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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 10, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2021-0063525 (Kim et al.) in view of KR 2019-0075713 (Han et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a propylene-based multilayer film comprising (a) a propylene-based binary copolymer or a propylene-based terpolymer (see abstract and page 5 translation), (b) an amorphous propylene rubber (see abstract translation), (c) an amide-based slip agent (see abstract and page 7 translation), (d) an anti-blocking agent (see abstract translation), and (e) a modified polyolefin (see abstract translation), propylene-based multilayer film comprising a skin layer, a core layer and a seal layer (see abstract translation). Kim does not state that the seal layer has a thickness in the range of 10-15% of a thickness of the multilayer film; however, in the analogous field of propylene-based multilayer films, Han discloses providing a first skin (seal) layer, a core layer and a second skin layer (skin layer), wherein the first and second skin layers each have a thickness of 4-8 micrometers, and the core layer has a thickness of 24-82 micrometers, (see pages 4 and 5 translation), yielding a multilayer film having a total thickness from 32-90 micrometers. Thus a thickness of the seal layer (first skin layer) would range from 4-25% (4/90 *100 = 4%, 8/32 * 100 = 25%), which overlaps the claimed range of 10-15%. 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). Han teaches that providing a such dimensions allows for appropriate adhesion and barrier properties (see paragraph 3, page 7 translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the seal layer with a thickness of the multilayer film as taught by Han, in order to achieve appropriate adhesion and barrier properties.
Kim also does not specifically state that the propylene-based binary copolymer has a rubber domain having a size of 3-10% of a thickness of the seal layer formed therein; however, Kim discloses that the propylene-based binary copolymer comprises ethylene in an amount of 1-5 wt% and 2-7 wt% of 1-butene (see page 6 translation), which overlap the amounts disclosed at paragraph 0014 of the original specification. Since the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 2, Kim also discloses that (a) the propylene-based binder copolymer comprises ethylene in an amount 1-5 wt% or 1-butene in an amount of 2-7 wt% (see page 6, paragraph 3 translation), which overlap the claimed ranges of 2-7 wt% ethylene and 0-6 wt% butene,
(b) the amorphous propylene rubber comprises ethylene in an amount of 5-20 wt% (see page 6, paragraph 6 translation), which is within the claimed range of 10-60 wt%,
(c) the amide-based slip agent is a saturated amide-based organic compound (see page 7, paragraph 3 translation),
(d) the anti-blocking agent is a spherical silica having an average particle diameter of 1-15 micrometers (see page 7, paragraph 4 translation), which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5-3 micrometers, and
(e) the modified polyolefin is formed with acid anhydride thereof grafted in an amount of 1 to 10 wt% (see page 6, paragraph 8 translation).
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).
Regarding claim 4, Kim also discloses that the skin layer comprises (a) the propylene-based terpolymer in an amount of 85 to 99 wt%, which is within the claimed range of 70 to 99 parts by weight, and (e) the modified polyolefin in an amount of 1 to 15 wt%, which is within the claimed range of 1 to 30 parts by weight. Kim does not disclose an embodiment where the skin layer includes the anti-blocking agent in an amount of 0.1 to 3 wt%; however, Han teaches that skin layers may be provided with anti-blocking agents in order to prevent films from adhering to each other by forming a space between adjacent layers by roughening the surface between the layers (see page 6, paragraph 14 translation, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Kim skin layer with an anti-blocking agent in the same amount it is provided in the seal layer (0.1 to 3 wt%) in order to prevent films from adhering to each other by forming a space between adjacent layers by roughening the surface between the layers as taught by Han.
The core layer comprises (a) the propylene-based terpolymer in an amount of 80 to 95 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 90 parts by weight, and (b) the amorphous propylene rubber in an amount of 5 to 20 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 50 parts by weight (see page 7, paragraph 6 translation, Table 1),
The seal layer comprises (a) the propylene-based binary copolymer in an amount 97 to 99.9 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of 60 to 140 parts by weight, (c) the amide-based slip agent in an amount of 0.5 to 2 wt%, and (d) the anti-blocking agent in an amount of 0.5 to 2 wt% (see page 7, paragraph 6 translation, Table 1).
Based on the proportions disclosed by Kim (see page 7, paragraph 6 translation) and depending on the final thickness of each layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that an embodiment is possible where the total film composition overlaps the claimed ranges of, (a) the propylene-based binary copolymer or the propylene-based tertiary copolymer is contained in an amount of 80-90 parts by weight, (b) the amorphous propylene rubber is contained in an amount of 10-20 parts by weight, (c) the amide-based slip agent is contained in an amount of 0.1-0.3 parts by weight, (d) the anti-blocking agent is contained in an amount of 0.05-0.1 parts by weight, and (e) the modified polyolefin is contained in an amount of 0.4-0.8 parts by weight. 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).
Regarding claim 5, Kim also discloses that the multilayer film has a thermal bonding strength of 60 N/15 mm or greater (see Table 1), and a peel strength that remains 80% or greater (see Table 1). The thermal bonding strength and peel strength of Kim were determined using similar methods to those recited in the claim (see page 9 translation).
Regarding claim 6, Kim also discloses that the multilayer film has no burst in a forming test measured according to a similar method as recited in the claim (see page 9 translation, Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim also discloses a material for a cell pouch comprising:
A sealant layer formed of the polypropylene-based multilayer film as recited in claim 1;
A barrier layer formed on the sealant layer; and
An outer resin layer formed on the barrier layer (see page 3 translation).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2021-0063525 (Kim et al.) in view of KR 2019-0075713 (Han et al.) further in view of US 5,049,436 (Morgan et al.).
Kim in view of Han discloses a propylene-based multilayer film as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Kim also discloses that (a) the propylene-based binary copolymer has a melting point of 125-135° C and a melt index (230° C, a load of 2.16 kg) of 2 to 10 g/10 min, which is within the claimed ranges of 125-155° C and 1 to 12 g/10 min (see page 6, paragraph 10 and page 7, paragraph 1 translation),
(b) the amorphous propylene rubber has a melt index of 1 to 5 g/10 min (230° C, a load of 2.16 kg) (see page 6, paragraph 7 translation), as recited in the claim,
(d) the anti-blocking agent is particles having a moisture content of less than 1 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of less than 0.5 wt%, the particles having a bulk density of 0.8-1.0 g/cm3 (see page 7, paragraph 4 translation). 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). While Kim does not state that the particles are dried at 105° C, patentability of a product depends on the product itself and not its method of production.
Kim does not disclose that the amide-based slip agent is a mixture of two or more amide-based slip agents having 14 to 22 carbon atoms; however, in the analogous field of propylene-based multilayer films Morgan discloses using a mixture of two or more amide-based slip agents having 12 to 24 carbon atoms (see column 3, lines 50-66), which overlaps the claimed range of 14 to 22 carbons. 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). Morgan teaches that using such a mixture of slip agents allows for strong lamination bond strength (see column 3, lines 61-66). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a mixture of two or more amide based slip agents for the Kim multilayer film, in order to provide a strong lamination bond strength as taught by Morgan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749