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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H07-232418 to Sugiyama in view of USPN. 6,294,268 to Muraoka, as evidenced by JP-2010-215705 to Asahi.
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 8-9
Sugiyama teaches a multilayer heat-sealing film comprising a base layer, anchor layer, high-pressure method low density polyethylene layer having a density such as 923 kg/m3 and an ethylene-alpha-copolymer layer having a density between 890 and 950 kg/m3 in that order (Sugiyama, abstract, paragraphs [0026], [0033] and [0047]). Sugiyama does not appear to teach that the base layer is a stretched Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene. However, Muraoka teaches a multilayer laminate comprising a layer of oriented (stretched) film of Ultra-High Molecular-Weight polyethylene-based resin having a limiting viscosity of 5 dl/g which is considered to be a viscosity average molecular weight of about 600,000 or more (Muraoka, abstract, column 6-9, examples; Asahi, paragraph [0055]). Muraoka teaches a second layer of a low-density polyethylene, which typically comprises molecular weights within the range of low-molecular weight polyethylene (Id.). Muraoka teaches at the ethylene may be a low-density polyethylene or an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer having a density of between 909 and 935 kg/m3 which overlaps the claimed range of between 860 and 955 kg/m3 (Id., col 7, lines 50-56). Muraoka teaches that the laminate may comprise additional layers (anchor-coat) between the outer layers (Id., column 9, lines 42-58). Muraoka teaches that the oriented UHMWPE base layer provides excellent shock resistance, abrasion resistance, resistance against chemicals, tensile strength and the like (Id., column 1, lines 30-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the laminate of Sugiyama and to utilize as the base film the stretched UHMWPE film of Muraoka, motivated by the desire to form a conventional heat sealable laminate having improved shock resistance, abrasion resistance, chemical resistance and tensile strength.
The prior art combination teaches the UHMWPE film has a tensile strength of greater than 100MPa (Id., table 1). Regarding the tensile modulus of elasticity, moisture permeability and endothermic peak, although the prior art does not disclose these physical properties, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding Claim 3
The prior art combination does not appear to teach that the anchor-coat layer possesses a thickness between 0.01 and 0.7 micrometers. It should be noted that the thickness of the layer is a result effective variable. As thickness increases, the material exhibits increased strength, weight and cost and decreased flexibility. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the thickness since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness in order to achieve the desired balance between strength, weight, cost and flexibility.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Muraoka and Asahi as applied to claims 1-4 and 8-9 above, further in view of JP-2004-277529 to Deguchi.
Regarding Claims 5-7
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the inclusion of a condensed hydroxy fatty acid or thermoplastic resin within the UHMWPE layer. However, Deguchi teaches a film composition comprising a thermoplastic resin such as epoxy-based resins and 0.005 to 5% by weight of hydroxy containing fatty acid ester which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.1 and10 parts by weight (Deguchi, abstract, paragraph [0025], [0027], [0034], [0048]). Deguchi teaches that the inclusion of these components provides antifogging and antistatic properties to polyethylene film-based materials (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the laminate of the prior art combination and to employ the additives taught by Deguchi motivated by the desire to form a conventional polyethylene film-based laminate with improved antifog and antistatic properties.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Muraoka and Asahi as applied to claims 1-4 and 8-9 above, further in view of JP-2004-269688 to Oga.
Regarding Claims 10-11
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the inclusion of a tackifier. However, Oga teaches a polyolefin laminate having a high interlayer bonding strength comprising a tackifier in an amount of 1 to 30% by weight (Oga, abstract, paragraph [0008]- [0010]). Oga teaches the tackifier improves the adhesion to substrate of the polyolefin film and may comprise a rosin-based resin (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the laminate of the prior art combination and to include within the ethylene-based resin layer a tackifier as taught by Oga, motivated by the desire to form a conventional laminate having improved interlayer bonding strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Muraoka is not analogous art due to the method of forming the UHMWPO film. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Muraoka is drawn to multilayer materials including UHMWPO for use as a packaging material and including a classification of B32B27/08 all of which are analogous to the claimed invention. The exact processing conditions are product-by-process limitations which do not further limit the claims.
Applicant argues that the base layer of Muraoka is formed solely of UHMWPO and is considered to exhibit a single endothermic peak. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Additionally, it is well-settled that unsupported arguments are not a substitute for objective evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974). Applicant’s specification only specifies that the dual peak is a result from the UHMWPO being oriented (See Applicant’s specification pages 15-16) which Muraoka teaches (Muraoka, column 5, lines 48-58).
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 VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights