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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/5/2025 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 1, 3-4 and 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.
As amended, claim 1 recites “a resin composition haze measured by the following method is less than 0.5%:
(Method)
A film having a size of 120 mm x 75 mm and formed from the composition is obtained; next, the film thus obtained is interposed between glass plates each having a size of 120 mm x 75 mm x 3.2 mm, a total light transmittance of 90.4% and a glass plate haze of 0.2%, and is subjected to thermal crimping for 60 minutes at 130oC and 1atm in a vacuum laminator to obtain a laminate glass; and next, a haze of the laminated glass thus obtained is measure according to JIS K7136: 2000 using a haze meter as the resin composition haze” in lines 9-20.
Applicant has no support for the property/characteristic of a resin composition haze to be the same as the property/characteristic of a laminated glass or crosslinked film at 130oC between glass plates.
Applicant points to paragraph [0067] of the specification for the support. However, as explicitly described in paragraph [0067], the haze characteristic is of the laminated glass or the film obtained from the resin interposed between glass plates. The haze is not of the resin composition.
Claims 3-4 and 14 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
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 1, 3-4 and 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. As amended, claim 1 includes multiple inventions: a resin composition, a film obtained from the composition, a method of measuring melt flow rate, a method of measuring a haze of a film obtained from the resin composition between glass plate, a method of obtaining crosslinking rate. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claims 3-4 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
For the purpose of this office action, a film obtained from the composition, a method of measuring melt flow rate, a method of measuring melt flow rate, a method of measuring haze of a film obtained from the resin composition, and a method of obtaining crosslinking rate are construed as the intended used of the resin composition. In addition, the melt flow rate of copolymer (A) is construed as the property/characteristic of the copolymer (A), the haze and the crosslinking rate are construed as the characteristic/properties of the resin composition.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 2011/0319517, Cite No. 3 of U.S. Patent Application Publications in IDS 1/11/2024) or, in the alternative, in view of Han et al. (KR 101699183, see machine translation) and Oya et al. (US 2012/0302676).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Inoue discloses resin composition (or sealing film composition) comprising ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and a crosslinker ([0015]) and further comprising a light stabilizer (or photostabilizer, [0059]). Inoue teaches the vinyl acetate (or the unsaturated ester) preferably 5-50% by weight, specially 10-40% by weight based on 100 parts by weight of ethylene vinyl acetate ([0042]), the crosslinker is an organic peroxide ([0044]) such as t-butylperoxy-2-ethylhexyl carbonate (see tert-butylperoxy-2-ethylhexyl monocarbonate in [0046]), and the light stabilizer (or photostabilizer) is preferably a hindered amine based light stabilizer in an amount of 0.01 to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of EVA (or ethylene vinyl acetate, see [0061]). As such, when a total amount of the crosslinking agent (or crosslinker) is designated as 100% by mass, a content of t-butylperoxy-2-ethylhexyl carbonate is 100% by mass. 100% by mass is in the claimed range of 80% by mass or more and 100% by mass or less.
Inoue discloses overlapping ranges of the content of vinyl acetate and hindered amine-based light stabilizer. The reference does not teach the exact claimed range of 33% by mass or more and 48% by mass or less for the unsaturated ester of vinyl acetate, and the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 parts based on 100 parts by mass of the ethylene-unsaturated ester copolymer (or EVA).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portions 33-48% by mass/weight or 33-40% by mass/weight for the content of vinyl acetate (or unsaturated ester) and 0.1 to 5 parts by mass for the hindered amine-based light stabilizer in the ranges of 5-50% by weight and 10-40% by weight for vinyl acetate and 0.01 to 5 parts by weight for the hindered amine-based light stabilizer disclosed by Inoue, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Recitations of how to measure the flow rate “according to JIS K7210: 1999 under the conditions of 190oC and 2,160g load” in lines 7-8, “a haze of the resin composition as measured by the following method: (Method) a film having a size of 120mm x 75mm and formed from the composition is obtained; next, the film thus obtained is interposed between glass plates each having a size of 120mm x 75mm x 3.2mm, and is subjected to thermal crimping for 60 minutes at 130oC and 1atm in a vacuum laminator to obtain a laminated glass; and next, the haze of the laminated glass thus obtained is measured according to JIS K7136:2000 using a haze meter” in lines 9-19, “a crosslinking rate of the resin composition represented by (T50-T10)/(Y-X) is more than 0.01dN.m/min and 0.25dN.m/min or less, where T50 = (T100-Tmin) x 0.5 +Tmin, T100 is a torque value in [dN.m] 60 minutes after a start of a measurement of a torque of the resin composition during a crosslinking reaction over time at 130oC using a moving die rheometer from a pre-crosslinked state to produce the resin composition, Tmin is a minimum torque value in [dN.m] during the measurement, T10 = (T100=Tmin x 0.1 +Tmin, a time to reach T10 from the start of measurement is defined as X [min], and a time to reach T50 from the start of measurement is defined as Y[min]” in lines are directed toward intended uses of the resin composition. Said recitations do not differentiate resin composition claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The resin composition of modified Inoue is fully capable of being subjected to the methods as claimed.
Modified Inoue discloses the same composition of ethylene-unsaturated ester copolymer (A) as claimed, e.g. ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer having the same content of unsaturated ester, or vinyl acetate of 33-48% by mass or 33-40% by mass. Therefore, the ethylene-unsaturated ester copolymer (A) of Inoue in claim 1 above will display the property/characteristic of having a melt flow rate (MFR) of 10g/10 minutes or less as measured according to JIS K7210: 1999 under the conditions of 190oc and 2,160 g load as claimed. MPEP 2112.
Modified Inoue discloses all the structural limitations of the resin composition. The resin composition of modified Inoue et al. will display the recited characteristics/properties of “crosslinking rate of the resin of more than 0.01 dN.m/min and 0.25 dN.m/min or less” and a haze of a laminated glass using the resin composition of less than 0.5%. See MPEP 2112.
Alternatively, Inoue does not disclose the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer has a melt flow rate of 0.1g/10 minutes or more and 4.0 g/10 minutes or less and crosslinking rate of more than 0.01dN.m/min and 0.25dN.m/min or less (or a difference between torque values over a period of time); nor do they teach a haze of less than 0.5%.
Han et al. defines crosslinking rate and degree of crosslinking is the measurement of torque change ([0097] of the translation), and teaches the MH-ML value (or change in torque) of the ethylene vinyl acetate is preferably 0.1 to 0.2dNm to prevent mixing with other sheet, disadvantage in removing air bubbles, and microcracks by stress (see [0053-0054] of the translation). Han et al. shows the sweeping time of 10 minutes with maximum (see figs. 1-2 of the original document). As such the crosslinking rate of the resin composition (or ethylene vinyl acetate and crosslinking agent) is found to be 0.01026 dNm/min [or 0.1dNm/(10-0.25) min] to 0.02051 dNm/min [or 0.2dNm/(10-0.25) min]. 0.01026 dNm/min to 0.02051 dNm/min is right within the claimed range of more than 0.01dN.m/min and 0.25dN.m/min or less.
Han et al. also teaches the ethylene vinyl acetate resin (EVA) has preferable melt index of 3.0~6.0 g/10 min (see table 2, [0048-0050] and [0103]) to avoid poor extrusion processability and mixing with other sheet and invading the cells ([0049-0050]).
Oya et al. discloses a resin film having a haze of 0.5% or less to provide excellent transparency ([0380], [0462], [0728], table 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the resin composition of modified Inoue having a crosslinking rate of 0.01026 dNm/min to 0.02051 dNm/min to prevent mixing with other sheet, disadvantage in removing bubbles and microcracks by stress, and a melt flow rate of the ethylene vinyl acetate of 3~6 g/10 min to avoid poor extrusion processability and mixing with other sheet and invading cells as taught by Han et al.; and a haze of 0.5% for excellent transparency as taught by Oya et al. and Inoue also suggests low haze for high transparency (Inoue: [0030]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion 3~4 g/10 minutes of the range 3-6 g/10 minutes disclosed by the Han et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 14, modified Inoue discloses a resin composition as in claim 1 above, wherein the haze is less than 0.5% (see claim 1 above).
Modified Inoue and more specifically Oya et al. does not teach the exactly range of 0.01% or more and less than 0.5%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion 0.01% or more and less than 0.5% of the range less than 0.5% disclosed by the Oya et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112 rejections:
Applicant argues that even though the claims claim a resin composition and recites multiple methods, multiple properties/characteristic (of articles made/formed from the resin composition), the claims are not omnibus type claims, but carried patentable weights.
The examiner replies that a claim claims a resin composition and recites multiple methods, multiple properties/characteristics (of articles made/formed from the resin composition) is considered as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Prior art rejection:
Since the claim language is unclear, all the recited characteristics/properties are considered to be inherent. And in the alternative interpretation, additional references are cited to address the claimed properties and characteristics/properties.
Applicant argues the additional cited references disclose the characteristics/properties but do not disclose the methods as claimed, and therefore the references do not satisfy the characteristics/properties defined in the claim.
The examiner replies that the additional cited references are not relied upon for teaching the multiple methods, since the claimed invention is not a method or multiple methods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726