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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 7 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2006/0159878 to Wakai et al. cited in Information Disclosure Statement filed 17 May 2023 (herein Wakai) in view of WIPO Publication WO 2016/192901 to Yoshida et al. cited in Information Disclosure Statement filed 17 May 2023 (herein Yoshida).
Regarding claim 1, Wakai teaches a multi-layered heat-shrinkable film composed of at least three layers including a front layer and a back layer corresponding to the skin layer and seal layer recited in the instant claims and an intermediate film layer corresponding to the core layer recited in the instant claims (abstract). Wakai teaches that the front and back films comprise 55 to 95 mass% of a cyclic olefin-based resin and 5 to 45 mass% of a linear low-density polyethylene (herein LLDPE) and the intermediate film layer comprises 55 to 95 mass% of a propylene-α-olefin random copolymer and 5 to 45 mass% of a cyclic olefin-based resin (paragraph 0012). Wakai also teaches that 5 to 70 parts by weight of a petroleum resin can be added to the propylene-α-olefin random copolymer of the intermediate film layer (paragraph 0047). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wakai is silent as to the softening point of the petroleum resin.
Yoshida teaches Yoshida teaches a multi-layer shrink film including a skin layer and a core layer (abstract) wherein the core layer comprises a propylene-based elastomer, a propylene-based plastomer, a hydrocarbon resin, and a cyclic olefin resin (page 3). Yoshida teaches that the hydrocarbon resin has a softening point of 120°C to 145°C (page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the petroleum resin of Wakai to have the softening point of Yoshida because it is applying a known technique to a known product. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Wakai teaches that the film has a heat shrinkage rate when immersed in 90°C water for 10 seconds of 50% or higher (paragraph 0075). Wakai is silent as to a preferred range of haze; however, the inventive examples of Wakai all have a haziness of less than 3% (Table 1). Wakai is also silent as to the desired stiffness of the film; however, the inventive examples of Wakai all have a stiffness of at least 20 mN (at least 2 gf) (Tables 1 and 2). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Wakai and Yoshida teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wakai teaches that the cyclic olefin-based resin has a glass transition temperature of 70 to 80°C (paragraph 0029). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Wakai also teaches that the propylene-α-olefin random copolymer of the intermediate film layer can be a ternary polymer (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 4¸ Wakai and Yoshida teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wakai is silent as to a polyolefin elastomer being present in the intermediate film layer.
Yoshida teaches Yoshida teaches a multi-layer shrink film including a skin layer and a core layer (abstract) wherein the core layer comprises a propylene-based elastomer, a propylene-based plastomer, a hydrocarbon resin, and a cyclic olefin resin (page 3). Yoshida teaches that the propylene-based elastomer has a density of 0.85 to 0.89 g/cm3 and a melt flow rate of 1 to 5 g/10 min (page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intermediate film layer of Wakai to include the propylene-based elastomer of Yoshida because it is applying a known technique to a known product. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakai and Yoshida as applied above and in further view of Korean Publication KR 10-1606915 to Shin cited in Information Disclosure Statement filed 17 May 2023 (herein Shin, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Wakai and Yoshida teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wakai teaches that the LLDPE of the front and back layers has a density of 0.910 to 0.935 g/cm3 (paragraph 0032). Examiner notes that Wakai lists the density in units of g/m3; however, because these units would imply that the LLDPE is a gas, this is clear a typographical error.
Wakai is silent as to the melting points of the LLDPE and the propylene-α-olefin random copolymer as well as the melt index of the propylene-α-olefin random copolymer.
Regarding the melting temperatures, Shin teaches a film for a heat shrinkable label (abstract) having a surface layer, an intermediate layer, and a tapetum layer (page 6) wherein the surface layer and the intermediate layer comprise cyclic olefin resin (page 6) and a non-cyclic olefin resin that can be a polyethylene or polypropylene resin (page 7). Shin teaches that the non-cyclic olefin resin has a melting temperature of 90 to 160°C (page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LLDPE and the propylene-α-olefin random copolymer of Wakai to have the melting points taught by Shin because the heat resistance and low temperature contractibility of the film would be excellent (page 7).
Regarding the melt flow index of the propylene-α-olefin random copolymer, Yoshida teaches a multi-layer shrink film including a skin layer and a core layer (abstract) wherein the core layer comprises a propylene-based elastomer, a propylene-based plastomer, a hydrocarbon resin, and a cyclic olefin resin (page 3). Yoshida teaches that the propylene-based plastomer has a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 10 g/10 min (page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the propylene-α-olefin random copolymer of Wakai to have the melt flow rate taught by Yoshida because it is applying a known technique to a known product. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakai and Yoshida as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2007/0251572 to Hoya et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Hoya).
Regarding claim 7, Wakai and Yoshida teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wakai teaches that the film is formed by a known method such as melting the resin in a plurality of extruders, and coextruding from a T-die (paragraph 0062).
Wakai is silent as to whether the resin is melt blended prior to being extruded.
Hoya teaches a thermoplastic resin composition (abstract) usable in a heat-shrinkable label (paragraph 0577). Hoya teaches that resin compositions can be melt blended prior to extrusion into a sheet (paragraphs 0624-0627).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wakai to use the melt blending steps of Hoya because it is a known technique being applied to a known method. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed amount of hydrocarbon resin or propylene homopolymer in the core layer is critical to achieving the desired transparency and stiffness and points to the inventive examples as evidence of non-obviousness (Remarks, pages 5-8). The evidence cited in not commensurate in scope with the claimed amount of hydrocarbon resin or propylene homopolymer. The claimed range is 5-15 parts by weight, and the examples cited have 10 parts by weight of either the hydrocarbon resin or the propylene homopolymer. At best, when compared to the comparative examples disclosed in the instant application, the evidence cited demonstrates that the mere presence of the hydrocarbon resin or the propylene homopolymer achieves the desired results; however, this does not demonstrate the non-obviousness of the range taught by Wakai.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783