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 .
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP 2003-092089) in view of Uekusa et al (JP 2015-093918).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Yamashita discloses a heat sealable laminated film (0005) comprising PPa / TPX blend / TPX / TPX blend / PPa, i.e. PPa corresponds to layer B, TPX blend corresponds to layer C, TPX corresponds to layer A, TPX blend corresponds to layer C, PPa corresponds to layer B, in this order (0019) wherein given that layer A only discloses TPX, it is clear that the layer A contains 100% of 4-methyl-1-pentene and wherein given that the layer B only contains polypropylene, it is clear that the layer A contains 100% of polypropylene, wherein the layer A contains copolymer of 4-methyl-1-pentene and alpha olefin having 2 to 20 carbon atoms other than 4-methyl-1-pentene (0016).
Yamashita does not disclose the mol% of layer C as claimed in present claim.
Uekusa discloses a film comprising a copolymer containing 80 to 97 mol% of 4-methyl-1-pentene and 3 to 20 mol% of olefin excluding 4-methyl-1-pentene to obtain heat resistance, transparency and modability (0017-0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific copolymer of Uekusa in the copolymer of Yamashita to obtain heat resistance, transparency and modability.
Yamashita in view of Uekusa does not disclose the thickness of layer A, layer B and layer C as presently claimed.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thickness of layer a, layer b and layer c is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the flexibility and adhesion are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of layer a, layer b and layer c, the precise thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of layer a, layer b and layer c in Yamashita in view of Uekusa to obtain the desired flexibility and adhesion (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita in view of Uekusa discloses the heat sealable laminate film of claim 1 wherein given that the polypropylene of Yamashita in view of Uekusa is the same as claimed in present claim , it is clear that the polypropylene of Yamashita in view of Uekusa would have the same properties as presently claim.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP 2003-092089) in view of Uekusa et al (JP 2015-093918) and further in view of Sakata et al. (US 2016/030373).
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita in view of Uekusa discloses the heat sealable laminate film of claim 1 but fails to disclose acid anhydride polyolefins.
Sakata discloses polyolefin film comprising acid modified polyolefin such as acid anhydride polypropylene with acid anhydride content of less than 5% to obtain improved adhesion between layers (0024-0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use acid anhydride polypropylene with acid anhydride content of less than 5% of Sakata in the polyolefin of Yamashita in view of Uekusa to obtain improved adhesion between layers.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP 2003-092089) in view of Uekusa et al (JP 2015-093918) and further in view of Amano et al. (US 2017/0279090).
Regarding claims 7-11, Yamashita in view of Uekusa discloses the heat sealable laminate film of claims 1-4 and 6 but fails to disclose rolling the laminated film on a roll.
Amano discloses a laminated film is wound on a roll for storage and transportation purpose (0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the laminated film of Yamashita in view of Uekusa on a roll in machine direction for storage and transportation purpose as taught by Amano.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claim with a film thickness provides improved processability of the heat sealable laminated film while maintaining the desired adhesion force and strength but the combination of Yamashita in view of Uekusa fails to disclose a heat sealable laminated film with thicknesses. To support such position, applicant points to paragraphs 0084 and 0085 in the specification. However, it is noted that there is no evidence, i.e. data, to support such position.
Applicant argues that Yamashita and Uekusa fails to disclose claimed thicknesses. However, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thickness of layer a, layer b and layer c is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the flexibility and adhesion are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of layer a, layer b and layer c, the precise thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of layer a, layer b and layer c in Yamashita in view of Uekusa to obtain the desired flexibility and adhesion (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Applicant argues that Sakata and Amano do not cure the deficiencies of Yamashita and Uekusa. However, note that while Sakata and Amano do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Sakata and Amano are used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary references to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather these references teach a certain concept, namely Sakata discloses polyolefin film comprising acid modified polyolefin such as acid anhydride polypropylene with acid anhydride content of less than 5% to obtain improved adhesion between layers and Amano discloses a laminated film is wound on a roll for storage and transportation purpose, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787