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
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) 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/170714 to Endo et al. (“Endo”, of record, of which US 2022/0135752 is the US equivalent, and the citations below refer to paragraphs in US 2022/0135752) in view of JP 2021-66840 to Iio et al. (“Iio”).
Regarding claim 1, Endo teaches a layered film (para [0001] [0015]-[0024], the laminated film of Endo) having at least a base material layer (para [0019], the biaxially stretched polyamide film of Endo) and a sealant layer (para [0031], the sealant layer laminated on the base layer),
- wherein the base material layer is a biaxially stretched polyamide film (para [0019], the biaxially stretched polyamide film of Endo that includes a layer A and a layer B), in the biaxially stretched polyamide film, a layer B is laminated on at least one surface of a layer A (para [0021], [0078], a layer B is laminated on a layer A in the biaxially stretched polyamide film),
- the layer A contains 70% by mass or more and 99% by mass or less of a polyamide 6 resin having E-caprolactam derived from fossil fuel as a lactam unit, and 1% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less of a polyamide resin containing a raw material derived from biomass (para [0019] [0022] [0023], [0034], Endo teaches the suitable polyamide 6 resins are those typically produced by ring opening polymerization of-caprolactam, and the suitable polyamide resins including those derived from biomass; also see para [0046] [0047] [0049], the layer A of the biaxially stretched polyamide film of Endo meets the claimed material limitations of the instantly claimed layer A),
- the layer B contains 70% by mass or more of a polyamide 6 resin having E-caprolactam derived from fossil fuel as a lactam unit (para [0024], [0049], Endo teaches the suitable polyamide 6 resins for the layer B are those typically produced by ring opening polymerization of-caprolactam, and the suitable polyamide resins including those derived from biomass; also see para [0079]-0081]), which % by mass range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 70% by mass or more and 100% by mass or less of a polyamide 6 resin having E-caprolactam derived from fossil fuel as a lactam unit. 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.
- the sealant layer is an unstretched polyolefin film (para [0031] [0146], suitable material for the sealant film includes unstretched linear low density polyethylene film, and unstretched polypropylene film).
Endo teaches the inclusion of a sealant layer that is of unstretched polyolefin film such as unstretched linear low density polyethylene film, and unstretched polypropylene film (para [0031] [0146]). But Endo does not specifically teach its unstretched sealant layer film is of the specific blend material as instantly claimed, i.e., that is an unstretched polyolefin film contains 70% by mass or more and 95% by mass or less of a polypropylene-based resin, and 5% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less of a linear low-density polyethylene resin in which at least a part of a raw material thereof is derived from biomass.
In the same field of resin film for packaging applications, Iio teaches a resin film having a good sealability and good impact and retort resistance (page 1, first para and page 2, sixth para). Iio teaches a sealant resin film (page 2, fifth para) that contains polypropylene-based resin as main component with more than 50% by mass of a polypropylene-based resin (page 2, fifth para) and further contains linear low-density polyethylene resin in which at least a part of a raw material thereof is derived from biomass that provides the sealant resin film with improved sealing property and retort resistance (page 3, fifth to seventh para, and see page 5, last para, and page 6, first para). In particular, it is noted that Iio teaches as in one of its embodiments, a sealant resin film contains 75% by mass of a polypropylene-based resin, and 10% by mass of a linear low-density polyethylene resin in which at least a part of a raw material thereof is derived from biomass (page 14, eighth para, see Example 3 of Iio), of which the % by mass range of the of polypropylene-based resin overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 70% by mass or more and 95% by mass or less of a polypropylene-based resin, and also, the % by mass range of the of linear low-density polyethylene resin overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 5% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less of a linear low-density polyethylene resin. 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.
As discussed above, the resin sealant film taught by Iio meets the claimed material limitations of the instantly claimed sealant layer. Iio does not teach or suggest its resin sealant film must be or needs to be stretched, and thus is considered as being an unstretched film, meeting the claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layered film of Endo in view the teachings of Iio, to replace the sealant layer of the layered film of Endo with a resin sealant film taught by Iio (i.e., that contains 75% by mass of a polypropylene-based resin, and 10% by mass of a linear low-density polyethylene resin in which at least a part of a raw material thereof is derived from biomass, page 14, eighth para, see Example 3 of Iio, which sealant film meets the claimed material limitations of the instantly claimed sealant layer), to provide a layered film with good sealability and good impact and retort resistance as taught by Iio (page 1, first para and page 2, sixth para of Iio), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory layered film that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Endo teaches the sealant layer is laminated on the layer B side of the base material layer (para [0020] [0031] [0032], the layer B is the surface layer of the film, that is then laminated with the sealant layer, meeting the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 3, Endo teaches that the content of carbon-14 in the base material layer is 1% to 15% with respect to all carbons in the base material layer (para [0109]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1% or more and 30% or less. 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.
Regarding claim 4, Endo teaches that at least a part of the raw material of the base material layer is a polyamide resin derived from biomass (para [0047], part of the raw material of the base material layer is a polyamide resin derived from biomass), and the suitable polyamide resin ow which a part of the raw material is derived from a biomass including polyamide 11, polyamide 410, polyamide 610, and polyamide 1010 (para [0052]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Endo teaches that the content of carbon-14 in the sealant layer is 1% to 15% with respect to all carbons in the sealant layer (para [0109]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 3% or more and 30% or less. 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.
Regarding claim 7, Endo teaches that the content of carbon-14 in the layered film is about 1 to 15% with respect to all carbons in the layered film (para [0109]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 2 % or more and 30% or less. 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.
Regarding claim 8, Endo teaches a packing bag comprising/using the layered film (para [0033]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Iio as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of WO2019230417 to Watanabe et al. (“Watanabe”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Endo and Iio as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, modified Endo teaches a layered film with a sealant layer (as taught by Iio). Modified Endo does not specifically teach a sealant layer that has a seal layer, a core layer, and a laminate layer, and each layer of the specific material as instantly claimed.
In the same field of resin film for packaging applications, Watanabe teaches a multilayer film suitable for food packaging, and Watanabe teaches its laminated film with a film structure mainly composed of propylene resin that has suitable heat sealability and impact resistance while also having high transparency, and exhibits excellent impact resistance even at low temperatures (para [0005] [0008] [0089]). Watanabe teaches its multilayer laminated film including a surface layer (A), an intermediate layer (B) and a sealing layer (C) are laminated in this order, each of said surface layer (A), said intermediate layer (B) and said sealing layer (C) containing a propylene-based resin, said intermediate layer (B) further containing a plant-derived polyethylene (bl) (para [0008]). Watanabe teaches the suitable polyethylene (bl) includes a linear low density polyethylene (para [0037]), and the content of the polyethylene (bl) in the resin composition contained in the intermediate layer (B) is 35% by mass or less (para [0039]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of claim 6. Watanabe further teaches that the suitable propylene-based resin in the intermediate layer (B) includes a propylene-a olefin random copolymer (para [0046]), which is the same materials as the instantly claimed; and Watanabe teaches the content of the propylene-based resin in the resin composition contained in the intermediate layer (B) is 50 to 90% by mass (para [0045]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of claim 6. Watanabe further teaches the content of the above-mentioned propylene-based resin in the resin composition contained in each of the surface layer (A) and the seal layer (C) is 50% by mass or more (para [0016] for layer A, para [0064] for layer C), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of claim 6. 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. In view of the above, the multilayer laminated film Watanabe that includes a surface layer (A), an intermediate layer (B) and a sealing layer (C) are laminated in this order reads on the instantly claimed sealant layer that has a seal layer, a core layer, and a laminate layer, with each corresponding layer has materials that meet the claimed material limitations as instantly claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified layered film of Endo in view the teachings of Watanabe, to include a multilayer sealant layer film taught by Watanabe (i.e., which multilayer laminated film Watanabe includes a surface layer (A), an intermediate layer (B) and a sealing layer (C) are laminated in this order that reads on the instantly claimed sealant layer that has a seal layer, a core layer, and a laminate layer, with each corresponding layer has materials that meet the claimed material limitations as instantly claimed), to provide a layered film with heat sealability and impact resistance while also having high transparency, and exhibits excellent impact resistance even at low temperatures as taught by Watanabe (para [0005] [0008] [0089]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory layered 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