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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 15, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on April 15, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 14-17 are amended; claims 2, 3, and 9-13 are canceled; claims 21 is new; resulting in claims 1, 4-8, and 14-21 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-7 and 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: In light of the cancellation of claim 3 and the change in dependency of claims 14-17 from claim 3 to claim 1, the limitations presented in claims 14-17 are currently identical to claims 4-7. Applicant is advised that should claims 4-7 be found allowable, claims 14-17, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4-8, and 14-21 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 1, the limitation reciting “the thickness of the printing layer is 10 µm or less” is considered new matter that is not adequately supported by the original specification. Although the instant specification provides support for the upper bound of the claimed range of “10 µm or less”, the claimed range has no lower limit and thus encompasses embodiments that are not disclosed by the specification. See MPEP 2163.05(III).
On page 5 of the remarks filed April 15, 2026, the Applicant cites paragraphs [0060] and [0073] as providing support for the amendments to claim 1. Paragraph [0060] discloses that the thickness of the printing layer (2) is not particularly limited, but that the thickness is preferably 0.4 µm or more, more preferably 0.6 µm or more, and preferably 10 µm or less, more preferably 5 µm or less. In other words, the thickness of the printing layer (2) is preferably 0.4 µm to 10 µm, more preferably 0.6 µm to 5 µm [0060]. This disclosure therefore sets forth a broader and a narrower range for the thickness of the printing layer, but does not disclose the thickness being 10 µm or less without a lower bound. The relevant disclosure in paragraph [0073] is directed to the ratio of the thickness of the printing layer (2) and the thickness of the base material layer (4), but paragraph [0073] also does not provide support for the open-ended claimed range of 10 µm or less for the thickness of the printing layer.
In order to overcome this rejection, the Applicant could amend the aforementioned limitation to recite --the thickness of the printing layer is 0.4 µm or more and 10 µm or less”, as supported by the disclosure in paragraph [0060] discussed above.
Regarding claims 4-8 and 14-21, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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, 4-8, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (JP 2008-052047, cited on IDS, machine translation previously provided) in view of Amemiya et al. (JP 2014-114413, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Maeda et al. teaches a shrink label (heat-shrinkable film) comprising a plastic film (printing layer) which serves as a printing substrate on which printing is performed ([0001], [0027]-[0028]). In particular, Maeda et al. teaches that the shrink label can be attached to a PET or glass container and heated to shrink the printed shrink film onto the container ([0060]-[0061]). Maeda et al. teaches that the shrink label is environmentally friendly and addresses the issue of energy resources by replacing the petroleum-derived materials in conventional printing ink compositions with materials obtained from biomass [0001]. Maeda et al. further teaches that plastic films that can be usable as printing substrates include films made of one or a mixture of two or more selected from polyester-based resins, styrene-based resins, olefin-based resins, and other thermoplastic resins and laminate films thereof [0047]. In particular, polyester-based films using polyester-based resin such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polylactic acid, and laminate films having a polyester-based film as a surface layer are preferred [0047]. Therefore, in the case where the plastic film is a laminate film comprising a thermoplastic resin layer and a polyester-based film as a surface layer, according to the teachings of Maeda et al., the thermoplastic resin layer corresponds to the claimed base material layer which is laminated on a surface of the polyester-based film opposite the printing surface.
With respect to the preamble limitation reciting “for receiving an ink layer formed by biomass ink” and the limitation in lines 3-4 reciting “configured to allow the ink layer to be applied thereon”, it is noted that these limitations are interpreted as functional language relating to an intended use of the heat-shrinkable film and the printing surface. As set forth in MPEP 2111.03(II), to satisfy an intended use limitation, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use meets the claim. In the instant case, Maeda et al. teaches that the polyester-based film (printing layer) is formed as a surface layer of the plastic film, such that a surface of the polyester-based film corresponds to the claimed printing surface which is configured to allow an ink layer formed by biomass ink to be applied thereon. The prior art shrink film is capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitations.
Although Maeda et al. teaches that the plastic film may be a laminate film comprising a thermoplastic resin layer (base material layer) and a polyester-based film (printing layer) as a surface layer, and further teaches that the total thickness of the film is preferably about 15 to 80 µm ([0047]-[0048]), the reference does not specifically teach the thickness of the polyester-based film or the thickness of the thermoplastic resin layer within the laminate film. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select appropriate thicknesses for the constituent layers of the laminate film, such as a thickness of the polyester-based film being 10 µm or less and such that the claimed ratio of thicknesses is satisfied, in order to achieve the desired balance of properties of the laminate film, such as heat shrinkability, solvent resistance, flexibility or rigidity, etc. Moreover, it is noted that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and a product having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art, the claimed product was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the shrink film having the specified thickness of the printing layer and relative thicknesses of the printing layer and base material layer would not perform differently than the shrink film taught by Maeda et al. which is formed of the claimed constituent layers.
With respect to the claimed oxidation induction time, although Maeda et al. teaches that the plastic film may contain additives, such as antioxidants, as necessary ([0058]), the reference is silent to an oxidation induction time property of the plastic film.
However, in the analogous art of plastic films, Amemiya et al. teaches a resin composition and film which are excellent in oxidation resistance and discoloration resistance [0001]. Similar to Maeda et al., Amemiya et al. teaches that its resin composition may be used for a range of applications including packaging for foods and miscellaneous goods [0002]. The resin composition contains a thermoplastic resin, an antioxidant, and an antiblocking agent, wherein the thermoplastic resin can be selected from various types, including polyolefin resins, polyester resins such as polyethylene terephthalate, ABS resin, ABS resin, polystyrene, etc. ([0018]-[0019]).
Amemiya et al. teaches that the antioxidants are added to improve oxidation resistance, wherein an antioxidant (A) having a phosphite structure and a hindered phenol structure in the same molecule and a phosphorous-based antioxidant (B) are used in combination to achieve the desired discoloration resistance and oxidation resistance ([0032], [0037], [0053]). As shown in Examples 1-3 and Comparative Example 1, a film having an oxidation induction time (OIT) measured at 230°C in the range of 3.1 to 6.5 minutes can be achieved by adjusting the amounts of each of the antioxidants used in the resin composition ([0046], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shrink label of Maeda et al. by including an antioxidant or a combination of antioxidants in the plastic film so as to obtain an oxidation induction time (OIT) measured at 230°C of the plastic film within the claimed ranges, as suggested by Amemiya et al., in order to achieve the desired resistance to oxidation necessary for a particular application of the shrink label. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at an ester-based or styrene-based printing layer having an OIT value within the claimed range given the predictability with which the oxidation induction time of a resin film can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the amount of antioxidants included therein.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15, 16, 18, and 19, Maeda et al. in view of Amemiya et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 above. As explained above with respect to claim 1, the limitations directed to an ink layer formed by biomass ink are considered functional limitations relating to an intended use of the claimed heat-shrinkable film. Subsequent limitations directed to the ink layer therefore only further limit the structure of the claimed heat-shrinkable film to the extent that the heat-shrinkable film must be capable of receiving an ink layer as defined in the claims. Maeda et al. teaches that the plastic film (printing layer) has a printing surface which is configured to allow an ink layer formed by biomass ink to be printed thereon. The prior art shrink film is capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitations.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17, and 20, Maeda et al. in view of Amemiya et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 above, and Maeda et al. further teaches that the shrink label is obtained by applying the printing ink on the heat-shrinkable plastic film, which is the printing substrate [0060]. The shrink label can be used for shrink labels by tubing by means of solvent sealing or the like [0061]. The printing inks can include materials made from biomass ([0008]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 14, Maeda et al. in view of Amemiya et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As explained above with respect to claim 1, Maeda et al. is silent to an oxidation induction time of the plastic film, and Amemiya et al. is used to address the claimed oxidation induction time property. As explained above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shrink label of Maeda et al. by including an antioxidant or a combination of antioxidants in the plastic film so as to obtain an oxidation induction time (OIT) measured at 230°C of the plastic film within the claimed range, as suggested by Amemiya et al., in order to achieve the desired resistance to oxidation necessary for a particular application of the shrink label, in particular given that Amemiya et al. teaches the suitability of an oxidation induction time (OIT) measured at 230°C in the range of 3.1 to 6.5 minutes, which overlaps 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1, 4-6, 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruichi et al. (US 2009/0280341, newly cited) in view of Amemiya et al. (JP 2014-114413, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 14, Maruichi et al. teaches a shrink label comprising a heat-shrinkable multilayer resin film comprising an intermediate layer (base material layer) comprising a polystyrene resin and outer surface layers (printing layer) comprising a polyester type resin (ester-based resin) [0028]. The intermediate layer has a thickness of 22 µm to 37 µm, and the outer surface layer has a thickness of 3 µm to 10 µm ([0044]-[0045]), thus resulting in a ratio of the thickness of the outer surface layer to the thickness of the intermediate layer of 1:2.2 to 1:12.3 (i.e., 10:22 to 3:37), which overlaps 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the preamble limitation reciting “for receiving an ink layer formed by biomass ink” and the limitation in lines 3-4 reciting “configured to allow the ink layer to be applied thereon”, it is noted that these limitations are interpreted as functional language relating to an intended use of the heat-shrinkable film and the printing surface. As set forth in MPEP 2111.03(II), to satisfy an intended use limitation, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use meets the claim. In the instant case, Maruichi et al. teaches that the polyester type resin composing the outer surface layers is selected to prevent the occurrence of defective printing, such as intermittence of ink during printing, on the surface of the film ([0038]), such that the outer surface layer (printing layer) has a printing surface which is configured to allow an ink layer formed by biomass ink to be applied thereon. The prior art shrink film is capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitations.
With respect to the claimed oxidation induction time, although Maruichi et al. teaches that additives such as antioxidants, thermal stabilizers, and the like can be added to the shrink label as required, where generation of gel can be inhibited by adding a thermal stabilizer or an antioxidant ([0048]), the reference is silent to an oxidation induction time property of the outer surface layer of the resin film.
However, in the analogous art of plastic films, Amemiya et al. teaches a resin composition and film which are excellent in oxidation resistance and discoloration resistance [0001]. Similar to Maruichi et al., Amemiya et al. teaches that its resin composition may be used for a range of applications including packaging for foods and miscellaneous goods [0002]. The resin composition contains a thermoplastic resin, an antioxidant, and an antiblocking agent, wherein the thermoplastic resin can be selected from various types, including polyolefin resins, polyester resins such as polyethylene terephthalate, ABS resin, ABS resin, polystyrene, etc. ([0018]-[0019]).
Amemiya et al. teaches that the antioxidants are added to improve oxidation resistance, wherein an antioxidant (A) having a phosphite structure and a hindered phenol structure in the same molecule and a phosphorous-based antioxidant (B) are used in combination to achieve the desired discoloration resistance and oxidation resistance ([0032], [0037], [0053]). As shown in Examples 1-3 and Comparative Example 1, a film having an oxidation induction time (OIT) measured at 230°C in the range of 3.1 to 6.5 minutes can be achieved by adjusting the amounts of each of the antioxidants used in the resin composition ([0046], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shrink label of Maruichi et al. by including an antioxidant or a combination of antioxidants in the polyester outer surface layer so as to obtain an oxidation induction time (OIT) measured at 230°C within the ranges of claims 1, 4, and 14, as suggested by Amemiya et al., in order to achieve the desired resistance to oxidation necessary for a particular application of the shrink label. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at an ester-based printing layer having an OIT value within the claimed range given the predictability with which the oxidation induction time of a resin film can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the amount of antioxidants included therein.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15, 16, 18, and 19, Maruichi et al. in view of Amemiya et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 above. As explained above with respect to claim 1, the limitations directed to an ink layer formed by biomass ink are considered functional limitations relating to an intended use of the claimed heat-shrinkable film. Subsequent limitations directed to the ink layer therefore only further limit the structure of the claimed heat-shrinkable film to the extent that the heat-shrinkable film must be capable of receiving an ink layer as defined in the claims. Maruichi et al. teaches that the polyester type resin composing the outer surface layers is selected to prevent the occurrence of defective printing, such as intermittence of ink during printing, on the surface of the film ([0038]), such that the outer surface layer (printing layer) has a printing surface which is configured to allow an ink layer formed by biomass ink to be applied thereon. The prior art shrink film is capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitations.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and by the cancellation of claims 9-13 in the response filed April 15, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to the claim in the response filed April 15, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks filed April 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Maeda generally relates to heat-shrinkable films printed with biomass ink but does not teach the presently claimed two-layer structure, nor does it disclose the claimed thickness of the printing layer or the claimed thickness ratio between the printing layer and the base material layer.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, Maeda et al. does teach the claimed two-layer structure in which a base material including a thermoplastic resin is laminated on a surface of the printing layer which includes an ester-based resin or a styrene-based resin. In particular, Maeda et al. teaches that the plastic film used as a printing substrate can be a laminate film including thermoplastic resins, such as a laminate film having a polyester-based film as a surface layer [0047]. Although Maeda et al. does not expressly teach the claimed limitations directed to the thickness of the printing layer and the relative thicknesses of the printing layer and the base material layer, the reference does teach a total thickness of the plastic film ([0048]), wherein the relative dimensions of the constituent layers of the film do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art absent any evidence of criticality thereof.
In light of the amendments to claim 1, a new ground of rejection based on Maruichi et al. is also presented above to address the new limitations directed to the base material layer and the thicknesses of the claimed layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed invention of the instant application.
Independent claim 1 in combination with dependent claim 21 recites a heat-shrinkable film comprising a printing layer and a base material layer each comprising a thermoplastic resin, wherein the printing layer mainly includes an ester-based resin or a styrene-based resin. The printing layer has a printing surface configured to allow an ink layer to be applied thereon, and the base material layer is laminated on a surface of the printing layer opposite to the printing surface. The printing layer has a thickness of 10 µm or less, and the ratio of the thickness of the printing layer and the thickness of the base material layer is 1:3 to 1:10. The printing layer has an oxidation induction time T (min) which satisfies 0.15 ≤ T ≤ 0.41, where the oxidation induction time T is measured in air at 200°C or 230°C, or the shorter between the two.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is Maruichi et al. (US 2009/0280341) in view of Amemiya et al. (JP 2014-114413).
Maruichi et al. teaches a shrink label comprising a heat-shrinkable multilayer resin film comprising an intermediate layer (base material layer) comprising a polystyrene resin and outer surface layers (printing layer) comprising a polyester type resin [0028]. The intermediate layer has a thickness of 22 µm to 37 µm, and the outer surface layer has a thickness of 3 µm to 10 µm ([0044]-[0045]), thus resulting in a ratio of the thickness of the outer surface layer to the thickness of the intermediate layer which overlaps the claimed range. The outer surface layer of the shrink label taught by Maruichi et al. is capable of receiving an ink layer formed by biomass ink, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitations.
Although Maruichi et al. teaches that additives such as antioxidants, thermal stabilizers, and the like can be added to the shrink label as required, where generation of gel can be inhibited by adding a thermal stabilizer or an antioxidant ([0048]), Maruichi et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference is silent to an oxidation induction time of the outer surface layer (printing layer).
Amemiya et al. was previously relied upon to address the limitations directed to the oxidation induction time of the printing layer. Amemiya et al. teaches a resin composition and film which are excellent in oxidation resistance and discoloration resistance [0001]. The resin composition contains a thermoplastic resin, an antioxidant, and an antiblocking agent, wherein the thermoplastic resin can be selected from various types, including polyolefin resins, polyester resins such as polyethylene terephthalate, ABS resin, ABS resin, polystyrene, etc. ([0018]-[0019]). Amemiya et al. teaches that the antioxidants are added to improve oxidation resistance, wherein an antioxidant (A) having a phosphite structure and a hindered phenol structure in the same molecule and a phosphorous-based antioxidant (B) are used in combination to achieve the desired discoloration resistance and oxidation resistance ([0032], [0037], [0053]). As shown in Examples 1-3 and Comparative Example 1, a film having an oxidation induction time (OIT) measured at 230°C in the range of 3.1 to 6.5 minutes can be achieved by adjusting the amounts of each of the antioxidants used in the resin composition ([0046], Table 1). Although the prior art recognizes that oxidation induction time (OIT) relates to thermo-oxidative stability, the prior art does not teach OIT values in the range of 0.15 minutes to 0.41 minutes when measured at 200°C or 230°C. Rather, based on the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select higher values of OIT for the purpose of suppressing oxidative deterioration of the polymer film.
In particular, Willems et al. (US 2017/0145188, previously cited) teaches a linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) composition for use in films made by a blown film co-extrusion process such as a shrink film [0001]. Willems et al. teaches exemplary LLDPE compositions, LLDPE1 and LLDPE2, which exhibit an oxidative-induction time (OIT) at 210°C of 42 minutes and less than 3 minutes, respectively, where the high thermal stability of LLDPE1 indicates that it can be processed better at the high temperature required for the blown film co-extrusion process and with fewer deposits as compared to LLDPE2 [0250].
Kuwana et al. (WO 2021/172345, previously cited) teaches a stretched porous film roll made of a thermoplastic resin having an oxidation induction time of 50 minutes or more at a measurement temperature of 200°C, further stating that there is a correlation between the frequency of occurrence of defects, such as gelation and fish eyes, and the oxidation induction time of the stretched porous film ([0040]-[0041]).
Sato et al. (JP 2021-181524, previously cited) teaches a microporous polyolefin film having an oxidation induction time of 7 minutes or more at 200°C in order to suppress oxidative deterioration and deterioration of mechanical strength over time ([0006], [0023], [0060]).
Nakatate et al. (JP 2017-057238, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a microporous film comprising an olefin-based resin having an oxygen induction time at 200°C of 7 minutes or more, preferably 15 minutes or more, and more preferably 30 minutes or more, in order to suppress oxidative degradation of the microporous film and to prevent the decrease in mechanical strength of the film over time ([0017], [0103]).
Wasylenko et al. (US 2019/0194425, newly cited) teaches that oxidation induction time (OIT) is a measure of the stability of a polymer to thermal and oxidative stress and is normally a function of the primary (phenolic-containing) antioxidant, where higher OIT times are generally indicative of higher thermo-oxidative stability of the polymer, which is desirable [0112].
Paragraph [0058] of the as-filed specification discloses similar advantageous effects associated with increasing the oxidation induction time, where OIT values shorter than 0.15 mins are said to be likely to result in minute protrusions on the printing surface. However, the instant specification further indicates that the OIT is preferably 12 mins or shorter, preferably 5 mins or shorter, as the haze of the ink applied to the film increases after shrinkage, resulting in deterioration of transparency [0058]. As shown in Tables 1-2 of the instant specification, Examples 3 and 4 in which the oxidation induction time is greater than 5 mins exhibit worse haze when a clear ink is applied to the film as compared to Examples 5-8 in which the OIT property in claim 21 is satisfied. The prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed range of OIT values, and the prior art only provides a suggestion to increase the oxidation induction time without providing any motivation or reasoning for decreasing the value of the claimed property.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights