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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “layer containing, as a resin, at least one selected from the group consisting of a polypropylene-based resin, a polyolefin-based elastomer, and a polyethylene-based resin having a melt flow rate of 1.5 g/10 min to 6 g/10 min, the melt flow rate being measured in accordance with ASTM D-1238 at 190°C with load of 2.16 kgf”. However, it is confusion whether the melt flow rate is for polypropylene based resin, polyolefin based elastomer and polyethylene based resin or only for polyethylene based resin. Based on the specification the claimed melt flow rate is only for polyethylene based resin.
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, 4-6, 8, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2020/0165045) in view of Hamaguchi et al. (US 2019/0055384) and evidenced given in Kolycheck et al. (US 5574104).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses a lid material for PTP (abstract) comprising lid material film 4A comprises thermoplastic material such as polyethylene resin (0033-0036) and a heat sealing layer comprising adhesive resin such as chlorinated polyethylene (0056, 0061, 0134) wherein it is evidence by Kolycheck that chlorinated polyethylene and chlorinated polypropylene have a melt index from 1 to 20 (col. 4, lines 62-64). However, Kondo does not disclose the same polyethylene and properties as claimed in present claim and specification.
Hamaguchi discloses resin composition for a lid (0068, 0114) comprising polyethylene resin such as Suntec J300 (0042, 0088) to obtain improved moldability of the resin composition (0042). Given that Hamaguchi discloses the same polyethylene resin as disclosed in the present specification, it is clear that the polyethylene resin of Hamaguchi would have the same weight average molecular weight as claimed in present claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific polyethylene resin of Hamaguchi in the lid material of Kondo to obtain improved moldability of the resin composition. Therefore, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi meets the claimed limitation of only a polyethylene resin having a weight average molecular weight 3.5 x 104 to 5.2 x 104.
Regarding claim 4, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein given that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 5, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein Kondo discloses the thickness of the lid material is 5 to 50 microns (0053). Given that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 6, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein Kondo discloses adding inorganic filler to reduce thrust strength (0045). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of inorganic material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the strength is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of inorganic material, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of inorganic material in lid material to obtain the desired thrust strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 8, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses a PTP body comprising the lid material for PTP of claim 1 (0001) and a bottom material having a cavity that accommodates contained matter (0002, 0025).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein Kondo discloses the lid material film is stretched film to obtain improved tensile strength (0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stretch the film of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi to a certain degree of orientation to obtain desired tensile strength.
Regarding claim 15, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 14, wherein given that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 16, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 14, wherein Kondo discloses the thickness of the lid material is 5 to 50 microns (0053). Given that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 17, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 14, wherein Kondo discloses adding inorganic filler to reduce thrust strength (0045). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of inorganic material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the strength is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of inorganic material, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of inorganic material in lid material to obtain the desired thrust strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 18, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses a PTP body comprising the lid material for PTP of claim 14 (0001) and a bottom material having a cavity that accommodates contained matter (0002, 0025).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2020/0165045) in view of Hamaguchi et al. (US 2019/0055384).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses a lid material for PTP (abstract) comprising lid material film 4A comprises thermoplastic material such as polyethylene resin (0033-0036) and a heat sealing layer comprising adhesive resin such as chlorinated polypropylene (0056, 0061, 0134). However, Kondo does not disclose the same polyethylene and properties as claimed in present claim and specification.
Hamaguchi discloses resin composition for a lid (0068, 0114) comprising polyethylene resin such as Suntec J300 (0042, 0088) to obtain improved moldability of the resin composition (0042). Given that Hamaguchi discloses the same polyethylene resin as disclosed in the present specification, it is clear that the polyethylene resin of Hamaguchi would have the same weight average molecular weight as claimed in present claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific polyethylene resin of Hamaguchi in the lid material of Kondo to obtain improved moldability of the resin composition. Therefore, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi meets the claimed limitation of only a polyethylene resin having a weight average molecular weight 3.5 x 104 to 5.2 x 104.
Regarding claim 4, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein given that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 5, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein Kondo discloses the thickness of the lid material is 5 to 50 microns (0053). Given that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 6, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein Kondo discloses adding inorganic filler to reduce thrust strength (0045). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of inorganic material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the strength is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of inorganic material, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of inorganic material in lid material to obtain the desired thrust strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 8, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses a PTP body comprising the lid material for PTP of claim 1 (0001) and a bottom material having a cavity that accommodates contained matter (0002, 0025).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein Kondo discloses the lid material film is stretched film to obtain improved tensile strength (0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stretch the film of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi to a certain degree of orientation to obtain desired tensile strength.
Regarding claim 15, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 14, wherein given that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 16, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 14, wherein Kondo discloses the thickness of the lid material is 5 to 50 microns (0053). Given that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Hamaguchi would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 17, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 14, wherein Kondo discloses adding inorganic filler to reduce thrust strength (0045). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of inorganic material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the strength is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of inorganic material, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of inorganic material in lid material to obtain the desired thrust strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 18, Kondo in view of Hamaguchi discloses a PTP body comprising the lid material for PTP of claim 14 (0001) and a bottom material having a cavity that accommodates contained matter (0002, 0025).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kondo in view of Hamaguchi fails to teach amended claim 1. However, rejection based on Kondo in view of Hamaguchi and evidenced by Kolycheck and rejection based on Kondo in view of Hamaguchi do teach the amended claim as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights