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
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. While Mitsui does not teach the method of measuring the molecular weight, the method of measuring will not create a patentable weight from the molecular weight taught by Mitsui.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112(b) rejection has been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Hashimoto does ono teach the tensile strength of 300 MPa or more, due to the examples. This argument is found unpersuasive. Hashimoto teaches the tensile strength in the MD or TD can be 50 MPa or more (Paragraph 0048), which overlaps the claimed range. The narrower range in the Examples do not limit the broad disclosure. Patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain. (MPEP §2123).
Applicant argues that Hashimoto does not teach the upper range of 5000 MPa or less. This argument is found unpersuasive. Hashimoto teaches an overlapping tensile strength range of 5000 MPa or less, which overlaps the claimed range. Hashimoto also teaches the tensile strength of less than 1 GPa. (Paragraph 0048), which also 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).
Applicant argues there is undue experimentation for having a film with the claimed tensile strength and maximum shrinkage. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Applicant has not provided evidence to show this selection of properties for a film requires undue experimentation, especially as Takeyama teaches how to adjust shrinkage rate and why the claimed shrinkage rate is desirable.
Applicant argues that the claimed tensile strength shows unexpected results. This argument is found unpersuasive. For a showing of unexpected results, Applicants must provide data showing results that are both statistical and practical significance and having the claims be commensurate in scope with the data provided. Applicant has not provided such data to establish unexpected results.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights