DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 25 February 2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35 and 37, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The text of those sections of the MPEP not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome all of the rejections as set forth in the prior office.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the first layer does not contain polyethylene” but also allows for polypropylene-polyethylene block copolymers. As such the claim is being interpreted to exclude polyethylene homopolymers but not copolymers including polyethylene.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenta (JP 2019-014521) in view of Kitade et al. (US 2009/0118414 A1).
Kenta teaches a packaging film with good and stable sliding properties formed from a thermoplastic resin (11) a slip agent (12), and anti-blocking agent (13). See Overview. Kenta teaches the resin is a polyolefin (¶17), specifically polyethylene, polypropylene, and blends thereof (¶18) and the anti-blocking agent is diatomaceous earth, which is a porous material (¶24) in an amount from 0.5-4.0 % by mass (¶28). The particle size of the agent is 4-6 microns (¶26) while the thickness of the film is 20-200 microns (¶35).
Kenta exemplifies (Ex. 1) a polyolefin film (100 microns) with a porous filler (12.6 microns 2.5% mass) which equates to a ratio of 0.12. Kenta teaches the surface roughness is between 3 and 1 micron (¶44). Kenta fails to teach the elastomer of claim 1.
Kitade disclose a propylene resin composition with improved rigidity, heat resistance, and impact resistance which maintains a satisfactory balance among these and further improved in low-temperature impact resistance. The propylene resin composition comprises a crystalline propylene polymer ingredient (a), 40-5 wt % of a propylene/ethylene copolymer ingredient (b1 and b2). Kitade teaches by incorporating an elastomer and an inorganic filler as additional ingredients into that resin composition and combining these, the composition is further sufficiently improved in rigidity, heat resistance, and impact resistance while maintaining a satisfactory balance among these properties and is sufficiently improved also in low-temperature impact resistance. (Abstract and ¶¶16,30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the film taught by Kenta with the elastomer taught by Kitade as additional ingredients for improved rigidity, heat resistance, and impact resistance
Kenta in view of Kitade meets claims 1, 3, 4, 7 (see ¶56).
Regarding claim 8 Kenta teaches the film can be formed into a bag (¶20 and ¶37). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to form the exemplified films into a bag with the film on the inside because Kenta suggests such a teaching.
Regarding claim 11, Kitade teaches the amount of the elastomer is 5-40% relative to the total of the resin, as such it would have been obvious to use the Kitade amount in the Kenta film.
While claim 11 requires 5-30% relative to the resin including the filler and the teachings of Kitade are relative to the resin alone, the amounts claimed overlap the amounts disclosed based on the following:
Kenta teaches the polyolefin part of the film is between 90% (100% - 2% slip agent – 8% antiblocking agent) and 99% (100% - 0.5% slip agent – 0.5% antiblocking agent). Therefore, when combined with the Kitade teachings the amounts would be: 0.5-8% antiblocking agent (filler), 0.5-2% slip agent, 4.5-39.6% elastomer and 54-94% polypropylene resin (for a total of 90-95 polyolefin part).
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). A PHOSITA would be motivated to adjust the amounts as necessary based on the desired properties as taught in ¶59 of Kitade.
Kenta (JP 2019-014521) and Kitade (US 2009/0118414 A1) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11.
New claim 12 is the combination of claims 3 and 11 and therefore rendered obvious based on Kenta and Kitade. New claim 18 is the combination of claims 4 and 12(3+11) and therefore rendered obvious based on Kenta and Kitade.
New claim 13 is the combination of claim 4 and 11 and therefore rendered obvious based on Kenta and Kitade.
New claim 15 is the combination of claim 3 and 4 and therefore rendered obvious based on Kenta and Kitade.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenta (JP 2019-014521) and Kitade et al. (US 2009/0118414 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hiroyuki (JP 2015-134901).
Kenta teaches food packaging including a filler as discussed above.
Hiroyuki teaches a coating agent for a food packaging sheet capable of producing a food packaging sheet having food releasability, oil resistance and water resistance. See Overview. Hiroyuki teaches the oil absorption of the inorganic filler is 200-250ml/100g so as to balance the stability and ability to release food (see ¶39). Hiroyuki teaches diatomaceous earth as a possible filler
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use as the diatomaceous earth filler of Kenta one with oil absorption in the range of 200-250ml/100g so as to balance the ability of the filler to be stable and release food as taught by Hiroyuki. Claim 2 is obvious in view of Kenta, Kitade, and Hiroyuki.
Claim 5, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenta (JP 2019-014521) and Kitade et al. (US 2009/0118414 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Danvers (US 2009/0029171).
Kenta (JP 2019-014521) and Kitade (US 2009/0118414 A1) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11.
Kenta teaches food packaging including a filler as discussed above. Kenta fails to teach the filler has a cover portion composed of a hydrophobic material.
Danvers teaches a functional additive for polymers which can be used as an anti-block in plastic films (abstract) based upon micronized diatomite (¶1). Danvers teaches modification of the surface of the additive with silanes, including those that form hydrophobic surfaces (claim 24). Danvers teaches such modification can improve mechanical properties and provide reinforcement (¶44).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the diatomite of Kenta to be hydrophobic for the benefit of improved mechanical properties in the plastic film as taught by Danvers.
New claim 16 is the combination of claims 3 and 5. New claim 17 is the combination of claims 4 and 5. New claim 19 is the combination of claim 15 [3+4] and 5. Each of which are therefore rendered obvious based on Kenta and Kitade and Danvers.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenta (JP 2019-014521) and Kitade (US 2009/0118414 A1), Hiroyuki (JP 2015-134901) and Danvers (US 2009/0029171).
New claim 14 is the combination of claims 2 and 5. New claim 20 is the combination of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11 and therefore rendered obvious.
The discussion of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11 as set forth above is incorporated herein but left out for brevity.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use as the diatomaceous earth filler of Kenta one with oil absorption in the range of 200-250ml/100g so as to balance the ability of the filler to be stable and release food as taught by Hiroyuki and to modify the diatomite of Kenta to be hydrophobic for the benefit of improved mechanical properties in the plastic film as taught by Danvers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenta (JP 2019-014521) and Kitade et al. (US 2009/0118414 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Toyoizumi (US 20140017385)
As discussed above Kenta teaches food packaging. Toyoizumi teaches a food with oil-in-water dispersion (abstract) with oil content less than water (see e.g., Table 1). The food of Toyoizumi meets applicants’ definition of oil-in-water in ¶8 of the PG Pub.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use the container of Kenta for the food of Toyoizumi as it is nothing more than applying a known product (food packaging) in its intended way (to package food) with a known food.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5635557) and Kitade et al. (US 2009/0118414 A1).
Kimura et al. disclose a polypropylene composition which contains polypropylene and one or more ingredients selected from an antistatic agent and a surface-treated or untreated fine powdery silica. The antistatic agent is taught as optional (See inventive examples 7 and 8). The content of the fine powdery silica in the polypropylene falls within the range of from 0.05 to 1 part by weight, preferably from 0.1 to 0.6 part by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the polypropylene, the stretched film preferably has a thickness of from 10 to 100 microns, and the particle size is 1.0 to 2.0 microns. (See Abstract, Column 1, lines 5-10, 60-68, and Column 2, lines 1-68). The Y/X ratio would be 0.01-0.2 overlapping the claimed range.
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). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any part of the disclosed range including that which is claimed.
Kimura fails to teach an elastomer of polypropylene, polyethylene, or polypropylene-polyethylene.
Kitade disclose a propylene resin composition with improved rigidity, heat resistance, and impact resistance which maintains a satisfactory balance among these and further improved in low-temperature impact resistance. The propylene resin composition comprises a crystalline propylene polymer ingredient (a), 40-5 wt % of a propylene/ethylene copolymer ingredient (b1 and b2). Kitade teaches by incorporating an elastomer and an inorganic filler as additional ingredients into that resin composition and combining these, the composition is further sufficiently improved in rigidity, heat resistance, and impact resistance while maintaining a satisfactory balance among these properties and is sufficiently improved also in low-temperature impact resistance. (Abstract and ¶¶16,30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the film taught by Kimura with the elastomer taught by Kitade as additional ingredients for improved rigidity, heat resistance, and impact resistance
Kimura and Kitade render obvious claims 1 and 10.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5635557) and Kitade et al. (US 2009/0118414 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kenta (JP 2019-014521).
Kimura and Kitade teach all of the limitations of claim 1 but not the Sa.
Kenta teaches in the field of food packaging an optimal Sa is less than 1.0 to balance ability to seal (¶44 ).
It would have been obvious to the PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the film of Kimura with a surface roughness less than 1 so as to have the ability to seal properly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5635557) and Kitade et al. (US 2009/0118414 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Danvers (US 2009/0029171). Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5635557) and Kitade et al. (US 2009/0118414 A1) and Kenta (JP 2019-014521) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Danvers (US 2009/0029171).
Kimura and Kitade teach all of the limitations of claim 1 and Kimura, Kitade, and Kenta teach all of the limitations of claim 3. Claims 5 and 16 recite the same subject matter but differ in one depends from claim 1 and the other claim 3.
Kimura teaches food packaging including a filler as discussed above. Kimura fails to teach the filler has a cover portion composed of a hydrophobic material.
Danvers teaches a functional additive for polymers which can be used as an anti-block in plastic films (abstract) based upon micronized diatomite (¶1). Danvers teaches modification of the surface of the additive with silanes, including those that form hydrophobic surfaces (claim 24). Danvers teaches such modification can improve mechanical properties and provide reinforcement (¶44).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the filler of Kimura to be hydrophobic for the benefit of improved mechanical properties in the plastic film as taught by Danvers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been entered and fully considered. The remarks directed to withdrawn rejections are moot
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J VINEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Greg Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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.
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights