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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application on 6 October 2025.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites --of 0.3-0.6 5 in a longitudinal-- on line 7, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "of 0.3-0.65 See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --in a longitudinal direction-- in lines 10 to 11, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "in the[[a]] longitudinal direction".
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --a hot-air oven;-- in line 18, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "a hot-air oven; and".
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --of the molecular orientation-- in line 19, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "of a[[the]] molecular orientation".
With Regards to Claim 2: Claim 2 recites --in a hot-air oven-- in lines 2 and 5, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct both instances to read as "in the[[a]] hot-air oven".
With Regards to Claim 8: Claim 8 recites --has glass transition point-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "has a glass transition point".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Regards to Claims 1-12: Claim 1 recites the limitation -- a polyester-based resin having ethylene terephthalate as a main constituent component and containing one or more monomer components that can become amorphous components in an amount of 13 mol% or more of in an entire polyester resin composition-- in lines 1 to 4. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no clear recitation as to the conditions in which said "monomer components" become "amorphous component"). Furthermore, the limitation is further indefinite because it can have at least two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said "entire polyester resin composition" is the same as said "polyester-based resin" of line 2; or (2) that said "entire polyester resin composition" is different from said "polyester-based resin" of line 2 (i.e., that said unrecited conditions convert the "polyester-based resin" into said "entire polyester resin composition"). Additionally, the limitation "become amorphous components in an amount of 13 mol% or more" renders the claim indefinite, because it does not specify, or allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to decern, the amount of said "monomer component" comprising the "polyester-based resin". The instant specification as filed, recites --A polyester-based raw material having ethylene terephthalate as a main component, and containing 13 mol % or more, in total, of one or more types of monomer components that can become an amorphous component in the entire polyester resin component-- ([0064] of the filed specification). Therefore, in view of the disclosure and for the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated to read as "a polyester-based resin having ethylene terephthalate as a main constituent component and containing one or more monomer components that can become amorphous components, said one or more monomer components being in an amount of 13 mol% or more of the-based resin (If applicants disagree, the examiner respectfully requests appropriate clarification and correction.)
Claims 2-12, which depends from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 1-12: Claim 1 recites --a longitudinal direction, which is a non-shrinkage direction of the film-- in lines 10 to 11. Claim 1 also recites --the film has a hot water heat shrinkage rate of 0% or more and 15% or less in a longitudinal direction of the film-- in lines 6 to 7. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that they are referring to the same "longitudinal direction"; or (2) that they are referring to two distinct and different "longitudinal direction". For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that the former interpretation applies, and that the limitation in lines 10 to 11 be read as "the[[a]] longitudinal direction, which is a non-shrinkage direction of the film".
Claims 2-12, which depends from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 1-12: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the molecular orientation angle" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated to read as "a[[the]] molecular orientation angle".
Claims 2-12, which depends from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 9: Claim 9 recites --an upper limit of the amorphous components is 40 mol% or less--. In view of the aforementioned interpretation of claim 1, the limitation of claim 9 will be treated to read as "an upper limit of the monomer of the entire polyester-based resin".
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Ishimura et al. (US 2016/0090456 A1): Ishimura teaches --a heat shrinkable polyester-based film--, wherein Ishimura's heat shrinkable polyester-based film further comprises the structure --a heat shrinkable polyester film having an ethylene terephthalate unit and containing a constituent unit derived from one or more monomers capable of forming an amorphous component, the monomer content being not les than 18% by mole in 100% by mole of the whole polyester resin component; a heat shrinkage rate of the heat shrinkable polyester film is not less than 9% and not more than 15% in the longitudinal direction, and not less than 40% and not more than 75% (not less than 30% and not more than 55%) when treated in hot water at 98° for 10 seconds; and a trans conformation ratio of not less than 0.40 and less than 0.45, the trans conformation ratio being a ratio of A1/A2 of an absorbancy A1 at 1340 cm-1 to an absorbancy A2 at 1410 cm-1 measured by a polarized ATR-FTIR method-- ([0016], [0021], [0025], [0076], [0077], [0083], and [0084] of Ishimaru)--. However, Ishimura does not teach that --a heat shrinkable white polyester-based film-- along with --a total light transmittance of 10% or more and 40% or less; a tensile elongation at break in the longitudinal direction at 1000 mm/min of 70% or more and 300% or less after the film is shrunk by 20% in the width direction in a hot-air oven; and a distortion index of a molecular orientation angle of 0 degrees or more and 15 degrees or less-- {instant claim 1}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Ishimura with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Ishimura in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Haruta (US 2019/0210262 A1): Haruta teaches --a heat shrinkable polyester-based film--, wherein Haruta's heat shrinkable polyester-based film further comprises the structure -- a white heat-shrinkable polyester-based film comprising at least one layer of white polyester-based resin layer containing titanium oxide; the film having a heat-shrinkage ratio in a main shrinkage direction of 50% or more and 85% or less after hot water treatment of 98°C for 10 seconds; the film having a total light transmittance of 40% or less; wherein the polyester-based film contains a base unit (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate) and a second dicarboxylic acid component and/or a second polyol component, the second dicarboxylic acid component and second polyol component imparting amorphousness to the film, the base unit comprising 50 mol% or more of the unit constituting the polyester, and the amorphous component is 14 mol% or more; wherein the film is a multilayer film; and wherein the heat shrinkage rate in a longitudinal direction of the film when treated with hot water of 98° for 10 seconds is 1%, 1.5%, or 2%-- (Table 3, [0012], [0014], [0020], [0050]-[0054], and [0057] of Haruta). However, Haruta does not teach that --a trans conformation ratio of 0.3 or more and 0.65 or less in the longitudinal direction, which is a non-shrinkage direction of the film, when a ratio A1/A2 of an absorbance A1 at 1340 cm-1 relative to an absorbance A2 at 1410 cm-1 of the heat shrinkable polyester-based film measured by a polarized ATR-FTIR method is defined as a trans conformation ratio; a tensile elongation at break in the longitudinal direction at 1000 mm/min of 70% or more and 300% or less after the film is shrunk by 20% in the width direction in a hot-air oven; and a distortion index of a molecular orientation angle of 0 degrees or more and 15 degrees or less-- {instant claim 1}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Haruta with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Haruta in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights