Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 6/29/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-15 remain pending.
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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that in the further in the prosecution of the application, the reason for the unity of invention between the two groups will be presented. This is not found persuasive because the reasoning has to be provided now. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, replace “an MD direction” with “a machine direction (MD)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUJI (EP-3950368-A1), hereinafter TSUJI (family member of WO-2020203013 with a publication date of 10/8/2020), in view of JACKSON (US-2020/0361692), hereinafter JACKSON. Note that the italicized text below are the instant invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6 TSUJI discloses A method of producing a printed matter {[abstract]}, the method comprising, in the order mentioned:
the transfer step of transferring an ink onto a polyolefin film by a central impression printing method {[0013], [0026] note PE and PP are polyolefin, [0046]}; and
the curing step of irradiating the ink with an electron beam to cure the ink {[abstract], [0021]}.
TSUJI, however, is silent on the tensile modulus of the polyolefin film (claim 1) and the specific components of polyolefin film (claims 5-6).
In the same field of endeavor that is related to packaging bags with printing on them, JACKSON discloses having a tensile modulus of 200 MPa to 1,000 MPa in a machine direction (MD) (claim 1) {[0106]-[0107] note 20,000 psi is 138 MPa, [FIG. 6] note film for bag is made in MD},
wherein the polyolefin film comprises a polyethylene resin in an amount of 10% by mass or more (claim 5), wherein the polyolefin film further comprises a polypropylene resin in an amount of 90% by mass or less (claim 6) {[0077] note a range of 20-21% PE, [0086] note that PE can have the copolymer PP, thus PP will be 79-80%}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of JACKSON in the method of TSUJI and have selected the film with the recited tensile modulus and chemical composition, since as disclosed by JACKSON this tensile strength and composition is appropriate for a packaging bag with a good sealant film for containing flowable materials {[0106]}. The Examiner notes that TSUJI film is also used in a packaging bag {[0002]}.
The Examiner notes that JACKSON teaches a tensile modulus range that encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30. Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 2, TSUJI discloses wherein the polyolefin film has a thickness of 20 µm to 60 µm {[0028] note a range of 10-50}.
The Examiner notes that TSUJI teaches a thickness range that partially overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30. Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 3, TSUJI discloses wherein a ratio (C2/C1) of a crystallinity C2 of the polyolefin film after electron beam irradiation performed under the conditions of an acceleration voltage of 110 kV and an irradiation dose of 40 kGy with respect to a crystallinity C1 of the polyolefin film is 0.8 to 1.2 {[0025] the Examiner notes that since TSUJI discloses exposure of the polyolefin film to the same electron beam characteristics (acceleration dose and voltage), the same change of crystallinity will occur and the post-exposure crystallinity will be between 0.8 to 1.2; notably the applicant’s specification/claims do not specify any additional method step(s) that result in such change in crystallinity. If applying the same method steps in substantially the same way does not inherently result in the crystallinity range recited, then a question of scope of enablement and/or omitting essential method limitations can be brought for the claim}.
Regarding acceleration voltage and irradiation dose, the Examiner notes that TSUJI teaches an acceleration voltage range of 110-150 kV and a dose range of 20-50 kGy {[0025]} that encompasses the claimed values. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30. Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 8, TSUJI discloses wherein, in the curing step, the electron beam is irradiated under the conditions of an acceleration voltage of 70 kV to 90 kV and an irradiation dose of 20 kGy to 60 kGy {[0025]}.
Regarding acceleration voltage, the Examiner notes that TSUJI teaches an acceleration voltage range of 50-150 kV {[0025]} that encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30. Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, TSUJI discloses wherein the ink comprises a urethane (meth)acrylate {[0040]}.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TSUJI and JACKSON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MAZZOLA (US-2021/0292528), hereinafter MAZZOLA.
Regarding claim 4, combination of TSUJI and JACKSON discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. TSUJI further discloses electron beam irradiation performed under the conditions of an acceleration voltage of 110 kV and an irradiation dose of 40 kGy {see claim 3 analysis above}.
Combination of TSUJI and JACKSON, however, is silent on the degree of crystallinity of polyolefin film after irradiation.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to polyolefin films, MAZZOLA discloses wherein the crystallinity C2 of the polyolefin film after irradiation is 20% to 50% {[0048] note that as discussed above under claim 3, the crystallinity after irradiation meets the claimed ratio, thus based on disclosure here, and at its broadest, a range of 0.8*40 to 1.2*60 or 32%-70% is disclosed}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of MAZZOLA in the combination method of TSUJI and JACKSON and have selected the polyolefin film with the disclosed degree of crystallinity. As disclosed by MAZZOLA, the advantage of this film with the disclosed crystallinity is high puncture and dart impact resistance without reducing the tear resistance {[0003]}.
The Examiner notes that MAZZOLA teaches a crystallinity range that partially overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30. Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TSUJI and JACKSON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FUJIMOTO (US-2018/0068791), hereinafter FUJIMOTO.
Regarding claim 7, combination of TSUJI and JACKSON discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Combination of TSUJI and JACKSON, however, is silent on the content of a crystal nucleating agent in the polyolefin film.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to polyolefin films, FUJIMOTO discloses wherein the content of a crystal nucleating agent in the polyolefin film is 0.01% by mass or less {[0050]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of FUJIMOTO in the combination method of TSUJI and JACKSON and have included the nucleating agent with the disclosed content. As taught by FUJIMOTO, the advantage of this low content is prevention of deterioration of stretchability {[0050]}.
The Examiner notes that FUJIMOTO teaches a content range that encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30. Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TSUJI and JACKSON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of INOUE (US-2018/0327617), hereinafter INOUE.
Regarding claim 9, combination of TSUJI and JACKSON discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Combination of TSUJI and JACKSON, however, is silent on the presence of an anionic surfactant in the poring ink.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to printing ink, INOUE discloses wherein the ink comprises an anionic surfactant {[0102], [0268]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of INOUE in the combination method of TSUJI and JACKSON and have included an anionic surfactant in the ink of TSUJI. As taught by FUJIMOTO, the advantage of this surfactant is to help with emulsification {[0102]} that is also an objective in the method of TSUJI {[0014]}.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TSUJI and JACKSON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of IWATA (US-2024/0051274), hereinafter IWATA, as evidenced by IIHARA (JP-2021066175-A and its English translation), hereinafter IIHARA.
Regarding claim 11, combination of TSUJI and JACKSON discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Combination of TSUJI and JACKSON, however, is silent on the use of offset printing for the transfer of the ink.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to printing on laminated films, IWATA discloses wherein, in the transfer step, the ink is transferred by offset printing {[0073]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of IWATA in the combination method of TSUJI and JACKSON and have performed the ink transfer using offset printing. As taught by IWATA, offset printing is well known in the art {[0073]}.
Additionally, and as evidenced by IIHARA, offset printing is preferred because it allows for the production of a large number of printed materials by suppressing damage to the printing material during printing {[0123]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights