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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0061605).
Regarding claim 1: Haruta discloses a multilayer film comprising at least two layers being a base layer and an antifogging layer (paragraph 0042; via “the present invention also includes a laminate-type multilayer polyester film having at least one polyester resin layer”), with a heat sealing and shrinkable material (via abstract).
Haruta may not suggest the exact claimed ranges or values such as:
(a) a heat sealing strength measured by using a test piece having a width of 15 mm when heat sealing of an antifogging layer face of the multilayer film and an unstretched polyethylene terephthalate sheet having a thickness of 200 m is performed at 0.2 MPa for one second at each of temperatures of 120°C, 140°C, 160°C, and 180°C, is 2.0 N/15 mm or larger and 12.0 N/15 mm or smaller,
(b) a water contact angle measured after five seconds from dropping of 1 L of distilled water onto a surface of the antifogging layer of the multilayer film under a condition of 5oC and 50%R.H. is 50 or smaller,
(c) a peel strength measured by using a test piece having a width of 15 mm after an antifogging layer face of the multilayer film and a base layer face of the multilayer film are stacked with each other and then left to stand for one week under a condition of 40°C under a load of 450 kgf/m2, is 1 N/15 mm or smaller,
(d) an impact strength under a condition of 5°C in a pendulum impact test is 0.5 J or larger,
(e) a tear strength under a condition of 5°C is 100 mN or larger in each of an MD direction and a TD direction of the multilayer film, nor
(f) a thickness of the antifogging layer is 0.3 m or larger and smaller than 3.0 m.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Haruta’s multilayer film to having the claimed specifics of: (a) a heat sealing strength measured by using a test piece having a width of 15 mm when heat sealing of an antifogging layer face of the multilayer film and an unstretched polyethylene terephthalate sheet having a thickness of 200 m is performed at 0.2 MPa for one second at each of temperatures of 120°C, 140°C, 160°C, and 180°C, is 2.0 N/15 mm or larger and 12.0 N/15 mm or smaller, (b) a water contact angle measured after five seconds from dropping of 1 L of distilled water onto a surface of the antifogging layer of the multilayer film under a condition of 5oC and 50%R.H. is 50 or smaller, (c) a peel strength measured by using a test piece having a width of 15 mm after an antifogging layer face of the multilayer film and a base layer face of the multilayer film are stacked with each other and then left to stand for one week under a condition of 40°C under a load of 450 kgf/m2, is 1 N/15 mm or smaller, (d) an impact strength under a condition of 5°C in a pendulum impact test is 0.5 J or larger, (e) a tear strength under a condition of 5°C is 100 mN or larger in each of an MD direction and a TD direction of the multilayer film, and (f) a thickness of the antifogging layer is 0.3 m or larger and smaller than 3.0 m, since it has been held that when the claimed structures are suggested by the applied art, coming up with a specific ranges or values, would only involve a laboratory work by a routinely skilled in the art to come up with different values, in order to improve the characteristics of the materials.
Regarding claim 2: Haruta does not suggest the exact strength ratio (tear strengthMD/tear strengthTD)of a tear strength in the MD direction of the multilayer film to a tear strength in the TD direction of the multilayer film, each tear strength being measured under a condition of 5°C, is 0.6 to 1.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Haruta’s multilayer film, by a strength ratio (tear strengthMD/tear strengthTD)of a tear strength in the MD direction of the multilayer film to a tear strength in the TD direction of the multilayer film, each tear strength being measured under a condition of 5°C, is 0.6 to 1.5, since it has been held that when the claimed structures are suggested by the applied art, coming up with a specific ranges or values, would only involve a laboratory work by a routinely skilled in the art to come up with different values, in order to improve the characteristics of the materials.
Regarding claim 4: wherein the base layer is a biaxially oriented polyester film (paragraph 0042; “The heat-shrinkable polyester film of the present invention also includes a laminate-type multilayer polyester film having at least one polyester resin layer. When two or more polyester resin layers are laminated, the polyester resin layers may be of polyesters having the same composition or may be of polyesters having different compositions”).
Regarding claim 5: Haruta may not disclose that the antifogging layer includes at least two types of resins being a polyester resin (A) having a glass transition temperature Tg of 0°C or higher and 40°C or lower, and a polyester resin (B) having a glass transition temperature Tg of 41°C or higher and 80°C or lower.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Haruta’s multilayer film to having the claimed specifics of, the antifogging layer includes at least two types of resins being a polyester resin (A) having a glass transition temperature Tg of 0°C or higher and 40°C or lower, and a polyester resin (B) having a glass transition temperature Tg of 41°C or higher and 80°C or lower, since it has been held that when the claimed structures are suggested by the applied art, coming up with a specific ranges, values, or used materials would only involve a laboratory work by a routinely skilled in the art to come up with different values, in order to improve the characteristics of the materials.
Regarding claim 6: Haruta does not disclose that the resins forming the antifogging layer, a mass ratio between the polyester resin (A) and the polyester resin (B) is the polyester resin (A):the polyester resin (B) = 50/50 to 90/10.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Haruta’s multilayer film to having the claimed specifics of, the resins forming the antifogging layer, a mass ratio between the polyester resin (A) and the polyester resin (B) is the polyester resin (A):the polyester resin (B) = 50/50 to 90/10, since it has been held that when the claimed structures are suggested by the applied art, coming up with a specific ranges, values, or used materials would only involve a laboratory work by a routinely skilled in the art to come up with different values, in order to improve the characteristics of the materials.
Regarding claim 7: Haruta may not suggest that the antifogging layer includes a nonionic surfactant.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Haruta’s multilayer film to include a nonionic surfactant, since it has been held that when the claimed structures are suggested by the applied art, coming up with a specific used materials or composition would only involve a laboratory work by a routinely skilled in the art to come up with different values, in order to improve the characteristics of the materials.
Regarding claim 8: Haruta does not suggest an HLB value of the nonionic surfactant is 3 or larger and 10 or smaller.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Haruta’s multilayer film with an HLB value of the nonionic surfactant is 3 or larger and 10 or smaller, since it has been held that when the claimed structures are suggested by the applied art, coming up with a specific used value, ranges, and/or composition would only involve a laboratory work by a routinely skilled in the art to come up with different values, in order to improve the characteristics of the materials.
Regarding claim 9: Haruta does not suggest that the thickness unevenness of the multilayer film is 5% or lower.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Haruta’s multilayer film with thickness unevenness of the multilayer film is 5% or lower, since it has been held that when the claimed structures are suggested by the applied art, coming up with a specific used value, ranges, and/or composition would only involve a laboratory work by a routinely skilled in the art to come up with different values, in order to improve the characteristics of the materials.
Regarding claim 10: Haruta does not disclose a haze of the multilayer film is lower than 10%.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Haruta’s multilayer film with a haze of the multilayer film is lower than 10%, since it has been held that when the claimed structures are suggested by the applied art, coming up with a specific used value, ranges, and/or composition would only involve a laboratory work by a routinely skilled in the art to come up with different values, in order to improve the characteristics of the materials.
Regarding claim 11: Haruta comprising the adhesion layer, the base layer, and a print layer, see for example (Fig. 1 & paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 12: Haruta discloses a lid member for a food packaging container, the lid member including the multilayer film, see for example (via “the use amount tends to increase being accompanied by an increase in distribution volume of PET containers.” and/or “label packaging”).
Regarding claim 13: Haruta discloses a food packaging container comprising the lid member, see for example (“label packaging”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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 prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of the claimed multilayer film with an orientation sufficient obtained according to a particular calculation formula as specifically indicated and suggested by claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights