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 1, Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim is indefinite because there is no identification of what has a weight average molecular weight.
It is assumed to mirror the format of Claim 7, as the average molecular weight of the main component of polyethylene.
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 1-5, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (JP 2000-313751 A) in view of Takeyama et al. (US 2009/0324920 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a biaxially stretched high molecular weight polyethylene film (Paragraph 0022, 0040, 0059), where the tensile strength is greatest is defined as a main orientation and a direction orthogonal to the main direction defined as the main orientation orthogonal direction. (Paragraph 0048).
Hashimoto teaches the internal haze of the film can be 66.67% or less. (Paragraph 0047). This overlaps the claimed range. Hashimoto teaches the tensile strength in the main orientation direction can be 50 MPa or more. (Paragraph 0048). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Hashimoto teaches the maximum amount of shrinkage is less than 30%. (Paragraph 0039). Hashimoto does not specifically teach the shrinkage rate is measured at 100 degrees C for eight hours on the main orientation orthogonal direction.
Takeyama teaches a biaxial stretched high molecular weight polyethylene film (Paragraph 0136), where the maximum shrinkage at 100 degrees C in the main orientation orthogonal direction is 5% to 45%. (Paragraph 0162). This overlaps the claimed range. Takeyama teaches this ensure dimensional stability of the film. (Paragraph 0162). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set ensure the heat shrinkage in the main orientation orthogonal direction at 100 degrees for all times of Hashimoto is to within the claimed range as taught by Takeyama to ensure the film has good dimensional stability.
Regarding Claim 2, Hashimoto teaches the ratio of tensile elongation in the main orientation direction and tensile elongation in the main orientation orthogonal direction can be range from 0.25 to 4. (Paragraph 0051). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 3, Hashimoto teaches the tensile elongation sum can be to 50 to 1500% or 100 to 3000% (Paragraph 0051). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, Hashimoto teaches the polyethylene film should have a melting point of 125 to 160 degrees C, and a high orientation melting point at 135 to 160 degrees C. (Paragraph 0040). Therefore, these melting point ranges above 140 degrees C, the known specific heat capacity range, and the known enthalpy of fusion, allow for a proportion of the crystal melting heat to total crystal melting heat at 140 degrees C to overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, Hashimoto does not require the film to have any pores or openings; therefore, the Gurley value would be infinite.
Regarding Claim 9, Hashimoto teaches the film can have a thickness of 1 to 200 microns. (Paragraph 0035). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 14, Hashimoto teaches the film can be used as low-temperature storage bags, which qualifies a low temperature film. (Paragraph 0054).
Claims 6, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Takeyama, in further view of Mitsui (NPL).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Hashimoto and Takeyama do not specifically teach the molecular weight of the high molecular weight polyethylene.
Mitsui teaches high molecular weight polyethylene can have an average molecular weight from 0.5 to 6 million. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Mitsui teaches this ensures high molecular weight polyethylene has improved strength over lower molecular weight HDPE. (Page 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the high molecular weight polyethylene with the claimed molecular weight range to ensure improved strength.
Regarding Claim 12, Mitsui teaches high molecular weight polyethylene is low friction and self-lubricating film that prevents sticking. Thus, a film of Hashimoto would automatically be a release liner/film, as it allows for easy release of various materials as shown by Mitsui.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Takeyama, in further view of Ronca (NPL)
Regarding Claim 8, Hashimoto and Takeyama do not specifically teach the thermal conductivity in the main orientation direction of the film. Hashimoto teaches the film can be used in electronics. (Paragraph 0054).
Ronca teaches biaxially oriented high molecular weight polyethylene films (Abstract). Ronca teaches these films can an in-plane thermal conductivity of at least 18 W/m K. (Page 209, 210). Ronca teaches this allows the polyethylene films to act as electric insulators while operating as heat dissipator in electronic applications. (Page 210). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the thermal conductivity of the film of Hashimoto to the claimed thermal conductivity range to make it more useful in electronics as an electric insulator and thermal conductor.
Regarding Claim 13, Ronca teaches biaxially oriented high molecular weight polyethylene films have sufficient thermal conductivity to operate as heat dissipator film, as discussed above (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the film of Hashimoto as a heat dissipation film.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Takeyama, in further view of 3M (NPL).
Regarding Claim 10, Hashimoto teaches the film can be used in a sliding tape. (Paragraph 0054). Hashimoto does not specifically teach an adhesive layer formed on one surface of the film.
3M teaches high molecular weight polyethylene sliding tape comprises the polyethylene film plus a layer/coating of adhesive to form the tape. (Page 1). Thus, it would been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add adhesive to the surfaces of the film of Hashimoto to form the desired sliding tape.
Regarding Claim 15, 3M teaches rolling the film as tape onto a core for storage. (Page 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to roll the polyethylene film of Hashimoto as a sliding tape around a core to form a roll for easier storage of the roll.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Takeyama, in further view of Aoyama et al. (US 4,597,818 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Hashimoto does not specifically teach the polyethylene film where metal layer is laminated to the polyethylene film. Hashimoto teaches using the film as a lining for hoppers and chutes. (Paragraph 0054)
Aoyama teaches laminating metal layer to high molecular weight polyethylene. (Column 8, Lines 42-55). Aoyama teaches this laminate to be used as lining for hoppers or sliding materials, where this laminate allows for easier attachment. (Column 8, Lines 42-55). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to laminate the film of Hashimoto with a metal layer in order to allow it be better applied to easily attached to hoppers or act as a sliding material onto an attached object.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781