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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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
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 this action.
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 or alkali metal salt of alkylarylsulfonate (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 hexyl sulfonate (see paragraph 0019) and sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (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 or alkali metal salt of alkylarylsulfonate (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 hexyl sulfonate (see paragraph 0019) and sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (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).
Claims 4, 6-7, 11-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (KR100840150). It is noted that the disclosures of Hong et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 05/13/2025.
Regarding claims 4, 6-7, and 11-13, Hong et al. discloses polyolefin resin composition comprising 100 parts polyolefin resin, 1-30 parts ethylene vinyl acetate resin, i.e. modifier, and 0.001-5 parts dispersing agent including sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate and sodium alkyl sulfonate (page 3, lines 170-176 and page 7, lines 430-435). The polyolefin resin includes polyethylene and ethylene-propylene copolymer, i.e. non-modified polyolefin (see page 4, line 194). Although there is no explicit disclosure that the dispersing agent functions as an antifogging agent, given that sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate and sodium alkyl sulfonate are identical to that used in the present invention (see paragraphs 0025 and 0027 of the present specification), it is clear that dispersing agent of Hong et al. necessarily functions as an antifogging agent. Hong et al. further discloses that the composition is used to make a molded product, i.e. film (see page 5, line 298, page 8, lines 511-513, and page 9, lines 537-550).
Hong et al. discloses the ethylene-vinyl acetate is made from 1-35 parts vinyl acetate per 100 parts ethylene vinyl acetate (see page 5, line 327-page 6, line 329). Based on the molecular weight of ethylene, i.e. 28.05, and vinyl acetate, i.e. 86.09, it is calculated when the ethylene vinyl acetate comprises 99 parts ethylene and 1 part vinyl acetate, there is present 3.53 moles (99/28.05) ethylene and 0.012 moles (1/86.09) vinyl acetate or 0.33 mol% (0.012/3.54) vinyl acetate and when the ethylene vinyl acetate comprises 65 parts ethylene and 35 part vinyl acetate, there is present 2.32 moles (65/28.05) ethylene and 0.406 moles (35/86.09) vinyl acetate or 14.8 mol% (0.012/3.54) vinyl acetate.
The only deficiency of Hong et al. is that Hong et al. disclose the use of ethylene-vinyl acetate with 14.8 mol% vinyl acetate while the present claims require ethylene-vinyl acetate with 15 mol% vinyl acetate.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of vinyl acetate and that taught by Hong et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of vinyl acetate disclosed by Hong et al. and the amount disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of vinyl acetate disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amount disclosed in Hong et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
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 Hong et al. in view of Yano et al.
Specifically, Hong et al. discloses polyolefin resin composition comprising 100 parts polyolefin resin, 1-30 parts ethylene vinyl acetate resin, i.e. modifier, and 0.001-5 parts dispersing agent including sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate and sodium alkyl sulfonate (page 3, lines 170-176 and page 7, lines 430-435). The polyolefin resin includes polyethylene and ethylene-propylene copolymer, i.e. non-modified polyolefin (see page 4, line 194). Although there is no explicit disclosure that the dispersing agent functions as an antifogging agent, given that sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate and sodium alkyl sulfonate are identical to that used in the present invention (see paragraphs 0025 and 0027 of the present specification), it is clear that dispersing agent of Hong et al. necessarily functions as an antifogging agent. Hong et al. further discloses that the composition is used to make a molded product, i.e. film (see page 5, line 298, page 8, lines 511-513, and page 9, lines 537-550).
Hong et al. discloses the ethylene-vinyl acetate is made from 1-35 parts vinyl acetate per 100 parts ethylene vinyl acetate (see page 5, line 327-page 6, line 329). Based on the molecular weight of ethylene, i.e. 28.05, and vinyl acetate, i.e. 86.09, it is calculated when the ethylene vinyl acetate comprises 99 parts ethylene and 1 part vinyl acetate, there is present 3.53 moles (99/28.05) ethylene and 0.012 moles (1/86.09) vinyl acetate or 0.33 mol% (0.012/3.54) vinyl acetate and when the ethylene vinyl acetate comprises 65 parts ethylene and 35 part vinyl acetate, there is present 2.32 moles (65/28.05) ethylene and 0.406 moles (35/86.09) vinyl acetate or 14.8 mol% (0.012/3.54) vinyl acetate.
The only deficiency of Hong et al. is that Hong et al. disclose the use of ethylene-vinyl acetate with 14.8 mol% vinyl acetate while the present claims require ethylene-vinyl acetate with 15 mol% vinyl acetate.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of vinyl acetate and that taught by Hong et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of vinyl acetate disclosed by Hong et al. and the amount disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of vinyl acetate disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amount disclosed in Hong et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 18-19, Hong et al. disclose the polyolefin resin composition comprises two or more polyolefins, i.e. second non-modified polyolefin (see page 4, lines 203-204), which would include polyolefins that include those of the same type, i.e. two polyethylenes
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered. In light of applicant’s amendment, new grounds of rejection are set forth above.
Conclusion
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