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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001-294678 Ito et al.
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a drawn film (paragraph 0014, stretched) comprising a polypropylene resin composition (paragraph 0008), wherein the drawn film is a polypropylene heat-shrinkable film (paragraph 0001) satisfying the following (1) to (6):
(1) a hot water thermal shrinkage rate in a widthwise direction of 42% when the film is immersed in 90°C hot water for 10 seconds (paragraph 0018),
(2) a hot water thermal shrinkage rate in a lengthwise direction of 5% when the film is immersed in 90°C hot water for 10 seconds (paragraph 0018),
(3) a specific gravity of 1.0 or less (paragraph 0008),
(4) one melting peak temperature at 130°C (paragraph 0018), as measured with a differential scanning calorimeter (paragraph 0017).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught specific gravity range of 1.0 or less reads on the claimed range of 0.87 to 0.95.
Ito does not explicitly teach a second melting peak temperature between 70°C and 100°C, the refractive index in either direction, or the natural shrinkage rate after the claimed aging. However, as Ito satisfies all of the previous limitations, Ito’s materials (pp/1-butene copolymer) and method (drawn) are indistinguishable from the claimed materials and method. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Ito’s polypropylene film would also exhibit a second melting peak temperature between 70°C and 100°C, a refractive index difference of 0.015 to 0.030, and a natural shrinkage rate of 0.1% to 3.0% after aging for 672 hours in a 40°C, 65% RH atmosphere. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Furthermore, when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §2112, Section V. In this case, Ito appears to form the same product with the same structure as that of the instant invention. Applicant may provide evidence proving a difference between the products.
Regarding claim 2, Ito teaches that the film has a haze of 4.8% (paragraph 0018).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ito does not explicitly teach a non-reversing heat flow peak, heat absorption or widthwise refractive index. However, as Ito satisfies all of the previous limitations, Ito’s materials (pp/1-butene copolymer) and method (drawn) are indistinguishable from the claimed materials and method. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Ito’s polypropylene film would also exhibit a peak in a range of 20°C or higher and 60°C or less in non-reversing heat flow as measured with a temperature-modulated scanning calorimeter, and a heat absorption of 0.3 J/g or more and 0.95 J/g or less at the peak, and a widthwise refractive index Ny of 1.490 or more and 1.530 or less. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Furthermore, when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §2112, Section V. In this case, Ito appears to form the same product with the same structure as that of the instant invention. Applicant may provide evidence proving a difference between the products.
Regarding claim 5, Ito teaches that the film has a thickness of 60 microns (paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 9, Ito teaches that the polypropylene resin composition constituting the polypropylene heat-shrinkable film comprises 1-butene as a copolymerized component (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 10, Ito teaches that a total fraction of α-olefin in the copolymer contained in the polypropylene resin composition is 5 mol% or more to 50 mol% (paragraph 0008). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 5 to 50 mol% reads on the claimed range of 8 to 24 mol%.
Regarding claim 11, Ito teaches that the α-olefin is 1-butene (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 12, Ito teaches that the polypropylene resin composition has a melt flow rate (MFR) at 230°C of 3 to 15 g/10 min (paragraph 0011).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001-294678 Ito et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 2 116 354 Yamamoto et al.
Regarding claim 7, Ito teaches a label comprising the polypropylene heat-shrinkable film (paragraph 0001) of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach perforations or pairs of notches. Yamamoto teaches a heat-shrinkable stretched polyolefin film used in bottle labelling applications (paragraph 0007) where the label has perforations (paragraph 0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the perforations of Yamamoto in the product of Ito because this allows one to remove the label from the bottle (paragraph 0008). This may be useful in recycling operations.
Regarding claim 8, Ito teaches a packaged article comprising a label over at least a part of the outer periphery of a subject of packaging (paragraph 0008), the label being the polypropylene heat-shrinkable film of claim 1 (paragraph 0001). Ito does not explicitly teach a cylindrical form. Yamamoto teaches a heat-shrinkable stretched polyolefin film used in bottle labelling applications (paragraph 0007) where the label is cylindrical (paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the cylindrical shape of Yamamoto in the product of Ito because cylindrical is a typical bottle shape (paragraph 0007, bottle having a circumference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights