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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites the MFR is measured using ISO 1122. This ISO method is not recited in the initially filed Application and is new matter, which fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 13-14 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 12.
Claims 12-14 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.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites the MFR is measured using ISO 1122. ISO 1122 is not directed to MFR measurement, but vocabulary and definitions for gears. Thus, it is uncertain how MFR is measured according to ISO 1122.
For purposes of examination, ISO 1122 is interpreted to ISO 1133 as reflected in the Specification.
Claims 13-14 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo (JP 2001-071413 A) in view of Yasui (JP 2005-263997 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Otomo teaches a packaging multilayer laminate (Paragraph 0001) comprising a thermoplastic polymer backing layer, a metal upper layer and a film of a bonding layer between the backing layer and upper layer (Paragraph 0022-0029).
Otomo teaches the bonding layer comprises a polyolefin blend. (Paragraph 0008). Otomo teaches the polyolefin blend comprises (A) 10 to 90 wt% of a propylene homopolymer (Paragraph 0016), (B) 10 to 90 wt% of a compatibilizer, maleic-anhydride grafted polypropylene, (Paragraph 0009), and (C) 1 to 10 parts by weight of an amino resin relative to 100 parts by wight of (A) and (B) (Paragraph 0008, 0018-0019). These weight ranges taught by Otomo overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2114.05).
Otomo does not specifically teach the propylene has the claimed MFR.
Yasui teaches a propylene-based adhesive blend for use in laminates (Paragraph 0001). Yasui teaches the adhesive blend comprises polypropylene homopolymer, maleic-grafted propylene and other additives (Paragraph 0005, 0022, 0034). Yasui teaches the polypropylene homopolymer should have a MFR, measured at 230 degrees C under 2.16 kg load, should be 0.01 to 400 g/10 min or 0.1 to 90 g/10 min. (Paragraph 0012). While Yasui measures the MFR through ASTM D1238 instead of ISO 1133, ASTM recognizes both measurements system are technically equivalent and ISO 1133 range taught Yasui would approximately the same and overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2114.05). Yasui teaches this MFR range ensures the polypropylene has sufficient fluidity for further processing and ensures the resulting adhesive has good, elasticity, flexibility and impact resistance. (Paragraph 0012). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select a propylene homopolymer with the claimed range to ensure the bonding layer of Otomo can be easily processed and have good properties of elasticity, flexibility and impact resistance.
Regarding Claim 13, Otomo teaches the thermoplastic polymer can be polyester, polypropylene, polyethylene, PET, and PVC (Paragraph 0022-0029)
Regarding Claim 14, Otomo teaches the upper layer can be aluminum. (Paragraph 0022)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
A new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
