an ethylene – propylene copolymer and a propylene – based polymer.
Rhee et al teach a film (paragraph 0015) comprising propylene – ethylene random copolymer and polypropylene homopolymer in the amount of 70 – 85% by weight (paragraph 0011) for the purpose of obtaining a film utilizable for numerous packaging applications (paragraph 0002). Rhee et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is films as evidenced by paragraph 0015.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the first outer layer to comprise propylene – ethylene random copolymer and polypropylene homopolymer in the amount of 70 – 85% by weight in order to obtain a film utilizable for numerous packaging applications as taught by Rhee et al.
Hsssell et al teach a film (column 6, lines 16 – 36) comprising an ethylene – propylene copolymer (column 2, lines 27 – 29) that is a random block copolymer (column 4, lines 50 – 69) that is a blend because it also comprises a filler, that is a propylene – based polymer comprising polypropylene, for the purpose of obtaining properties heretofore unrealized to their full extent (column 6, lines 16 – 36). Hassell et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is films as evidenced by column 6, lines 16 – 36.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the inner layer taught by Inoue et al to comprise a blend that is an ethylene – propylene copolymer and a propylene – based polymer in order to obtain properties heretofore unrealized to their full extent as taught by Hassell et al.
With regard to Claim 3, the amount of olefin elastomer disclosed by Inoue et al is 30 – 60% by weight (paragraph 0070). Although the disclosed range of amount is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to Claim 4, the first outer layer disclosed by Inoue et al is 5 – 12% of the thickness of the film (paragraph 0056) and the second outer layer is 10 to 20% of the thickness of the film (paragraph 0119). Although the disclosed range of thickness is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to Claims 5 – 6, the thickness of the film disclosed by Inoue et al is 100 to 200 mm (paragraph 0120). Although the disclosed range of thickness is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to Claims 7 – 8, a package, therefore a packaging material, is disclosed by Inoue et al (container; paragraph 0126) and a base material is also disclosed that is a tube member (paragraph 0127).
6. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0143627 A1) in view of Rhee et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0081756 A1) and Hassell et al (U.S. Patent No. 3,480,696) and further in view of Nakano et al (JP 2010 – 106142 A) and Schmitt et al (WO 2020/076505 A1).
Inoue et al, Rhee et al and Hassell et al disclose a film as discussed above. Inoue et al, Rhee et al and Hassell et al fail to disclose the claimed ratio.
Nakano et al teach a block copolymer (third page, lines 8 – 11) having a propylene – ethylene random copolymer (sixth page, line 16) of Mw of 10,000 or more and 3 million or less (sixth page, lines 43 – 46) for the purpose of obtaining ease in film molding (sixth page, line 15).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the block copolymer taught disclosed by Inoue et al to have a Mw of 10,000 or more and 3 million or less in order to obtain ease in film molding as taught by Nakano et al
Schmitt et al teach a polypropylene having Mw of 200,000 to 2.2 million (paragraph 0033) for the purpose of obtaining polypropylene for the making of durable articles (paragraph 0056).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the polypropylene homopolymer disclosed by Inoue et al to have a Mw of 200,000 to 2.2 million in order to obtain durable articles as taught by Schmitt et al. Although the disclosed range of ratio is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
7. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the previous Action have been considered and have been found to be persuasive. The rejections are therefore withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are moot because of the new rejections above.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC A PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1497. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM M-F.
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).
/MARC A PATTERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights