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 7, 2026 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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0167347 (Jung et al.) in view of US 2020/091473 (Imamoto et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a propylene-based multilayer film (see paragraph 0012) comprising (a) a propylene-based terpolymer (it is the Examiner’s position that an ethylene-propylene-butene terpolymer as disclosed by Jung is synonymous with applicant’s tertiary copolymer of propylene, ethylene and 1-butene (paragraph 0015 instant disclosure) being simultaneously injected and polymerized), (b) an amorphous propylene rubber (propylene based elastomer, (see paragraph 0043 where low crystallinity propylene elastomers are discussed, meeting the limitation of an amorphous propylene rubber), (c) an amide-based slip agent, (d) an anti-blocking agent (see paragraphs 0004 and 0006, where it is described to use a combination of organic and inorganic anti-blocking agents as well as slip organic amide compounds to improve particle dispersion in polyolefin matrix) , and (e) a modified polyolefin (see paragraphs 0014-0016), the propylene-based multilayer film comprising a skin layer, a core layer and a seal (first outer skin) layer (see paragraphs 0013-0014),
Wherein the seal layer is described as having a thickness from 1 to 3 micrometers (see paragraph 0014), the skin layer has a thickness of 1 to 3 micrometers (see paragraph 0019), and the thickness of the core is preferably 10 to 20 micrometers (see paragraph 0013), yielding a total thickness of the multilayer film being from 12 to 26 micrometers, and the seal layer having a thickness from 3.8 to 25% (1/26 * 100 = 3.8%, 3/12 * 100 = 25%) of the multilayer film, which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 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).
Jung does not specifically state that the propylene-based terpolymer used in the seal layer has a rubber domain having a size of 3-10% of a thickness of the seal layer formed therein; however, in the analogous field of multilayer films, Imamoto teaches that providing the seal layer with a disperse phase (rubber domain) from 0.2 microns (200 nm) to 50 microns helps to improve impact resistance and seal strength (see paragraphs 0184-0189). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Jung seal layer with a rubber domain from 0.2 microns (200 nm) to 10 microns in order to improve impact resistance and seal strength, as taught by Imamoto. Providing such a rubber domain of 0.2 microns as taught by Imamoto to the Jung seal layer having a thickness in the range of 1 to 3 micrometers, yields a rubber domain having a size of 6% to 20% (0.2/3 * 100 = 6%, 0.2/1 * 100 = 20%), which overlaps the claimed range of 3 to 10%. 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 claims 5 and 6, the references do not state the thermal bonding strength or whether the multilayer film has no burst in a forming test; however, the references teach all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0167347 (Jung et al.) in view of US 2020/091473 (Imamoto et al.) further in view of US 6,590,021 (Mitsuno et al.).
Jung in view of Imamoto discloses a multilayer film as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Jung also discloses that the amorphous propylene rubber comprises 1-butene in an amount of 20 to 40%, which is within the claimed range of 10 to 60 wt%,
The anti-blocking agent may be a spherical silica having an average particle diameter of 2 to 3 micrometers (see paragraph 0053), which is within the claimed range of 1.5 to 3 micrometers, and
The modified polyolefin is formed with acid anhydride thereof grafted in an amount of at most 3.0 wt % (see paragraph 0016), which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 10%. 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).
Jung also discloses using a combination of organic and inorganic anti-blocking agents as well as slip organic amide compounds to improve particle dispersion in polyolefin matrix and indicates US 6,590,021 (Mitsuno) as an example (see paragraph 0006), which would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use such a combination. The amide-based slip (sliding) agent discussed by Mitsuno includes saturated amide-based organic compounds and unsaturated amide-based organic compounds (see column 5 line 55 through column 6, line 2).
Jung does not state the amount of ethylene in the propylene-based tertiary copolymer; however, in the analogous field of multilayer films Imamoto teaches that providing ethylene in an amount of 2 to 5 wt% in seal layers comprised of propylene-based polymers helps obtain impact resistance and improvement in sealing strength (see paragraph 0137). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the propylene-based polymer seal layer of Jung with ethylene in an amount of 2 to 5 wt%, which is within the claimed range of 2 to 7 wt%, in order to obtain impact resistance and improvement in sealing strength as taught by Imamoto.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0167347 (Jung et al.) in view of US 2020/091473 (Imamoto et al.) further in view of US 6,590,021 (Mitsuno et al.) further in view of KR 2021-0063525 (Kim et al.) as evidenced by US 2019/0185649 (Ni et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Jung also discloses that the propylene-based tertiary copolymer has a melting point of 126 to 134 degrees C (see paragraph 0042), which is within the claimed range of 125 to 155 degrees C. Jung in view of Mitsuno also discloses that the amide-based slip agent may be a mixture of two or more amide-based slip agents having 14 to 22 carbon atoms (see Mitsuno column 5 line 55 through column 6, line 19 where palmitic acid amide, stearic acid amide, behenic acid amide, oleic acid amide, or a mixture of two or more are discussed).
Jung does not state the Melt Index for the propylene-based tertiary copolymer; however, it is disclosed that the propylene-based tertiary copolymer may be an Adsyl product (see paragraph 0042). While the Melt Index for that particular product number could not be located, other Adsyl propylene terpolymers of propylene, ethylene and butene all have Melt Indices of 5.5 g/10 min (see Ni paragraph 0074), which is within the claimed range of 1 to 12 g/10 min. It is the Examiner’s position that other Adsyl products also have a Melt Index that is within the claimed range. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a propylene-based tertiary copolymer product having a Melt Index to optimize the desired flow properties for efficient processing and retention of desirable mechanical properties in the resulting composition.
Jung also does not disclose the Melt Index of the amorphous propylene rubber; however, Kim teaches that using an amorphous propylene rubbers within the claimed range of 1 to 5 g/10 min helps to balance dispersion and impact resistance (see page 6, paragraph 7 translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to one having ordinary skill in the art to select an amorphous propylene rubber having a melt index within the claimed range in order to balance dispersion and impact resistance as taught by Kim.
Jung also does not disclose the moisture content or the bulk density of the anti-blocking agent; however, in the analogous field of multilayer films, Kim teaches that providing anti-blocking agents with a moisture content of less than 1%, which overlaps the claimed range of less than 0.5%, and a bulk density of 0.9 to 1.0 g/cm3 help to realize desire performance and moldability (see page 7, paragraphs 2-4 translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize such features for the anti-blocking agents of Jung, in order to realize desirable performance and moldability as taught by Kim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0167347 (Jung et al.) in view of US 2020/091473 (Imamoto et al.) further in view of KR 2021-0063525 (Kim et al.)
Regarding claim 7, Jung does not disclose that the material is for a cell pouch; however, Kim teaches using a polypropylene-based multilayer film as a material for a cell pouch by providing barrier layer formed on the sealant layer; and
An outer resin layer formed on the barrier layer (see page 3 translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the polypropylene-based multilayer film of Jung as a material for a cell pouch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) June 11, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a propylene-based multilayer film as claimed wherein the skin layer comprises propylene-based tertiary copolymer in an amount of 70 parts by weight to 99 parts by weight, modified polyolefin in an amount of 1 part by weight to 30 parts by weight, and anti-blocking agent in an amount of 0.1parts by weight to 2 parts by weight, and the core layer comprises propylene-based tertiary copolymer in an amount of 50 parts by weight to 90 parts by weight and the amorphous propylene rubber in an amount of 10 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight. The closest prior art is Jung; however, the skin layer (second outer skin layer) and the core layer in Jung are not a propylene-based tertiary copolymer (see paragraph 0067). No other prior art that anticipates or suggests fairly the instant claims has been located as of the date of this action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights