DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2023, 11/15/2024 and 12/15/2025 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4, line 5 recites “an a-olefin monomer-derived component”, which should be “a butene-1 monomer-derived component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14, line 5 recites “an a-olefin monomer-derived component”, which should be “a butene-1 monomer-derived component”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-11 and 18-20 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.
Claims 8-11 recite “polypropylene-based laminated film according to claim 1”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that claim 1 is drawn to a biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film and not a propylene-based laminate film. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claims 18-20 recite “polypropylene-based laminated film according to claim 1”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that claim 1 is drawn to a biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film and not a propylene-based laminate film. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Toyama et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Toyama et al. disclose a packaging film 100 comprising a layer 101 (base layer) comprising a propylene polymer and a polyethylene, and a layer 103 (surface layer) comprising propylene polymer provided on the layer 101 (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraph 0050). The packaging film is produced by co-extrusion of the layer 101 (base layer) and the layer 103 (surface layer), followed by biaxial stretching (see paragraphs 0049, 0070). Accordingly, the packaging film reads on a biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film. The haze of the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is less than 2.5% (see paragraph 0024).
The layer 101 (base layer) comprises the propylene polymer and the polyethylene, wherein a content of the polyethylene is 0.5 to 25 wt% (see paragraphs 0015, 0032). Accordingly, the layer 101 (base layer) is formed of a polypropylene-based resin composition. The propylene polymer can be a homopolypropylene (see paragraph 0034). Given that the propylene polymer can be the homopolypropylene, amount of a-olefin monomer is 0 mol%. Accordingly, a ratio of a-olefin monomer to total of propylene monomer and a-olefin monomer is 0 mol%. The propylene polymer has melting point of 150 to 168 °C as measured by DSC (see paragraphs 0036 and 0078). The propylene polymer has a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 20 g/10 min (see paragraph 0037), which overlaps with melt flow rate of polypropylene utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0029 of present specification). The polyethylene can be HDPE, MDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, etc. (see paragraph 0038), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0031 of present specification).
In light of the overlap between the claimed biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film and that disclosed by Toyama et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film that is both disclosed by Toyama et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Toyama et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including the propylene polymer and the polyethylene is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with the amount of polyethylene, melting point of the propylene polymer and melt flow rate of the propylene polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, an entirety of the propylene-based resin composition constituting the layer 101 (base layer) necessarily inherently has a melt flow rate as presently claimed.
Regarding claims 8-11, Toyama et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including the propylene polymer and the polyethylene is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with the amount of polyethylene, melting point of the propylene polymer and melt flow rate of the propylene polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film has properties as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Toyama et al. disclose the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is used as a film constituting a food package (see paragraph 0071). Accordingly, Toyama et al. disclose a packaging comprising the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kneale (WO 98/44030 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Toyama et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Further, Toyama et al. disclose the layer 103 (surface layer) can comprise antifogging agent (see paragraph 0055).
Toyama et al. do not disclose amount of antifogging agent.
Kneale discloses a packaging film resistant to fogging upon exposure to a humid atmosphere, comprising a polyolefin material such as polypropylene polymer and an antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% (see page 14, claims 1, 3, 6 and 7).
In light of motivation for using antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% blended with propylene polymer disclosed by Kneale as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% blended with propylene polymer of layer 103 (surface layer) in Toyama et al. in order to provide resistance to fogging upon exposure to a humid atmosphere, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 6,583,254 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Toyama et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. The layer 103 (surface layer) comprises propylene-a-olefin random copolymer, wherein a-olefin is 1-butene (see paragraphs 0050, 0051). Accordingly, the layer 103 (surface layer) comprises propylene-1-butene random copolymer.
The thickness of the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is 5 to 100 microns (see paragraph 0026). The thickness of layer 103 (surface layer) is 0.1 to 10 microns (see paragraph 0047). Therefore, a ratio of thickness of the surface layer to a thickness of all layers of biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film (i.e. total thickness of biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is 2 to 10% (2 = 0.1/5 x 100 and 10 = 10/100 x 100).
While Toyama et al. disclose propylene-1-butene random copolymer, Toyama et al. do not disclose a ratio of a butene-1-monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Tsuji et al. disclose polypropylene-based random copolymer obtained by copolymerization of propylene monomer and a-olefin monomer such as 1-butene (see col. 2, lines 40-45). The content of a-olefin unit is 2.6 to 10 mol% from the standpoint of balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability (see col. 3, lines 6-12). That is, the amount of 1-butene is 2.6 to 10 mol%.
In light of motivation for using propylene-1-butene random copolymer comprising 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene disclosed by Tsuji et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene monomer in propylene-1-butene random copolymer of Toyama et al. in order to provide balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The amount of 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene reads on a ratio of butene-1 monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takebe et al. (JP 2003192851 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Takebe et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 6, Toyama et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Further, Toyama et al. disclose the layer 101 (base layer) can comprise a combination of two or more propylene polymers, wherein the polypropylene polymer is homopolypropylene (see paragraph 0034). While Toyoma et al. disclose the base layer comprises combination of two homopolypropylene polymers, Toyoma et al. do not disclose plurality of polypropylene homopolymers as presently claimed.
Takebe et al. disclose a polypropylene resin having excellent heat resistance, heat shrinkage percentage and rigidity, wherein the polypropylene is suitable for a biaxially oriented film (see Abstract). The polypropylene resin comprises a blend of highly stereospecific polypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific polypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% (see claim 2 and paragraph 0004). The polypropylene resin has a melting point of 160 C or higher (see claim 1 and paragraph 0004). The polypropylene (B) and the polypropylene (A) can be homopolypropylene (see paragraphs 0031 and 0033).
In light of motivation for using a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% disclosed by Takebe et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% in the layer 101 (base layer) of Toyama et al. in order to provide excellent heat resistance, heat shrinkage percentage and rigidity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) in view of Takebe et al. (JP 2003192851 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Toyama et al. and Takebe et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 2, 16 and 17, Toyama et al. disclose a packaging film 100 comprising a layer 101 (base layer) comprising a propylene polymer and a polyethylene, and a layer 103 (surface layer) comprising propylene polymer provided on the layer 101 (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraph 0050). The packaging film is produced by co-extrusion of the layer 101 (base layer) and the layer 103 (surface layer), followed by biaxial stretching (see paragraphs 0049, 0070). Accordingly, the packaging film reads on a biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film. The haze of the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is less than 2.5% (see paragraph 0024).
The layer 101 (base layer) comprises the propylene polymer and the polyethylene, wherein a content of the polyethylene is 0.5 to 25 wt% (see paragraphs 0015, 0032). Accordingly, the layer 101 (base layer) is formed of a polypropylene-based resin composition. The propylene polymer can be a homopolypropylene (see paragraph 0034). Given that the propylene polymer can be the homopolypropylene, amount of a-olefin monomer is 0 mol%. Accordingly, a ratio of a-olefin monomer to total of propylene monomer and a-olefin monomer is 0 mol%. The propylene polymer has melting point of 150 to 168 °C as measured by DSC (see paragraphs 0036 and 0078). (see paragraph 0036). The propylene polymer has a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 20 g/10 min (see paragraph 0037), which overlaps with melt flow rate of polypropylene utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0029 of present specification). The polyethylene can be HDPE, MDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, etc. (see paragraph 0038), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0031 of present specification).
Further, Toyama et al. disclose the layer 101 (base layer) can comprise a combination of two or more propylene polymers, wherein the polypropylene polymer is homopolypropylene (see paragraph 0034). While Toyoma et al. disclose the base layer comprises combination of two homopolypropylene polymers, Toyoma et al. do not disclose plurality of polypropylene homopolymers as presently claimed.
Takebe et al. disclose a polypropylene resin having excellent heat resistance, heat shrinkage percentage and rigidity, wherein the polypropylene is suitable for a biaxially oriented film (see Abstract). The polypropylene resin comprises a blend of highly stereospecific polypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific polypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% (see claim 2 and paragraph 0004). The polypropylene resin has a melting point of 160 C or higher (see claim 1 and paragraph 0004). The polypropylene (B) and the polypropylene (A) can be homopolypropylene (see paragraphs 0031 and 0033).
In light of motivation for using a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% disclosed by Takebe et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% in the layer 101 (base layer) of Toyama et al. in order to provide excellent heat resistance, heat shrinkage percentage and rigidity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. disclose the polypropylene resin constituting the layer 101 (base layer) comprising a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55%. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including homopolypropylene (B) and homopolypropylene (A) is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with mesopentad fractions overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the polypropylene resin constituting layer 101 (base layer) has a mesopentad fraction as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including the propylene polymer and the polyethylene is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with the amount of polyethylene, melting point of the propylene polymer, melt flow rate of the propylene polymer and mesopentad fraction of propylene polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, an entirety of the propylene-based resin composition constituting the layer 101 (base layer) necessarily inherently has a melt flow rate as presently claimed.
Regarding claims 18-20, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including the propylene polymer and the polyethylene is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with the amount of polyethylene, melting point of the propylene polymer, melt flow rate of the propylene polymer and mesopentad fraction of the propylene polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film has properties as presently claimed.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) in view of Takebe et al. (JP 2003192851 A) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Kneale (WO 98/44030 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Further, Toyama et al. disclose the layer 103 (surface layer) can comprise antifogging agent (see paragraph 0055).
Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. do not disclose amount of antifogging agent.
Kneale discloses a packaging film resistant to fogging upon exposure to a humid atmosphere, comprising a polyolefin material such as polypropylene polymer and an antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% (see page 14, claims 1, 3, 6 and 7).
In light of motivation for using antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% blended with propylene polymer disclosed by Kneale as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% blended with propylene polymer of layer 103 (surface layer) in Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. order to provide resistance to fogging upon exposure to a humid atmosphere, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) in view of Takebe et al. (JP 2003192851 A) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 6,583,254 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. The layer 103 (surface layer) comprises propylene-a-olefin random copolymer, wherein a-olefin is 1-butene (see paragraphs 0050, 0051). Accordingly, the layer 103 (surface layer) comprises propylene-1-butene random copolymer.
The thickness of the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is 5 to 100 microns (see paragraph 0026). The thickness of layer 103 (surface layer) is 0.1 to 10 microns (see paragraph 0047). Therefore, a ratio of thickness of the surface layer to a thickness of all layers of biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film (i.e. total thickness of biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is 2 to 10% (2 = 0.1/5 x 100 and 10 = 10/100 x 100).
While Toyama et al. disclose propylene-1-butene random copolymer, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. do not disclose a ratio of a butene-1-monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Tsuji et al. disclose polypropylene-based random copolymer obtained by copolymerization of propylene monomer and a-olefin monomer such as 1-butene (see col. 2, lines 40-45). The content of a-olefin unit is 2.6 to 10 mol% from the standpoint of balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability (see col. 3, lines 6-12). That is, the amount of 1-butene is 2.6 to 10 mol%.
In light of motivation for using propylene-1-butene random copolymer comprising 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene disclosed by Tsuji et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene monomer in propylene-1-butene random copolymer of Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. in order to provide balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The amount of 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene reads on a ratio of butene-1 monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin (EP 2487211 A2) discloses a resin composition comprising a polypropylene resin (see Abstract and paragraph 0016). A relatively high mesopentad fraction means high crystallinity leading to an increase in adhesion to a substrate but decrease in flowability and a low mesopentad fraction means low crystallinity leading to generation of tagging and an increase in flowability but a decrease in adhesion (see paragraph 0017). A high crystalline resin has a mesopentad of 90% or more (see paragraph 0018). Accordingly, a low crystalline resin has a mesopentad of below 90%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787