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, 3-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2020/0165045) in view of Horinouchi et al. (JP 2019-151782).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses a lid material for PTP (abstract) comprising lid material film 4A comprises thermoplastic material such as polypropylene resin (0033-0036) but does not disclose the same polypropylene and properties as claimed in present claim and specification.
Horinouchi discloses thermoplastic resin composition for packing materials comprising polypropylene resin such as PLB00A to obtain excellent in balance between mechanical strength and ductility (page 3, example 1). Given that Horinouchi discloses the same polypropylene resin as discloses in present specification, it is clear that the polypropylene resin of Horinouchi would have the same properties as claimed in present claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific polypropylene resin of Horinouchi in the lid material of Kondo to obtain excellent in balance between mechanical strength and ductility.
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 Horinouchi to a certain degree of orientation to obtain desired tensile strength. Given that Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses the same lid material for PTP as recited in present claim, it is clear that the lid material of Kondo in view of Horinouchi would intrinsically possess the same properties as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein given that Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 4, Kondo in view of Horinouchi 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 Horinouchi discloses the same material as claimed in present specification, it is clear that the lid of Kondo in view of Horinouchi would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claim 5, Kondo in view of Horinouchi 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 6, Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses a layer containing the polypropylene resin and one layer containing polyethylene (0061, 0134).
Regarding claim 7, Kondo in view of Horinouchi 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 claim 13, Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses a layer containing the polypropylene resin as explained in claim 1 above, the only resin that has the claimed molecular weight, (0061, 0134).
Regarding claim 14, Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses the lid material for PTP of claim 1, wherein Kondo in view of Horinouchi discloses a layer containing the polypropylene resin as explained in claim 1 above and one layer containing polyethylene (0061, 0134).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points to example 1 and comparative example 4 in specification and argues that example 1 has superior penetrability and film odor. However, it is noted that both the example 1 and comparative example 4 have MD degree of orientation of 0.04 which is outside of the claimed range. Further, there is no side by side comparison between example 1 and comparative example 4 given that example 1 discloses TPO based second layer and PP based bottom layer while comparative example 4 discloses PE based second layer and PP/PE based bottom layer. Further, both examples disclose different enthalpy of crystal fusion, crystallinity and draw temperature. Therefore, the data is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Horinouchi does not disclose the specific weight average molecular weight. However, it is noted that Horinouchi discloses the same polypropylene as discloses in the present specification, i.e. PLB00A. Applicant discloses in their own specification in 0069 that PLB00A has a weight average molecular weight of 2.2 X 105.
Applicant points that MD degree of orientation of -0.035 to 0.035 achieves excellent outward penetrability and compares example 4 with example 1 and argues that example 4 has superior outward penetrability. However, it is noted that the data is not persuasive given that there is no side by side comparison between example 1 and example 4. Both examples disclose different MD degree of orientation, enthalpy of crystal fusion, crystallinity and draw temperature.
Regarding claim 13, applicant argues that Horinouchi does not provide any suggestion or motivation to adopt the claimed layer containing, as a resin, only the polypropylene resin having the claimed weight average molecular weight. However, it is noted that Kondo in view of Horinouchi does disclose claim 13 as explained above. Further, Horinouchi does disclose polypropylene resin such as PLB00A which is the only resin that has a weight average molecular weight of 2.2 X 105.
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that Horinouchi discloses PLB00A which has a melt flow rate outside the claimed range. However, it is noted that a polypropylene resin having a melt flow rate is an optional limitation in claim 14.
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 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