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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagio (JP 2017-52126, of record) and further in view of Moteki (US 4,409,345, of record) and Biel (US 4,965,108, newly cited).
Hagio is directed to a laminated film 1 designed for food packing and including a base material layer 3 formed with polypropylene, a sealing layer 5 formed with polypropylene, and an intermediate layer 4 formed with polypropylene, wherein base material layer 3 has an exemplary melting temperature of about 160°C (corresponds with claimed heat resistant layer), sealing layer 5 has an exemplary melting temperature of about 140°C (corresponds with claimed cast polypropylene layer), and intermediate layer 4 has an exemplary melting temperature of about 120°C (corresponds with claimed middle layer) (Paragraphs 17 and 29).
In terms of the polypropylene in respective layers, it is well recognized that such a general characterization encompasses both homopolymer and copolymers, as shown for example by Moteki (Column 2, Lines 32+). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form any layer of Hagio with a propylene homopolymer or a propylene copolymer, including an assembly in which a base material layer is formed with a propylene homopolymer and the additional layers are formed with propylene copolymers.
With further respect to the claimed heat resistant layer, it is extremely well known and conventional to form all polymeric layers in packaging assemblies with a wide variety of conventional additives, including inorganic fillers and petroleum resins, at loadings in accordance to the claimed invention, as shown for example by Moteki (Column 2, Lines 10-20). It is emphasized that inorganic fillers and petroleum resins, among a wide variety of additional compounds, are conventionally used in polymeric layers in general, including those designed for food packaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional additives in the polymeric layers of Hagio (provide mechanical properties and processing benefits). It is emphasized that petroleum resins are well recognized as being common tackifiers and as the name implies, such additives positively impact processing (e.g. moldability).
Additionally, the general term “polypropylene” is well recognized as encompassing propylene homopolymers and propylene copolymers. This is evidenced by Moteki (Column 2, Lines 32+). As to the specific selection of a propylene homopolymer for the heat resistant layer and the selection of a greater ethylene content in a copolymer used in the middle layer, as compared to the cast layer, Biel recognizes that greater ethylene contents result in reduced melting tempeartures (Column 4, Lines 29+). Given that the heat resistant layer of Hagio has the greatest melting point, it reasons that such a layer would be formed with a homopolymer of polypropylene (in the absence of ethylene). Additionally, the cast layer of Hagio has a greater melting temperature than the middle layer and thus, it would be obvious to greater ethylene contents in the middle layer, as compared to the cast layer.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the language “cast polypropylene” fails to further define the structure of the claimed article (limitations correspond with a method of manufacture and there is no evident that a materially different article results from a cast process as compared to additional processes).
As to claim 2, heat resistant layer 3 has an exemplary melting temperature of about 160°C.
Regarding claim 3, sealing layer 5 has an exemplary melting temperature of “about” 140°C- such an exemplary temperature is extremely close to that required by the claimed invention, suggesting that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use melting temperatures in accordance to the claimed invention. A fair reading of Hagio does not suggest the exclusive use of the exemplary melting temperature- it is simply required that a melting temperature of the middle or intermediate layer is smaller than each of the sealing layer and the base material layer.
With respect to claim 4, intermediate layer 4 has an exemplary melting temperature of “about” 120°C- such an exemplary temperature is extremely close to that required by the claimed invention, suggesting that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use melting temperatures in accordance to the claimed invention. A fair reading of Hagio does not suggest the exclusive use of the exemplary melting temperature- it is simply required that a melting temperature of the middle or intermediate layer is smaller than each of the sealing layer and the base material layer.
4. Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagio, Moteki, and Biel as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Hayashida (US 4,927,885, of record) and/or Nakajima (US 5,712,023, of record).
As detailed above, petroleum resins are conventionally included in polymeric layers in a multitude of applications, including those designed for food packaging assemblies, in order to, among other things, provide processing benefits. In terms of the specific types of petroleum resins, all of the claimed types are consistent with those that are commonly used in polymeric layers, as shown for example by Hayashida (Column 2, Lines 6-15 and Lines 55+) and/or Nakajima (Column 3, Line 60-Column 4, Line 67). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of well-known and conventional petroleum resins in the polymer layers of Hagio absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
5. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagio, Moteki, and Biel as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Kawachi (EP 0755780, of record).
As detailed above, Hagio teaches a multi-layered assembled designed for food packaging. In terms of the thickness of respective layers, it is well recognized that layers commonly have a wide range of thickness values consistent with that required by the claimed invention, as shown for example by Kawachi (Page 4, Lines 10-15). It is emphasized that Kawachi provides the general order of thickness values associated with polymeric layers designed for food packaging assemblies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use thickness values in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (claims are directed to absolute dimensions and the specific thickness value would be a function of the exact application of the multi-layered assembly).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 8-12 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.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights