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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 5-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pelliconi (WO 02057342).
Pelliconi exemplifies a biaxial oriented polypropylene (BOPP) film which has 0.6 wt% of ethylene and a xylene insoluble fraction of 5 wt% according to the claimed temperature and a MFR according to the claimed test conditions (see bottom of page 9 first dash at the bottom of the page) of 1.8 g/10 min. (See Comp Example 2 – machine and transverse stretch to make the multilayer comp example 2 films (all layers comp example 2) in the paragraph before Table 4 on Page 15).
The 0.6 wt% amount of ethylene anticipates the range of Claim 1 and Claim 2.
The 5wt % xylene solubles anticipates said requirement of Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 6.
The MFR of 1.8 g/10 mins anticipates said requirement of Claim 1, Claim 4, and Claim 7.
The biaxially stretching method is anticipates the by the machine and transverse stretching taught above and the extrusion is reasonably suggested be occurring as the BOPP inventive and comparative films are taught to be made the same way and extrusion of the inventive films is taught on page 8 4th paragraph. This anticipates Claim 8.
The multilayer films of Comp 2 (all ABA layers are the same resin) anticipates Claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gloger (U.S. 20160208085) in view of Grein (U.S. 20100247375).
Gloger teaches BOPP films with a 0.45 mol % of ethylene (C2) and a xylene cold solubles (XCS) as claimed of 5 and MFR2 as claimed of 3.2 g/10 min. (IE2 – Table 2a)
The XCS of 5 reads over the XCS of Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 6.
The MFR2 of 3.2 g/10 min reads over the MFR as claimed of Claim 1, Claim 4 and Claim 7.
It is unclear how much 0.45 mol% of ethylene is terms of weight percent.
Grein, working in the field of food and optical packaging ¶[0001] similar to Applicant ¶[0002] as-filed specification, teaches the use of ethylene in BOPP films in the amount of 0.5 to 10 wt% and certain randomness of ethylene distribution to arrive at films that are highly suited for transparent film applications including those that are sterilizable and pasteuerizable. ¶[0013] ¶[0014] (BOPP ¶[0041]+)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Gloger, in particular the IE2 of Table 2a, such that the amount of ethylene was 0.5 to 10 wt% along with the randomness of greater than or equal to 0.945 to arrive at BOPP films in which are highly suited for transparent film applications including those that are sterilizable and pasteuerizable as taught by Grein as discussed above.
A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in the above modification because Grein teaches how to make the films ¶[0047]+, BOPP films ¶[0041]+ and also have XCS and MFR2 requirements that overlap those of Gloger and Applicant’s claims. (¶[0027], ¶[0028])
This 0.5 to 10 wt% of ethylene reads over the range recited by Claim 1, Claim 2 and Claim 5.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s comparisons are BOPP with and without ethylene and not to the amount of ethylene. Therefore, there is no data available to analysis with respect to any allegedly unexpected results.
Extruding compositions and stretching them to make the BOPP films are taught in ¶[0121-0125] which reads over Claim 8.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grein (U.S. 20100247375).
Grein teaches BOPP films ¶[0041] which have 0.5 to 10 wt% ethylene content ¶[0013] along with xylene cold solubles as recited of 4 to 10 wt% preferred ¶[0028] and MFR2 as recited of preferably 2 to 12 g/10 mins (¶[0027]).
The above ranges are not sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to practice the invention of Grein using the above identified ranges of ethylene wt%, XCS and MFR2 to produce films according to Grein because Grein suggests these ranges.
This 0.5 to 10 wt% of ethylene reads over the range recited by Claim 1, Claim 2 and Claim 5.
The XCS of 4 to wt% overlap the range XCS of Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 6.
The MFR2 of 2-12 g/10 min overlaps the MFR as claimed of Claim 1, Claim 4 and Claim 7.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s comparisons are BOPP with and without ethylene and not to the amount of ethylene. Therefore, there is no data available to analysis with respect to any allegedly unexpected results.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Grein (U.S. 20100247375) in view of Gloger (U.S. 20160208085).
Grein teaches a BOPP film but does not get into detail about the process.
Gloger, working in the field of BOPP films, teaches extruding compositions and stretching them to make the BOPP films are taught in ¶[0121-0125] which reads over Claim 8.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Grein in making BOPP using the BOPP extrusion and stretching technique of Gloger because this Gloger establishes this is a known way of making BOPP films similar to Grein’s. This represents the application of known technique, manufacturing and stretching of BOPP films, to yield the predictable result of a BOPP oriented film desired by Grein.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gloger (U.S. 20160208085) in view of Grein (U.S. 20100247375) in further view of Davis (U.S. 6,033,514).
Gloger and Grein are applied as above.
Neither Gloger nor Grein teach or suggest multilayer films of the BOPP films taught but neither Gloger nor Grein exclude multilayer films from being made.
Davis, working in the field of BOPP films, teaches thickness of the film determines barrier properties and, therefore, films can be made by direct extrusion or lamination of two more films. (Column 1 lines 34-41).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Gloger modified by Grein such that two or more layers of material are laminated together to form the material to adjust barrier properties as desired as suggested by Davis.
This reads over the multilayer film of Claim 10.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grein (U.S. 20100247375) in view of Davis (U.S. 6,033,514).
Grein is applied as above.
Grein teach or suggest multilayer films of the BOPP films taught but Grein does not exclude multilayer films from being made.
Davis, working in the field of BOPP films, teaches thickness of the film determines barrier properties and, therefore, films can be made by direct extrusion or lamination of two more films. (Column 1 lines 34-41).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Grein such that two or more layers of material are laminated together to form the material to adjust barrier properties as desired as suggested by Davis.
This reads over the multilayer film of Claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights