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 § 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 1-18 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 term “probe descendent temperature” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite, because the measurement method and measurement conditions of the probe drop temperature are not defined, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As best understood, probe descendent temperature is a parameter relating to and indicating heat resistance properties of the substrate, and such interpretation is applied by the examiner for purpose of examination. Claims 2-18 are rejected due to their dependency of claim 1.
Appropriate correction and clarification 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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2020055181 A, “Yamada”, see English machine translation attached).
Regarding claims 1-2, Yamada teaches a laminate (para [0015]- [0018], Figure 4, para [0051], the laminate 16) comprising
- a substrate layer, an adhesive agent layer, and a sealant layer in this order (para [0051], Figure 4, including the multilayer substrate 10 includes substrate layer 12, and is followed by layer 19 and heat-sealing layer 17 in this order, meeting the claimed limitations),
- wherein the substrate layer and the sealant layer comprise polyethylene (para [0008] [0018] [0025] [0026] the multilayer substrate comprises polyethylene material such as high-density polyethylene; para [0018] [0025] [0059] the heat seal layer comprises polyethylene, meeting the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamada does not specifically teach its substrate layer having a specific probe descendent temperature as instantly claimed in claims 1-2. It is understood that probe descendent temperature is a parameter relating to and indicating heat resistance properties of the substrate.
In this connection, it is noted that Yamada recognizes the desire and benefit of providing laminate and laminate substrate with improved heat resistance (para [0003]). Yamada teaches that a multilayer coextruded stretched film has increased heat resistance by stretching treatment, and Yamada further teaches that by increasing stretching ratio, the heat resistance is improved (para [0126] [0128]). Yamada teaches the higher the tensile magnification, the better the heat resistance and strength (para [0126] [0128]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Yamada, to provide the substrate layer with stretching treatment in the desired stretching ratio and conditions as taught by Yamada (para [0003] [0126] [0128]), to provide the substrate layer with increased heat resistance as taught by Yamada (para [0003] [0126] [0128]), and further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the stretching ratio and conditions through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the substrate layer once produced (i.e., heat resistance, and a probe descendent temperature), which would have arrived at a substrate layer with workable probe descendent temperature that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., a substrate layer having a probe descendent temperature of 180°C or higher as in instant claim 1, and a substrate layer having a probe descendent temperature of 220°C or lower as in instant claim 2. 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 3, Yamada teaches its laminate further comprising an intermediate layer placed between the substrate layer and the sealant layer and comprising polyethylene (para [0051], [0118], also see Figure 4, the multilayer substrate 10 includes, in addition to layer 12, the layer 14; and that the layer 14 is an intermediate layer placed between the substrate layer 12 and the sealant layer 17, and is of polyethylene, para [0008], and thus meeting the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4-7, Yamada does not specifically teach its intermediate layer having a specific probe descendent temperature as instantly claimed. It is understood that probe descendent temperature is a parameter relating to and indicating heat resistance properties of the substrate.
In this connection, it is noted that Yamada recognizes the desire and benefit of providing laminate and laminate substrate with improved heat resistance (para [0003]). Yamada teaches that a multilayer coextruded stretched film has increased heat resistance by stretching treatment, and Yamada further teaches that by increasing stretching ratio, the heat resistance is improved (para [0126] [0128]). Yamada teaches the higher the tensile magnification, the better the heat resistance and strength (para [0126] [0128]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the laminate of Yamada, to provide the intermediate layer with stretching treatment in the desired stretching ratio and conditions as taught by Yamada (para [0003] [0126] [0128]), to provide the intermediate layer with increased heat resistance as taught by Yamada (para [0003] [0126] [0128]), and further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the stretching ratio and conditions through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the intermediate layer once produced (i.e., heat resistance, and a probe descendent temperature), which would have arrived at an intermediate layer with workable probe descendent temperature that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, in claims 4-7. 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 8, Yamada teaches its laminate further includes a protective layer as an outermost layer with the protective layer facing the sealant layer (see Fig. 7, para [0021] [0022], [0135], the laminate is structured for packaging applications, i.e., fold over sealed to form pouch, bag, having a protective outermost layer).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada does not specifically teach the protective layer includes a thermosetting resin. However, Yamada teaches the inclusion of various suitable materials can be used for laminate layers (para [0013]-[0015] [0032][0042] [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the laminate of Yamada, to select and include suitable material for the protective layer, such as thermosetting resin, to provide a desired laminate to meet the desired end applications of the laminate as taught by Yamada (para [0013]-[0015] [0032][0042] [0056]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches its substrate layer being a biaxially stretched film (para [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada teaches its substrate layer being an uniaxially stretched film (para [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada teaches the inclusion of a gas barrier layer placed between the substrate layer and the sealant layer (para [0015]-[0017], the additional intermediate layer is considered having at least having some level of gas barrier properties, and thus., being a gas barrier layer meeting the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada teaches the adhesive agent layer having a gas barrier property (para [0117], [0071], Yamada teaches the inclusion of adhesive agent layer, such adhesive agent layer would at least have some level of gas barrier properties, meeting the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada teaches the inclusion of suitable additives, such as pigment to its laminate layers as desired to impair desired properties (para [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the laminate of Yamada, to select and include desired pigment such as white pigment to the sealant layer, to provide a sealant layer with a desired white color as taught by Yamada (para [0043]). One of ordinary skill would have understood how to modify and choose suitable additives for intended use. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Yamada teaches suitable materials for its laminate has a polyethylene content of 90 mass% or more (para [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada teaches a package comprising the laminate (para [0001], [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada teaches the package being a standing pouch (para [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada teaches a packaged article comprising the package according to claim 16 and a content contained in the package (para [0001] [0137]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka (US 2020/0143960) teaches a gas barrier laminate for packaging material that includes a substrate layer and sealant layer and gas barrier layer (para [0023] [0036]). Lamtigui et al. (US 2020/0391489) teaches a packaging laminate with improved heat resistance for sealing that includes a polyethylene substrate layer and bonding layer (par a[0021] [0022]).
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