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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US 2016/0369401) in view of WO2007/086425 (herein referred to as “Mitsui” – using US 2010/0173168 as a translation) and Blemberg (US 5,108,844).
With regards to claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a film comprising a resin composition (p) comprising:
(a) An isotactic polypropylene (A) (herein understood to read on the claimed “ propylene-based polymer (A) “). Said component (A) comprises 30-85wt% of the composition (abstract). The propylene-based polymer has a content of structural units derived from propylene in a range of 80 to 100 mol% and a content of structural units derived from ethylene and/or an α-olefin excluding propylene in a range of 20 mol% or less, (0036-0038) provided that a total amount of the content of structural units derived from propylene and the content of structural units derived from ethylene and/or an α-olefin excluding propylene is 100 mol% (00037), and has a density as measured in accordance with ASTM D1505 of 0.89 g/cm³ or more(0041);
(b) a propylene based copolymer (B) (herein understood to read on the claimed “soft propylene-based polymer (B)”). Said component (B) is included in amounts of 70-15wt% (abstract). The soft propylene-based polymer has a content of structural units derived from propylene in a range of 50 to 95 mol% and a content of structural units derived from ethylene and/or an α-olefin excluding propylene in a range of 5 to 50 mol%, provided that a total amount of the content of structural units derived from propylene and the content of structural units derived from an α-olefin excluding ethylene and/or propylene is 100 mol% (0048+), and has a density as measured in accordance with ASTM D1505 of less than 0.89 g/cm³ (0064);
(c) a part of propylene based copolymer (B) or isotactic polypropylene (A) is graft modified with a graft monomer (said polymer herein is understood to read on the claimed “propylene-based polymer (C) graft-modified with an ethylenically unsaturated”) monomer (abstract). The propylene-based polymer (C) graft-modified with an ethylenically unsaturated monomer has a content of structural units derived from propylene of 50 to 100 mol% and a content of structural units derived from ethylene and/or an α-olefin excluding propylene of 50 mol% or less, provided that a total amount of the content of structural units derived from ethylene and the content of structural units derived from ethylene and/or an α-olefin excluding propylene is 100 mol% (said limitation is met for the reasons noted above with regards to components (a) and (b) as Koybayashi teaches the polymer grafted comprises polymer (A) and/or (b) (0070-0071).
Kobayashi teaches the total amounts of (a), (b), and (c), in the composition is 100% by weight (0068).With regards to claimed polyethylene (D), the claim states D may be present in 0 wt% amounts.
Kobayashi does not teach that the composition may further comprise the claimed ethylene/α-olefin random copolymer (E) in a range of 1 to 30% by weight. However, Mitsui teaches a propylene composition comprising grafting 0.001-5 parts by weight of an unsaturated carboxylic acid and/or a derivative thereof onto 100 parts by weight of a composition comprising 5-95 parts by weight of (A) isotactic polypropylene, 95-5 parts by weight of (B) a propylene/ethylene random copolymer, and 0-40 parts by weight of (C) an ethylene/propylene random copolymer (abstract). The ethylene/propylene random copolymer (herein understood to read on the claimed “ethylene/a-olefin random copolymer (E)”) comprises a content of structural units derived from ethylene is in a range of 60 to 90 mol%
and a content of structural units derived from propylene is in a range of 10 to 40 mol%, with a total amount of the content of structural units derived from ethylene and the content of structural units derived from an α-olefin is 100 mol% (0023-0024), The examiner notes an ethylene/propylene random copolymer with 10-40% propylene will inherently have a density as measured in accordance with ASTM D1505 is less than 0.90 g/cm³ (As the density of a ethylene/propylene copolymer is known to be decrease as the amount of copolymer increases). Mitsui teaches the ethylene/propylene copolymer may be present in amounts of 0-40parts by weight of the composition (0025) in order to increase the adhesiveness of the composition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the ethylene/propylene random copolymer taught in Mitsui to the propylene composition disclosed in Kobayashi in amounts of 1-40pbw. The motivation for doing would have been to optimize the adhesiveness of the composition.
Kobayashi further teaches the propylene composition may be applied to a LDPE substrate (0022). Said reference does not teach the propylene composition may further comprise the claimed polyethylene (D) in a range of 1 to 20% by weight. However, Blemberg teaches adhesion between layer may be improved by blending 10-30wt% of the resin comprising a first adjacent layer into a second adjacent layer (col 2, lines 13+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to blend 10-30wt% of LDPE into the propylene composition disclosed by Kobayashi in view of Mitsui. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the adhesion between the propylene composition layer and the LDPE substrate.
With regards to claim 2, Kobayashi taches at least part of the propylene-based polymer (C) is graft-modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid or a derivative thereof (Claim 6).
With regards to claim 3, Mitsui teaches the ethylene/α- olefin random copolymer (E) is an ethylene/propylene copolymer.
With regards to claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the soft propylene-based polymer (B) is a propylene/ethylene copolymer (abstract).
With regards to claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the propylene-based polymer (C) graft-modified with an ethylenically unsaturated monomer, has structural units derived from the ethylenically unsaturated monomer in an amount of 0.01 to 5.0% by mass (0071).
With regards to claim 6, Kobayashi teaches the propylene-based polymer (C) graft-modified with an ethylenically unsaturated monomer, is graft-modified with maleic anhydride (0070).
With regards to claim 8, Kobayashi teaches the composition optionally contains tackifier. Thus, said reference is implicitly understood to also teach compositions “free of a tackifier” since said component is optionally present (0086).
With regards to claim 9, Kobayashi teaches the resin composition according to claim any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the resin composition is for adhesives (0069).
With regards to claim 10, Kobayashi teaches the resin composition may be used as part of a multilayer body (abstract).
With regards to claim 11, Kobayashi teaches the resin composition is laminated on at least one surface of a polyolefin layer (abstract) herein understood to read on the claimed “substrate layer.”
With regards to claim 12, Kobayashi teaches the substrate layer may have an has an inorganic compound vapor deposition layer or a metal layer on the surface of the substrate layer on which the resin composition is laminated (abstract; 0016).
With regards to claim 13, Kobayashi teaches the inorganic compound layer may be aluminum vapor deposition layer (0016).
With regards to claim 14, Kobayashi teaches the inorganic compound layer may be aluminum vapor deposition layer (0016).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With regards to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2016/0369401), in view of Mitsui (WO2007/086425, using US 2010/0173168 as an English-language equivalent), applicant persuasively argues said rejection is overcome by the incorporation of the limitations of claim 7 into claim 1.
With regards to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Mitsui, and Blemberg (US 5,108,844), Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. Applicant argues claim 1 now recites, in part, "a polyethylene (D) in a range of 1 to 20% by weight." Which the Office acknowledges neither Kobayashi nor Mitsui, either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests. Rather, the Office relies upon the reaching of Blemberg for disclosing this feature. Applicant argues , however, the polyethylene (D) content recited in amended claim 1 results in the composition having an excellent balance of processability and adhesiveness, citing paragraph [0059] of the present specification. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as said argument is not commensurate in scope with the pending claims and does not compare the claimed invention to the closest prior art.
Applicant further points to Table 1 and argues only Examples 3-8 (which each include the polyethylene (D)) do not exhibit any edge oscillation. Applicant argues a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that edge oscillation of the melted film edge at the time of forming multilayer body negatively impacts processability and that the cited references are silent with respect to edge oscillation during co-extrusion molding and so cannot be understood as teaching or suggesting how to prevent edge oscillation of a resin composition for an adhesive layer, let alone the appropriate content of a polyethylene polymer (D) for achieving the same. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. To the extent applicant is arguing unexpected results, said argument is not persuasive as said argument is not commensurate in scope with the showing Table 1. For example, the claims are drawn to a composition, and do not require a film processed as in the examples. Furthermore, the comparative examples do not exhibit edge oscillation; thus, the showing does not seem to be unexpected in view of said comparative examples.
Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims remain rejected for reasons set forth herein.
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 KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights