+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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Applicant’s response, filed 24 Nov 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-3 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 103 Feb 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, except where noted. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objections Withdrawn
Objections to the Claims
The claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 25 Aug 2025 are hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments of the claims.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections Pursuant to 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasutaka et al. (JP 2018-153193, published 04 Oct 2018, listed in IDS filed 28 Nov 2023) in view of Akihide et al. (JP2018196358A, published 13 Dec 2018) is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasutaka et al. (JP 2018-153193, published 04 Oct 2018, listed in IDS filed 28 Nov 2023) in view of Akihide et al. (JP2018196358A, published 13 Dec 2018) and Sturm et al. (WO 2016/096907, published 23 June 2016) is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Rejections Maintained
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.
The rejection below was made previously and is reapplied below to address the claim amendments.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasutaka et al. (JP 2018-153193, published 04 Oct 2018, listed in IDS filed 28 Nov 2023).
Yasutaka teaches a soil film ([0023]) with a pest repellent function ([0030]) and for preventing damage by slugs ([0058]), rendering obvious a gastropod repellent film as recited. For the invention, Yasutaka teaches a laminate comprising an inorganic filler and a thermoplastic resin and the outermost layer comprising an inorganic filler and thermoplastic resin ([0022]). Yasutaka teaches the inorganic filler is partially or entirely calcium carbonate ([0022]) and used calcium carbonate particles in example formulations ([0065]). Yasutaka teaches the material with at least 50 percent by weight of the inorganic filler (abstract-Solution, [0030]). Yasutaka teaches the thermoplastic resin as a polyolefin resin ([0035], [0038]) such as a polyethylene resin ([0040]). Yasutaka teaches inflation molding as a method for forming the films ([0055]). The instant specification indicates that the filler layer formed by inflation increases voids and reduces density ([0056]) and provides examples where films formed from polyethylene resin and calcium carbonate particles with the inflation method had densities from 1.10-1.20 g/cm3 in contrast to a film formed from the same materials with t-die molding having densities of 1.35-1.50 g/cm3 ([0076] Table 2). Thus, the density and voidage of the film is a result of both the components of the film and the method of production. As Yasutaka teaches films with the same components and amounts as the instant claims and teaches a production method of inflation molding, the resulting films of Yasutaka would necessarily have a density of at least 1.16-1.25 g/cm3 and a voidage of 15-20% by volume, as evidenced by the instant specification.
Yasutaka does not expressly teach selecting the more than 50.0% by mass calcium carbonate filler with polyolefin thermoplastic resin as part of the film layer with sufficient specificity to rise to the level of anticipation.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a soil film for repelling slugs with at least 50% by weight of an inorganic filler layer of calcium carbonate particles as an outermost layer and a thermoplastic resin layer of polyolefin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as soil films are taught by Yasutaka and each of these components are taught as suitable for such films. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully forming a soil film as taught by Yasutaka since the modification of the prior art represents nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Regarding the limitation that the film is at least 1.16 and no greater than 1.25 g/cm3 and has a voidage of 15-20% by volume, as described above, the density and voidage of the films formed by Yasutaka with an inflation method would necessarily meet this requirement.
Accordingly, the instant claims are rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Yasutaka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the density of the film can be affected by various factors such as the voidage between the calcium carbonate and thermoplastic resin and that Yasutaka does not teach the voidage limitation (page 5 of remarks). Applicant argues that the inflation method might affect the density of the film but this does not guarantee that all films produced by the inflation method would necessarily have the density or voidage range of claim 1 (page 5 of remarks). The examiner is not persuaded by these remarks and maintains that although Yasutaka does not explicitly teach the density or voidage values, these properties would be present in the films rendered obvious by Yasutaka. The density and voidage of the layer are linked properties in that the density will be related to how much space the material takes up. Density is a measurement of mass per unit volume. The mass is a result of the type of material used and the volume is related to the material used and the way the material is formed, for example with extra space (voidage). Thus, the density and voidage are linked properties of the film. As is shown in the instant specification in Table 2, forming films with calcium carbonate and polyethylene resin with an inflation method results in density reduced in comparison to T-die molding and density values of 1.10-1.20 have been demonstrated (table 2). It is apparent from the data that the density increases with higher amounts of calcium carbonate (Examples 3 and 4, densities of 1.16 and 1.20 with 55% and 60% calcium carbonate). As described above, it is known that the filler is present in at least 50% (rendering obvious higher amounts) and that the filler includes calcium carbonate completely or partially (rendering it obvious to vary the amount of calcium carbonate in the film) ([0022], [0065], [0030]). Yasutaka further teaches and renders obvious the inclusion of polyethylene resin as the thermoplastic resin in the film ([0040]). The examiner agrees with the assessment by the applicant that not all films produced by the inflation method will result in densities between the claimed 1.16-1.25 g/cm3 as this is shown from Table 2 of the specification and would be expected since the density is going to be a result of the materials and amounts used and the production method. It is shown, however, that films formed from the inflation method and that have 55% and 60% calcium carbonate and the remainder is polyethylene resin have densities of 1.16 and 1.20 respectively. As noted above, Yasutaka renders obvious films with components such as this and the inflation method. Based on the evidence at hand, it is thus understood that that the films rendered obvious by Yasutaka would meet the density requirements of the claims. There are other film formations additionally obvious from Yasutaka that would have different densities, but Yasutaka renders obvious films that have the density and voidage properties for the reasons described above. The inclusion of the density and voidage limitations are understood to merely describe properties of the films that are obvious from the teachings of Yasutaka. It is not necessary for Yasutaka to describe every property, such as density and voidage, that may be associated with the film in order for the film to be obvious. In the end, the same films of the instant claims are obvious from Yasutaka and the resulting densities and voidage would necessarily be present in the same films.
The examiner is not persuaded by the assertion of unexpected results from Table 2 of the specification. The examiner first notes that the data are not commensurate in scope with the claimed limitations. Data is shown for densities from 1.10-1.20 but the claim limitation goes up to a density of 1.25. Comparative example 5 has density of 1.35 and is presented by the applicant as having less slug repellent properties. It is not clear from the data what happens between densities 1.20 and 1.35 and if the claimed range would have the same purported benefits. Further, data is only shown for a single resin material, polyethylene, whereas the claim is open to any thermoplastic resin. Additionally, while the data in Table 2 presents films prepared from inflation and T-die methods, it is not evident that the applicant has made a comparison to the closest prior art. Yasutaka teaches calcium carbonate films formed with an inflation method ([0069]) and it seems that a better comparison would be the instant invention with the calcium carbonate films formed by inflation as taught by Yasutaka. In connection with this, it is not evident that the applicant has demonstrated why the results are to be understood as unexpected. The applicant has made a comparison of films formed by two separate methods and observed a difference in slug repellency for a few data points. Questions remain such as would the films show less slug repellency when the calcium carbonate percentage is increased and the density raised beyond the claimed 1.25 when formed using an inflation method? There is an expectation from Yasutaka to use the films for repelling slugs ([0093]). With that expectation one of ordinary skill would recognize that the films would need to be optimized (for example, the percentage of the components). Is the slug repellent data in Table 2 merely an example of optimizing the film for slug repellency or is there something actually unexpected about the result? Overall, the data presented by the applicant is not persuasive in overcoming the prima facie case of obviousness presented from Yasutaka for at least the reasons discussed above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasutaka et al. (JP 2018-153193, published 04 Oct 2018, listed in IDS filed 28 Nov 2023) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above and in view of Sturm et al. (WO 2016/096907, published 23 June 2016).
The teachings of Yasutaka are described supra.
Yasutaka does not teach the particle size of calcium carbonate. This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Sturm.
Sturm teaches the use of calcium carbonate for plant protection (title). Sturm teaches that the calcium carbonate plant protection product controls a pest during plant growth (page 3 lines 19-21) and that the pest may be a gastropod (page 5 lines 26-28). Sturm teaches that the calcium carbonate is in the form of particles having a particle size from 1 to 50 micrometers (page 4 lines 11-13).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used calcium carbonate particles with a particle size from 1 to 50 micrometers in the soil films of Yasutaka. It is obvious to form soil films for repelling pests such as slugs where the films comprise calcium carbonate particles from the teachings of Yasutaka. A particle size of 1 to 50 micrometers is a suitable size range for calcium carbonate particles used in protecting plants from pests such as gastropods, as known from Sturm. Thus, it would have been obvious to use a size of 1 to 50 micrometers as this is a known calcium carbonate particle size and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in using such a particle size as it is known for use in compositions for protecting plants from pests such as gastropods and the films of Yasutaka have a similar purpose of protecting plants from pests such as slugs. The size range of 1 to 50 micrometers renders obvious the range of no greater than 20 micrometers. 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).
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7007. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/E.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600