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 .
This communication is responsive to claim set filed 12/10/2025. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are pending and under consideration.
Claim 5 is canceled.
The 35 USC 112 rejection dated 09/16/2025 is WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 35 USC 103 rejection dated 09/16/2025 on previously presented Claims 1-4 is maintained. Therefore, the rejections below are properly made final.
The new rejection below is responsive to the new claims 6-7.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiwara et al.
(JPH11315159A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kajiwara teaches a composition comprising polyethylene, inorganic filler
(ab.) and another resin such as high-density polyethylene ([0013]); wherein the polyethylene is a
copolymer of ethylene and an a-olefin having 3 to 8 carbon atoms ([0012]) which includes the claimed
C6 to C8 a-olefin. Kajiwara further teaches the polyethylene has a MFR of 0.5 to 10 g/10 minutes (Id.).
Therefore, Kajiwara discloses that a composition comprising an inorganic compound, an ethylene-a-olefin copolymer, and a high-density polyethylene; wherein the ethylene-a-olefin copolymer is a
copolymer of ethylene and C6-C8 alpha-olefin and wherein the copolymer has a MFR of 0.5 to 10 g/10
minutes, overlapping the claimed 1 - 2 g/10min.
Moreover, Kajiwara teaches the composition comprising per 100 parts polyethylene, 10 -300
parts inorganic filler (ab.) and 0 .1 to 30 parts high-density polyethylene ([0013]), thereby the composition
comprising 7.1 to 75 wt.% inorganic filler, 23.3 to 90.8 wt.% of ethylene-a-olefin copolymer and 0.025 to
21.4 wt.% high-density polyethylene. The ranges overlaps with the claimed ranges, respectively. In the
case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case
of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the
range taught by Kajiwara.
Regarding Claim 2, Kajiwara discloses a method of producing porous film from the polyethylene-based-resin composition, wherein resin and inorganic filler are melted at a temperature 20°C or higher
than the melting point of the base resin ([0015]) and the film is heat stretched at a temperature lower than
the melting point ([0016]). Kajiwara exemplifies that the resin and inorganic filler pellets were melt at
240°C and the porous film is heat stretched at 70°C ([0027]). Therefore, Kajiwara discloses the melting point of the polyethylene- a-olefin copolymer between 70°C to 220°C, overlapping the claimed 90°C to
130°c.
Regarding Claim 3, Kajiwara teaches the inorganic filler is preferably calcium carbonate
([0014]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kajiwara teaches packaging materials formed from the composition ([0009]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiwara, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ishihama et al. (US10,633,471 B2).
As discussed above, Kajiwara teaches that the resin composition comprising an ethylene-C6 to C8 a-olefin copolymer in the amount of 23.3 to 90.8 wt.%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kajiwara. Thus, Kajiwara teaches that the resin composition comprising an ethylene- C6 to C8 a-olefin copolymer in the amount of 23.3 to 50 wt.%.
The difference between Kajiwara and instant claims 6-7 are that Kajiwara is silent that the ethylene-a-olefin copolymer is a blend of ethylene-a-olefin copolymers.
However, Ishihama teaches a composition comprising a blend of ethylene-based polymer A and ethylene-based polymer B, wherein the ethylene-based polymer A has an MFR preferably from 0.9 to 20 g/10min (12:55-60) and the ethylene-based polymer A is particularly preferred a copolymer of ethylene and betene-1, hexene-1 or octene-1 (16:20-40). Ishihama further teaches the ethylene-based polymer B has an MFR preferably from 0.05 to 1 g/10min (22: 53-56) and the ethylene-based polymer B is most preferably a copolymer of ethylene and hexene-1 or octene-1 (27:37-40). Thus, Ishihama teaches a composition of a blend of copolymer A which is a copolymer of ethylene with betene-1, hexene-1 or octene-1 and copolymer B which is a copolymer of ethylene with hexene-1 or octene-1, and each of the copolymers can have an MFR from 1 to 2 g/10min or 1 g/10min.
Ishihama furthermore teaches the blend of copolymer A and copolymer B is excellent in moldability and at the same time , excellent in the balance between impact strength and stiffness as well as in the transparency (ab.). In view of such benefits, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of instant application, to use the blend of copolymer A and copolymer B taught by Ishihama for the ethylene- C6 to C8 a-olefin copolymer of the composition of Kajiwara to obtain a modified composition for the desired properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: the ethylene-a-olefin copolymer of Example 6 of Kajiwara has an MFR of 3.8 g/10min; therefore, Kajiwara does not disclose or suggest a specific composition satisfying the requirement that an ethylene-a-olefin copolymer A having a melt flow rate of 1.0 g/10 min or more and 2.0 g/10 min or less.
Examiner’s response: Kajiwara teaches a composition comprising copolymer of ethylene and an a-olefin having 3 to 8 carbon atoms wherein the copolymer of ethylene and a-olefin has a MFR of 0.5 to 10 g/10 minutes ([0012]). In view of MPEP 2144.05 I, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kajiwara. As to the copolymer of Example 6 of Kajiwara does not meet the limitation of 1.0 g/10 min or more and 2.0 g/10 min or less, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 USC 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures "including unpreferred embodiments" must be considered (see MPEP 2123 I).
Applicant’s argument: the present claims achieve an excellent effect in that "even if an inorganic compound is added, a film having excellent moldability, excellent bag-making processability, and excellent film strength can be obtained."
Examiner’s answer: Applicant apparently argues that instant application achieved unexpected results. Data of instant application have been fully considered; however, they are insufficient to establish unexpected results given that the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of claims. The inventive data only tested CaCO3 at 52 mass% and 64 mass% while the claimed range of inorganic compound being 50 mass% to 80 mass%; further, the examples tested only CaCO3, a specific inorganic compound while claim 1 claims an inorganic compound. The showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP 716.02(d).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/HUIHONG QIAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763