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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III, claims 14-28, in the reply filed on 23 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-13 and 29-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 January 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, line 6: “piece of the hygroscopic laminate half” should most likely read “piece of the hygroscopic laminate in half”.
Claim 26, line 9: “a total content of Li+… in the hygroscopic laminate100” should most likely read “a total content of Li+… in the hygroscopic laminate is 100”.
Claim 26, lines 11-12: “a total content of F-… in the hygroscopic laminate100” should most likely read “a total content of F-… in the hygroscopic laminate is 100”.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 respect to claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the basal layer comprising an antistatic polyester film” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14, which claim 16 depends from, does not recite “a basal layer comprising an antistatic polyester film”; instead, claim 14 merely recites “a basal layer… the basal layer comprises a resin film”. It is suggested that Applicant amend claim 16 to read “wherein the basal layer comprises an antistatic polyester film that is disposed on a surface of the hygroscopic laminate” in place of “wherein the basal layer comprising an antistatic polyester film is disposed on a surface of the hygroscopic laminate”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-17, 19-21, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konya (JP 2002-347850 A) and the evidence provided by U.S. Plastic Corp. (What are the differences between HDPE, LDPE, XLPE, LLDPE, and UHMWPE?). The disclosure of Konya is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
With respect to claims 14, 17, and 19, Konya discloses a laminate having an inner hygroscopic plastic layer (i.e., a hygroscopic laminate) having a water-impermeable plastic outer layer (A), an aluminum foil intermediate layer (B), and a hygroscopic plastic inner layer (C) ([0013]). The water-impermeable plastic outer layer (A) corresponds to the claimed basal layer comprising a resin film. The aluminum foil intermediate layer (B) corresponds to the claimed gas barrier layer comprising a foil comprising an inorganic compound. The hygroscopic plastic inner layer (C) is a laminate consisting of an upper layer of polyolefin (C1), an intermediate layer of hygroscopic resin (C2), and a lower layer of antistatic resin containing ionomer (C3) ([0019]). The upper layer of polyolefin (C1) is made from polyethylene ([0019]), and therefore the upper layer (C1) corresponds to the claimed resin layer. The intermediate layer (C2) is a hygroscopic resin layer made by kneading a desiccant or zeolite (i.e., a moisture absorbing agent) into a polyolefin, where the polyolefin includes linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) ([0019-0020]). As evidenced by U.S. Plastic Corp., LLDPE has a density of 0.91-0.94 g/cm3 (page 1, “LLDPE (Linear Low Density Polyethylene)… has a density of 0.91-0.94 g/cm3”), which overlaps the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because the zeolite is in a hygroscopic resin, it is a hydrophilic zeolite as presently claimed. Because the polyolefin resin used in the resin layer and the moisture absorption layer are the same and includes various polyethylenes ([0019-0020]), the polyethylene resin contained in the resin layer and the moisture absorption layer are the same or different. Konya further discloses the hygroscopic layer (C2) is made from polyethylene and a moisture absorbing agent in a ratio of 75:25 ([0032]) (i.e., the polyethylene is present in an amount of 75% by weight and the moisture absorbing agent is present in an amount of 25% by weight, which falls within the claimed ranges). Therefore, the intermediate layer (C2) corresponds to the claimed moisture absorption layer.
In light of the overlap between the claimed hygroscopic laminate and that taught by Konya, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hygroscopic laminate that is both taught by Konya and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 15-16, Konya discloses the outer layer (A1) is made from a water-impermeable thermoplastic resin including polyethylene terephthalate (i.e., a polyester) and is formulated with an antistatic agent (i.e., the basal layer is an antistatic polyester film) ([0015]). Because the outer layer (A1) is an outer layer, it is disposed on a surface of the hygroscopic laminate as claimed.
With respect to claim 20, while Konya may not disclose wherein the intermediate layer (C2) (corresponding to the claimed moisture absorption layer) comprises a first moisture absorption layer and a second moisture absorption layer, given that Konya discloses the use of a hygroscopic resin layer ([0006]), which inherently absorbs moisture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an additional hygroscopic resin layer in order to enhance the moisture absorption and hygroscopic effect of the laminate. The duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. Providing an additional hygroscopic layer would have achieved expected results, such as to enhance the moisture absorption and hygroscopic effect of the laminate. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 21, Konya discloses the lower layer (C3) of the inner layer (C) is an antistatic resin layer containing an ionomer and a heat-sealable resin with an ionomer, where the heat-sealable resin includes linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) ([0021]). As evidenced by U.S. Plastic Corp., LLDPE has a density of 0.91-0.94 g/cm3 (page 1, “LLDPE (Linear Low Density Polyethylene)… has a density of 0.91-0.94 g/cm3”), which overlaps the presently claimed range. The ionomer is present in an amount of 30% by weight ([0032]) (i.e., there is 70% by weight of polyethylene in the layer (C3), overlapping the presently claimed range). The lower layer (C3) corresponds to the claimed second resin layer. Since the upper level of polyolefin (C1) corresponds to the claimed resin layer and the intermediate layer (C2) corresponds to the claimed moisture absorption layer as set forth above, the structure of the inner layer (C) being (C1)/(C2)/(C3) corresponds to the claimed structure of resin layer/moisture absorption layer/second resin layer.
With respect to claim 23, discloses the lower layer (C3) (corresponding to the claimed second resin layer) contains an antistatic agent such as polyoxyethylene alkylamine ([0029]) (i.e., a polymer antistatic agent).
With respect to claim 28, Konya discloses the thickness of the inner layer (C) is such that (C1)/(C2)/(C3) is 10-30 µm/20-90 µm/10-30 µm ([0026]). The layer (C3) corresponds to the claimed second resin layer as set forth above, and thus the thickness overlaps the presently claimed range. The proportion of the thickness of the second resin layer to the total thickness of all the moisture-absorbing sealant layer is 7.7% (10*100/[30+90+10] ≈ 7.7%) to 50% (30*100/[10+20+30] = 50%), which falls within the claimed range.
Claims 18, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konya (JP 2002-347850 A) and the evidence provided by U.S. Plastic Corp. (What are the differences between HDPE, LDPE, XLPE, LLDPE, and UHMWPE?) as applied to claims 14 and 21 above, and further in view of Mikami (JP 2009-040439 A). The disclosures of Konya and Mikami are based off machine translations of the references included with this action.
With respect to claims 18 and 27, while Konya discloses the use of polyethylene resin in the resin layer and moisture absorption layer as set forth above, Konya does not disclose wherein the polyethylene are the same or different linear polyethylene copolymers of ethylene and α-olefin.
Mikami teaches a pouch having a moisture-absorbing laminate having a moisture-absorbing resin film comprising (i) a base film, (ii) a barrier thin film, and (iii) a resin composition containing a desiccant ([0008]). The synthetic resin used in a moisture absorbing film that maintains its flow properties in order to make it easy to process and has heat-sealing properties including polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, and ethylene-α-olefin copolymer ([0068-0069]).
Konya and Mikami are analogous inventions in the field of moisture absorbing laminates having a base film made of resin, a barrier film, and a resin layer made from polyethylene and containing a desiccant.
In light of the disclosure of the equivalence and interchangeability of linear low-density polyethylene and ethylene-α-olefin copolymer as disclosed by Mikami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ethylene-α-olefin copolymer in the resin layer and moisture absorption layer of Konya and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would result in a layer that maintains its flow properties in order to make it easy to process and having heat-sealing properties (Mikami, [0068-0069]).
With respect to claim 22, Konya discloses the lower layer (C3) (corresponding to the claimed second resin layer) contains an antistatic agent such as polyoxyethylene alkylamine ([0029]) (i.e., a polymer antistatic agent).
However, Konya does not disclose wherein a resin composition constituting the second resin layer has a melt flow rate of 2.8 g/10 min or more and 10 g/10 min or less.
Mikami teaches a pouch having a moisture-absorbing laminate having a moisture-absorbing resin film comprising (i) a base film, (ii) a barrier thin film, and (iii) a resin composition containing a desiccant ([0008]). The resin used includes polyethylene and linear low-density polyethylene ([0068-0069]) and has a melt flow rate of 1 g/10 min to 6 g/10 min in order to ensure good processability while preventing cracking ([0070]).
Konya and Mikami are analogous inventions in the field of moisture absorbing laminates having a base film made of resin, a barrier film, and a resin layer made from polyethylene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyethylene of the lower layer (C3) of Konya to have a melt flow rate of 1 g/10 min to 6 g/10 min, including values presently claimed, as taught by Mikami in order to provide a layer that has good processability while preventing cracking (Mikami, [0070]).
Claim 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konya (JP 2002-347850 A) in view of Mikami (JP 2009-040439 A) and the evidence provided by U.S. Plastic Corp. (What are the differences between HDPE, LDPE, XLPE, LLDPE, and UHMWPE?) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Tateno et al. (JP H08-134295 A, “Tateno”). The disclosures of Konya, Mikami, and Tateno are based off machine translations of the references included with this action.
With respect to claims 24 and 26, Konya discloses the lower layer (C3) includes an ionomer which is an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer (Konya, [0021-0022]).
However, Konya in view of Mikami does not disclose wherein the polymer antistatic agent further comprises an aliphatic polyhydric alcohol having three or more hydroxyl groups within a molecule.
Tateno teaches an ionomer having good antistatic properties ([0023]). The ionomer contains comprises 0.1-30 parts by weight of a compound having three or more hydroxyl groups in its molecule and having a molecular weight of 400 or less, per 100 parts by weight of an ionomer of an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer ([0005]). The compound having three or more hydroxyl groups and having a molecular weight of 400 or less includes aliphatic polyhydric alcohol ([0011-0012]).
Konya in view of Mikami and Tateno are analogous inventions in the field of ionomers made from ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ionomer of Konya in view of Mikami to be the ionomer containing 0.1-30 parts by weight of the aliphatic polyhydric alcohol having three or more hydroxyl groups in its molecule and having a molecular weight of 400 or less, per 100 parts by weight of an ionomer of an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer as taught by Tateno in order to provide an ionomer having good antistatic properties (Tateno, [0023]).
Regarding wherein a molded article composed solely of the polymer antistatic agent having an intrinsic surface resistivity of 1 × 108 to 1 × 1012 Ω/□, and when 100 g of ultrapure water is introduced into a pouch produced by folding a 10 cm × 20 cm piece of the hygroscopic film in half and heat-sealing three sides, then extraction treatment is carried out in 1 atm at 30°C for 20 minutes to give an extract, and the extract is analyzed for ionic impurities: where a total content of Li+, Na+, K+, Mg2+, and Ca2+ in the hygroscopic laminate is 100 ppb or less, and a total content of F-, Cl-, NO2-, Br-, NO3-, SO42-, and PO42- in the hygroscopic laminate is 100 ppb or less, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Konya in view of Mikami and Tateno regarding a molded article composed solely of the polymer antistatic agent having a surface resistivity as claimed and a 10 cm × 20 cm piece of the hygroscopic film having the claimed ionic impurities, given that Konya in view of Mikami and Tateno discloses an otherwise identical hygroscopic laminate made from otherwise identical layers made from otherwise identical components, including an otherwise identical polymer antistatic agent as that presently claimed, it is clear a molded article composed solely of the polymer antistatic agent and the hygroscopic laminate of Konya in view of Mikami and Tateno would necessarily inherently possess these properties, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konya (JP 2002-347850 A) in view of Mikami (JP 2009-040439 A) and the evidence provided by U.S. Plastic Corp. (What are the differences between HDPE, LDPE, XLPE, LLDPE, and UHMWPE?) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Sanyo Chemical (Sanyo Chemical Product Outline). The disclosures of Konya and Mikami are based off machine translations of the references included with this action.
With respect to claims 25-26, while Konya in view of Mikami discloses a polymer antistatic agent that is a polyoxyethylene alkylamine (Konya, [0029]), which inherently has a polyether skeleton (from the polyoxyethylene), a polyolefin skeleton (from the alkyl), and a polyamide skeleton (from the amine), Konya in view of Mikami does not disclose wherein the polymer antistatic agent has a main skeleton comprising a polyether skeleton, a polypropylene skeleton, and a polyamide skeleton.
Sanyo Chemical teaches antistatic agents used for polyolefins that are polymer antistatic agents and impart long-lasting antistatic properties and effects to resins, including those known under the tradename PELESTAT 230 (page 3). PELESTAT 230 is identical to the antistatic agent used in the present invention that is a polyether/polypropylene/polyamide copolymer (i.e., has a main skeleton comprising a polyether skeleton, a polypropylene skeleton, and a polyamide skeleton) (instant specification, page 86, [0151], AS agent 2).
Konya in view of Mikami and Sanyo Chemical are analogous inventions in the field of polymer antistatic agents having a polyether/alkyl/polyamide skeleton used with polyolefins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer antistatic agent of Konya in view of Mikami to be PELESTAT 230 as taught by Sanyo Chemical in order to provide a hygroscopic laminate having long-lasting antistatic properties (Sanyo Chemical, page 3). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding wherein a molded article composed solely of the polymer antistatic agent having an intrinsic surface resistivity of 1 × 108 to 1 × 1012 Ω/□, and when 100 g of ultrapure water is introduced into a pouch produced by folding a 10 cm × 20 cm piece of the hygroscopic film in half and heat-sealing three sides, then extraction treatment is carried out in 1 atm at 30°C for 20 minutes to give an extract, and the extract is analyzed for ionic impurities: where a total content of Li+, Na+, K+, Mg2+, and Ca2+ in the hygroscopic laminate is 100 ppb or less, and a total content of F-, Cl-, NO2-, Br-, NO3-, SO42-, and PO42- in the hygroscopic laminate is 100 ppb or less, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Konya in view of Mikami and Sanyo Chemical regarding a molded article composed solely of the polymer antistatic agent having a surface resistivity as claimed and a 10 cm × 20 cm piece of the hygroscopic film having the claimed ionic impurities, given that Konya in view of Mikami and Sanyo Chemical discloses an otherwise identical hygroscopic laminate made from otherwise identical layers made from otherwise identical components, including an otherwise identical polymer antistatic agent as that presently claimed, it is clear a molded article composed solely of the polymer antistatic agent and the hygroscopic laminate of Konya in view of Mikami and Sanyo Chemical would necessarily inherently possess these properties, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Higuchi et al. (US 6,552,131 B1) discloses a block polymer that is an antistatic agent having an ether block and amide block (Col. 1, lines 5-10, Col. 2, lines 5-11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-16:00 Eastern.
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, Callie E Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights