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. This application is a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/013216 filed 3/22/2022 . Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) by Application No. 2021-053716 filed 3/26/2021 , which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claims 1-4 are pending. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 -4 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 the polyolefin resin has a heat of fusion of 10 J/g or less. However, it would not be clear if modified polyolefin resin has a heat of fusion of 10 J/g or less, or the polyolefin prior to modification has a heat of fusion of 10 J/g or less. Claims 2-4 are subsumed by this rejection because of their dependence. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ookura et al ( US 2013/0264741 ) . Regarding claim 1 : Ookura is directed to a is directed to an adhesive composition comprising a modified polyolefin resin, wherein the modified polyolefin resin is obtained by modifying a polyolefin resin with an unsaturated carboxylic acid, e.g. maleic anhydride ([0047]) and a radically reactive aromatic compound, e.g. benzyl peroxide ([0055]). The polyolefin resin has a heat of fusion of 15 J/g or less ([0059]) measured from the amount of heat calculated from the area between the peak and the baseline ([0093]) (equivalent to “ measured in conformity with JIS K7122 ” ). Wherein a modified content of the unsaturated carboxylic acid with respect to 100 parts of the polyolefin is preferably 0.1-20 %by weight ([0048]) and Wherein a modified content of the radically reactive aromatic compound, with respect to 100 parts of the modified polyolefin resin is 0.01 to 10 parts by weight ([0056]) (equivalent to 0.01-10% by mass). Example 3 comprises modified polypropylene with 0.1 parts of a radically reactive aromatic compound of 1,3-di(t-butylperoxylsopropyl)benzene and 10 parts by weight of an unsaturated carboxylic acid of maleic anhydride resulting in a modified polypropylene with a heat of fusion of 6 J/g ([0101]). Regarding claim 2 : A modified content of the radically reactive aromatic compound, with respect to 100 parts of the modified polyolefin resin is 0.01 to 10 parts by weight ([0056]) (equivalent to 0.01-10% by mass). Regarding claim 3 : A modified content of the unsaturated carboxylic acid with respect to 100 parts of the polyolefin is preferably 0.1-20 %by weight ([0048]). 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ookura in view of Ryohei et al. ( WO 2015166939 ). A machine translation of WO 2015166939 is provided with this office action. Regarding claim 4 : Ookura mentions the compositions can be made into sheets, although doesn’t mention a laminate. Rhohei is directed to a laminate comprising a substrate of a polyolefin resin layer, an adhesive layer, and a polar resin layer, in this order (equivalent to in sequence one side in a thickness direction). The adhesive resin is an unsaturated acid modified polyolefin. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used the composition of Ookura for use as a laminate as taught in Rhohei since use of the modified polyolefin taught in both Ryohei results in a laminate having excellent adhesive strength between a polyolefin resin and a polar resin (p. 1 Rhohei). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the composition of Ookura for use as a laminate as taught in Rhohei to arrive at claim 4 of the present invention. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamaru et al. (US 2005/0171295). Regarding claim 1 : Kanamaru is directed to an adhesive composition comprising a modified polyolefin of polypropylene, Wherein the modified polyolefin resin is obtained by modifying a polyolefin resin with an unsaturated carboxylic acid ([0167]-[0169] and a radically reactive aromatic compound, e.g. dibenzoyl peroxide ([0173]). Wherein a modified content of the unsaturated carboxylic acid with respect to 100 parts of the polyolefin is preferably 0.1-30 % by weight ([01 86 ]) and Wherein a modified content of the radically reactive aromatic compound, with respect to 100 parts of the modified polyolefin resin is 0.01 to 10 parts by weight ([0177]) (equivalent to 0.01-10% by mass). Example 4 comprising 2 kg propylene with 40 g maleic anhydride, and 8 g of a radically reactive aromatic compound of α , α '-bis(t-butylperoxy)diisopropylbenzene , resulting in an acid modified content of 0.8% by weight (Table 2). A heat of fusion is not mentioned. Kanamaru doesn't specifically recite a heat of fusion. However, the adhesive composition produced in Kanamaru is substantially identical to the adhesive composition produced in the instant invention. Case law holds that the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Hence, Kanamaru suggests an adhesive having a heat of fusion within the scope of the claims. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. Regarding claim 2 : A modified content of the radically reactive aromatic compound, with respect to 100 parts of the modified polyolefin resin is 0.01 to 10 parts by weight ([0177]) (equivalent to 0.01-10% by mass). Regarding claim 3 : Wherein a modified content of the unsaturated carboxylic acid with respect to 100 parts of the polyolefin is preferably 0.1-30 %by weight ([0186]). Example 4 comprising 2 kg propylene with 40 g maleic anhydride, and 8 g of a radically reactive aromatic compound of α , α '-bis(t-butylperoxy)diisopropylbenzene , resulting in an acid modified content of 0.8% by weight (Table 2). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamaru as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryohei et al. ( WO 2015166939 ). Regarding claim 4 : Kanamaru mentions the compositions can be made into sheets, although doesn’t mention a laminate. Rhohei is directed to a laminate comprising a substrate of a polyolefin resin layer, an adhesive layer, and a polar resin layer, in this order (equivalent to in sequence one side in a thickness direction). The adhesive resin is an unsaturated acid modified polyolefin. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used the composition of Kanamaru for use as a laminate as taught in Rhohei since use of the modified polyolefin taught in both Rhohei results in a laminate having excellent adhesive strength between a polyolefin resin and a polar resin (p. 1 Rhohei). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the composition of Kanamaru for use as a laminate as taught in Rhohei to arrive at claim 4 of the present invention. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3514 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lanee Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7026 . 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. /ROBERT T BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764