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 .
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 4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamei et al. (JP 2005059269) in view of Yano et al. (JP H11348204). It is noted that the disclosures of Kamei et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with the IDS filed 10/24/2022 and the disclosures of Yano et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 03/03/2026.
Regarding claims 4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, and 15, Kamei et al. disclose polyolefin resin composition comprising polyolefin resin such as polyethylene or ethylene-propylene copolymer (see paragraph 0012), i.e. non-modified polyolefin, component A which is a partial ester of a 3- to 6-valent polyol (i.e. polyhydric alcohol) and an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having 6-22 carbon atoms (see paragraphs 0013-0014), i.e. second antifogging agent, component B which is alkali metal salt of alkylsulfonate having 6-22 carbon atoms in the alkyl group or alkali metal salt of alkylarylsulfonate having 2-22 carbon atoms in the alkyl group (see paragraph 0018), i.e. first antifogging agent, and component C which is a ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (see paragraphs 0023-0024), i.e. modifier. The composition comprises 0.02-2 parts component A, 0.02-2 parts component B, 0.02-4 parts component C, and 100 parts polyolefin resin (see paragraph 0028). Although there is no explicit disclosure that component A or component B is an antifogging agent, given that the partial ester of a 3- to 6-valent polyol (i.e. polyhydric alcohol) and an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having 6-22 carbon atoms includes partial ester of glycerin and oleic acid (see paragraph 0014) which is identical to that used in the present invention (see paragraph 0030 of the present specification), and given that the alkali metal salt of alkylsulfonate or alkali metal salt of alkylarylsulfonate include sodium decyl sulfonate (10 carbon atoms, see paragraph 0019) and sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (18 carbon atoms, see paragraph 0020) which are identical to that used in the present invention (see paragraphs 0023 and 0025 of the present specification), it is clear that each of component A and component B of Kamei et al. necessarily function as an antifogging agent. Kamei et al. further discloses that the composition is used to make a film (see paragraph 0007).
Kamei et al. do not disclose the amount of vinyl acetate in the ethylene-vinyl acetate.
Yano et al. disclose packaging film including outer layer made from ethylene-vinyl acetate where the vinyl acetate is present in an amount of 5-25 mol% where if the content is less than 5 mol%, self-adhesion and heat sealing properties at low temperatures may be poor while if the vinyl acetate content exceeds 25 mol%, mechanical strength will be poor resulting in a decrease of strength of the package and there will be poor packaging suitability (see paragraphs 0005 and 0013).
In light of the motivation for using ethylene-vinyl acetate with 5-25 mol% vinyl acetate disclosed by Yano et al. as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethylene-vinyl acetate with vinyl acetate content, including that presently claimed, in Kamei et al. in order to produce a film with self-adhesion and heat sealing properties as well as good mechanical strength and packaging suitability.
Regarding claim 10, Kamei et al. disclose the film has a thickness of 40 microns (see paragraph 0039).
Regarding claims 16-17, given that the claim encompasses the resin composition comprising 100% masterbatch, i.e. resin composition is the same as the masterbatch, these claims are considered met by Kamei et al. in view of Yano et al.
Specifically, Kamei et al. disclose polyolefin resin composition comprising polyolefin resin such as polyethylene or ethylene-propylene copolymer (see paragraph 0012), i.e. non-modified polyolefin, component A which is a partial ester of a 3- to 6-valent polyol (i.e. polyhydric alcohol) and an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having 6-22 carbon atoms (see paragraphs 0013-0014), i.e. second antifogging agent, component B which is alkali metal salt of alkylsulfonate having 6-22 carbon atoms in the alkyl group or alkali metal salt of alkylarylsulfonate having 2-22 carbon atoms in the alkyl group (see paragraph 0018), i.e. first antifogging agent, and component C which is a ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (see paragraphs 0023-0024), i.e. modifier. The composition comprises 0.02-2 parts component A, 0.02-2 parts component B, 0.02-4 parts component C, and 100 parts polyolefin resin (see paragraph 0028). Although there is no explicit disclosure that component A or component B is an antifogging agent, given that the partial ester of a 3- to 6-valent polyol (i.e. polyhydric alcohol) and an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having 6-22 carbon atoms includes partial ester of glycerin and oleic acid (see paragraph 0014) which is identical to that used in the present invention (see paragraph 0030 of the present specification), and given that the alkali metal salt of alkylsulfonate or alkali metal salt of alkylarylsulfonate include sodium decyl sulfonate (10 carbon atoms, see paragraph 0019) and sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (18 carbon atoms, see paragraph 0020) which are identical to that used in the present invention (see paragraphs 0023 and 0025 of the present specification), it is clear that each of component A and component B of Kamei et al. necessarily function as an antifogging agent. Kamei et al. further discloses that the composition is used to make a film (see paragraph 0007).
Kamei et al. do not disclose the amount of vinyl acetate in the ethylene-vinyl acetate.
Yano et al. disclose packaging film including outer layer made from ethylene-vinyl acetate where the vinyl acetate is present in an amount of 5-25 mol% where if the content is less than 5 mol%, self-adhesion and heat sealing properties at low temperatures may be poor while if the vinyl acetate content exceeds 25 mol%, mechanical strength will be poor resulting in a decrease of strength of the package and there will be poor packaging suitability (see paragraphs 0005 and 0013).
In light of the motivation for using ethylene-vinyl acetate with 5-25 mol% vinyl acetate disclosed by Yano et al. as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethylene-vinyl acetate with vinyl acetate content, including that presently claimed, in Kamei et al. in order to produce a film with self-adhesion and heat sealing properties as well as good mechanical strength and packaging suitability.
Regarding claims 18-19, Kamei et al. disclose the polyolefin resin composition comprises two or more polyolefins, i.e. second non-modified polyolefin (see paragraph 0012), which would include polyolefins that include those of the same type, i.e. two polyethylenes
Regarding claim 20-21, Kamei et al. disclose a method of producing the polyolefin-based resin film comprising subjecting the composition to film molding (see paragraph 0039).
Regarding claims 22-23, Kamei et al. disclose a laminated film comprising laminating a resin layer formed only of the polyolefin composition and other layers (see paragraphs 0011 and 0030-0032) where the other layers are made from corona-treated or chemically oxidized olefin resins (see paragraph 0030).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered. With the exception of arguments relating to Hong et al. (KR 100840150), the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the present amendment of Claims 4 and 11 to recite "the first antifogging agent is at least one selected from the group consisting of alkylsulfonic acid alkali metal salt salts having 10 to 18 carbon atoms, alkylarylsulfonic acid alkali metal salt salts having 15 to 20 carbon atoms, and alkylsulfate alkali metal salt salts having 6 to 18 carbon atoms." Applicant also notes that agents C1-1, Cl-2, C2-1 and C3-1 of the examples of Table 1 are all mixtures of compounds having the recited number of carbon atoms. Applicant argues that Kamei only describes an arbitrary mixture of agents now required in the independent claims and that Kamei does not make known the element regarding carbon number now included in the independent claims. Applicant further argues examples in the present specification demonstrate that the laminated film obtained from the resin composition using the specific first antifogging agent and second antifogging agent as presently recited exhibits excellent effects that could not have been predicted from the description of the references cited in the current Office Action. Therefore, a conclusion that Claim 4, Claim 11 or any claim depending therefrom is obvious over these references cannot be supported.
However, Kamei et al. do meet the first antifogging agent and second antifogging agent as now required in each of claims 4 and 11. Specifically, Kamei et al. disclose polyolefin resin composition comprising component A which is a partial ester of a 3- to 6-valent polyol (i.e. polyhydric alcohol) and an aliphatic monocarboxylic acid having 6-22 carbon atoms (see paragraphs 0013-0014), i.e. second antifogging agent, where the number of carbon atoms of the aliphatic monocarboxylic acid overlaps that presently claimed. Kamei et al. also discloses component B which is alkali metal salt of alkylsulfonate having 6-22 carbon atoms in the alkyl group where the number of carbon atoms overlaps that presently claimed or alkali metal salt of alkylarylsulfonate having 2-22 carbon atoms in the alkyl group where the number of carbon atoms overlaps that presently claimed (see paragraph 0018), i.e. first antifogging agent. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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). Kamei et al. further discloses the alkali metal salt of alkylsulfonate includes, for instance, sodium decyl sulfonate (see paragraph 0019) which has 10 carbon atoms and the alkali metal salt of alkylarylsulfonate includes, for instance, sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (see paragraph 0020) which has 18 carbon atoms.
With respect to the data in the present specification, the data is not persuasive given that the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the present claims. Specifically, the examples in the data use (i) specific non-modified polyolefin resin while the present claims encompass any non-modified polyolefin resin, (ii) specific second anti-fogging agents in specific amounts while the present claims encompass any second anti-fogging agent that consists of a partial ester of an aliphatic carboxylic acid having 8 to 22 carbon atoms and a polyhydric alcohol in any amount, and (iii) specific mixtures of first anti-fogging agent while the present claims encompass at least one of any first anti-fogging agent that is a alkylsulfonic acid alkali metal salt salts having 10 to 18 carbon atoms, alkylarylsulfonic acid alkali metal salt salts having 15 to 20 carbon atoms, or alkylsulfate alkali metal salt salts having 6 to 18 carbon atoms. Further, there is no data at the upper and lower ends of the claimed amount of modifier and no data at the claimed lower end of the claimed amount of first anti-fogging agent.
Further, none of the examples appear to establish the criticality of the number of carbon atoms present in the first anti-fogging agent. Additionally, while Comparative Example 1-5 does not include any first anti-fogging agent, this example is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the closest prior art given that Kamei et al. already recognizes the criticality of using the first anti-fogging agent.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 35 USC 103 rejection over Hong (KR 100840150).
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 Callie Shosho whose telephone number is (571)272-1123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 am - 5:00 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571)272-7769. 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.
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights