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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 10-11, in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected 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.
The instant claim 1 recites the claimed package material film having “a water sliding angle” as measured by a measurement method as recited (see highlight with annotations), which renders the claim indefinite. There are several issues raising questions of indefiniteness of claim 1. First of all, it is not clear what type of the retort treatment is performed, and what are the specific conditions of the retort treatment and boiling treatments? Secondly, it is also not clear what type of the oil film is required to be provided in the measurement process and what is the material of such oil film, and if such oil film is actually what determines and affects the water sliding angle? As such, it is not clear if the claimed “water sliding angle” is a property of the claimed package material film that includes a first resin layer, or it is a property of the oil film formed on the first resin layer provided in the measurement process? Claim 1, as currently written, does not recite “an oil film” as a positive element/limitation of the instantly claimed package material film.
For purpose of examination, the examiner considers any prior art that teaches a package material film having a water sliding angle measured by any method that otherwise meets the claimed limitations as to read on the instantly claimed package material film.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. The instant claim 1 as currently written includes four period “.”, and the claim appears including four sentences. Claims must be in one sentence form only.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected due to their dependency of claim 1. Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2406095 to Yan in view of Sunder et al. (US 2014/0208978; “Sunder”).
Regarding claim 1, Yan teaches a packaging material film (page 1, lines 4-20, page 5, lines 1-6, the packaging film of Yan) comprising:
- a first resin layer containing a polyolefin resin and fillers (page 5, lines 1-6, the film layer containing a polyethylene resin and anti-blocking agent fillers),
- wherein protrusions are formed on a surface of the first resin layer by the fillers (page 4, lines 1-12, and page 4, lines 29-32; Yan teaches the filler particles protrude on the film surface, enhancing the roughness of the film surface, meeting the claimed limitations).
Yan does not specifically teach its film having a water sliding angle as instantly claimed.
Sunder teaches a super hydrophobic coating suitable for applications on to various substrates, including plastic substrates (para [0002] [0039]). Sunder teaches its hydrophobic coating film has low water sliding angle and good durability and transparency, that the coating provides good water rolling effect (para [0019] [0072]). Sunder teaches the rolling of liquid droplets and the removal of foreign particles depend on both the hydrophobicity of the surface and the surface roughness caused by different microstructures. The lotus effect exhibits self-cleaning properties because the surface of the substrate is covered with small nano sized projections, bumps or ridges. Sunder teaches that surfaces exhibit super hydrophobic characteristics due to nano sized irregularities which results in the water sliding angle to less than 10° (para [0042]), and Sunder teaches as in one of its embodiments its hydrophobic coating has a water sliding angle of about 2° (para [0072]), which water sliding angle falls within and overlaps with the instantly claimed water sliding angle range of 20° or less of claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. See 3535 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 made of record in this Office Action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material film of Yan in view the teachings of Sunder, to include onto the surface of the first resin layer of the film of Yan (that containing a polyolefin resin and fillers), with a super hydrophobic coating film as taught by Sunder (as discussed above, having a water sliding angle of about 2°, para [0072, [0042] of Sunder), to provide a packaging material film with improved water rolling effect and self-cleaning properties as taught by Sunder (para [0019] [0042] [0072]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging material film that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yan teaches a packaging material film having on the surface of the first resin layer of the film with a super hydrophobic coating film (taught by Sunder), and such coating film is formed on the surface of the first resin layer and is thus considered as equivalent to the instantly claimed oil film.
Modified Yan does not specifically teach the specific amount of the such oil film/coating film as instantly claimed.
Sunder teaches its hydrophobic coating film has water rolling effect, that it provides low water sliding angle and good durability and transparency, and that the amount of the coating is a result effective variable in that it affects the water rolling effect and the water sliding angle (para [0019] [0072]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to amount of the oil film/coating film (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the oil film/coating film through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the package film once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., is 0.2 to 1.2 g/200 cm2. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Yan teaches suitable fillers include zeolite which is a porous filler (page 8, lines 16-20, and Table 1, zeolite is porous filler having internal porosity of which the specific surface areas (N2) is of 85 m2/g), meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2406095 to Yan.
Regarding independent claim 3, Yan teaches a packaging material film (page 1, lines 4-20, page 5, lines 1-6, the packaging film of Yan) comprising:
- a first resin layer containing a polyolefin resin and fillers (page 5, lines 1-6, the film layer containing a polyethylene resin and anti-blocking agent fillers), meeting the claimed limitations. Yan teaches the filler particles protrude on the film surface forming protruded spots, enhancing the roughness of the film surface (page 1, lines 30-34, page 4, lines 1-12, and page 4, lines 29-32).
Yan does not specifically teach its film having a ratio Y/X of a surface area ratio Y of a surface of the first resin layer with respect to an arithmetic mean height Sa X µm of the surface of the first resin layer is 0.4 to 8.0 µm-1, as instantly claimed. It is noted that such Y/X ratio is a parameter relating to the degree of roughness and roughness geometry of the film surface.
In the present case, it is noted that Yan teaches the filler particles protrude on the film surface forming protruded spots, enhancing the roughness of the film surface (page 1, lines 30-34, page 4, lines 1-12, and page 4, lines 29-32). Yan further teaches the filler particle’s size, the filler particle’s shape, and total number of the filler particles included/ protruded over the film surface are result effective variables that affect the film surface properties and the degree of surface roughness of the film (page 4, lines 1-12 and page 9, lines 3-14). In particular, Yan teaches the larger the particle size, of which the more height of the particles protruding above the surface, the rougher the film surface; and the larger the number of the particles included/ protruded over the film surface, the rougher the film surface (page 4, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the filler particle’s size, the filler particle’s shape, and total number of the filler particles included/ protruded over the film surface over the film surface (i.e., result effective variables) through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the packaging material film once produced (i.e., the desired degree of surface roughness and desired roughness geometry of the film), of which the arithmetic mean height Sa X of the surface of the first resin layer can be calculated, and the ratio of such arithmetic mean height Sa X over the surface area Y of the surface of the first resin layer can then be calculated, which would have arrived at a workable ratio of Y/X that falls within the broad rang as instantly claimed, i.e., 0.4 to 8.0 µm-1 . It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPPE 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Yan does not specifically teach projected area ratio of protrusions formed by the fillers on the surface of the first resin layer, as instantly claimed. It is noted that such projected area ratio of protrusions is a parameter relating to the filler particles size, and the number of the protruded particles, and the degree of protrusion.
In the present case, it is noted that Yan teaches the filler particles protrude on the film surface forming protruded spots, enhancing the roughness of the film surface (page 1, lines 30-34, page 4, lines 1-12, and page 4, lines 29-32). Yan further teaches the filler particle’s size, the filler particle’s shape, and total number of the filler particles included/ protruded over the film surface are result effective variables that affect the film surface properties and the degree of surface roughness of the film (page 4, lines 1-12 and page 9, lines 3-14). In particular, Yan teaches the larger the particle size, of which the more height of the particles protruding above the surface, the rougher the film surface; and the larger the number of the particles included/protruded over the film surface, the rougher the film surface (page 4, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the filler particle’s size, the filler particle’s shape, and total number and the degree of the filler particles included/protruded over the film surface over the film surface (i.e., result effective variables) through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the packaging material film once produced (i.e., the desired degree of surface roughness and desired roughness geometry of the film), of which the projected area ratio of protrusions formed by the fillers on the surface of the first resin layer can be calculated, which would have arrived at a workable projected area ratio of protrusions formed by the fillers on the surface of the first resin layer that falls within the broad rang as instantly claimed, i.e., 8 to 45%. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPPE 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Yan teaches suitable fillers include zeolite which is a porous filler (page 8, lines 16-20, and Table 1, zeolite is porous filler having internal porosity of which the specific surface areas (N2) is of 85 m2/g), meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Sunder as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of EP 0092318 to Janac et al. (“Janac”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Yan in view of Sunder as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yan does not specially teach the first resin layer contains an elastomer component.
In the same field of film/packaging film, Janac teaches a blend of polyolefin (i.e., polyethylene) and elastomer component for making film that provides high tear strength and high impact resistance (page 1, lines 11-22, page 4, lines 10-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified packaging material film of Yan in view the teachings of Janac, to include in the first resin layer of the film of Yan (that containing a polyolefin resin and fillers) with the suitable elastomer component as taught by Janac, to provide a packaging material film with good tear strength and good impact resistance as taught by Janac (page 1, lines 11-22, page 4, lines 10-26), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging material film that is the same as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of EP 0092318 to Janac et al. (“Janac”).
The limitations of claim 3 are taught by Yan as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, Yan does not specially teach the first resin layer contains an elastomer component.
In the same field of film/packaging film, Janac teaches a blend of polyolefin (i.e., polyethylene) and elastomer component for making film that provides high tear strength and high impact resistance (page 1, lines 11-22, page 4, lines 10-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging material film of Yan in view the teachings of Janac, to include in the first resin layer of the film of Yan (that containing a polyolefin resin and fillers) with the suitable elastomer component as taught by Janac, to provide a packaging material film with good tear strength and good impact resistance as taught by Janac (page 1, lines 11-22, page 4, lines 10-26), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory packaging material film that is the same as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights