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 without traverse of Species C, claims 12-16, in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 and 17-55 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024, 12/06/2024, 12/11/2024, 5/12/2025 are considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al. (JP 2009-018439A, machine translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 12, Shibata et al. teaches a decorative sheet comprising a colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) comprising polypropylene, a urethane adhesive resin (3) and a transparent thermoplastic resin (4) comprised of polypropylene ([0010-0016]).
The limitation reciting “each of the colored thermoplastic resin layer and the transparent thermoplastic resin layer is a resin formed of a resin composition containing biomass-derived polypropylene which is obtained by polymerizing a monomer containing biomass-derived propylene” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Shibata et al. discloses the structure of claim 12 as described above, wherein both the colored thermoplastic layer and the transparent thermoplastic resin are comprised of polypropylene.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al. (JP 2009-018439A, machine translation provided by Applicant) as evidenced by “Propylene” by Lenntech https://www.lenntech.com/polypropylene.htm, via Internet Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20191017111648/https://www.lenntech.com/polypropylene.htm, October 17, 2019).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Shibata et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, and as previously stated, teaches that the colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) and the transparent thermoplastic resin (4) are comprised of polypropylene ([0010-0016]).
While the reference does not expressly teach the density of the polypropylene, density is an inherent property of the polymer, which as evidenced by “Propylene” by Lenntech, which teaches that polypropylene has a density range of 0.910-0.928 g/mL (0.910-0.928 g/cm3), completely encompassed within the claimed range of 0.90-0.96 g/cm3 as recited by claim 15 and the claimed range of 0.90-1.40 g/cm3 recited by claim 16.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horio et al. (US 2019/0248100).
Regarding claim 12, Horio et al. taches a decorative sheet comprising a base material sheet (2) comprising homopolypropylene, colored by adding a colorant, a transparent adhesive layer (7) and a transparent resin layer comprising homopolypropylene (4) ([0039-0044, 0052-0056, 0091-0093]).
The limitation reciting “each of the colored thermoplastic resin layer and the transparent thermoplastic resin layer is a resin formed of a resin composition containing biomass-derived polypropylene which is obtained by polymerizing a monomer containing biomass-derived propylene” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Horio et al. discloses the structure of claim 12 as described above, wherein both the base material sheet and the transparent resin layer are comprised of homopolypropylene.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horio et al. (US 2019/0248100) as evidenced by “Propylene” by Lenntech https://www.lenntech.com/polypropylene.htm, via Internet Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20191017111648/https://www.lenntech.com/polypropylene.htm, October 17, 2019).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Horio et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, and as previously stated, teaches that the base material sheet (2) and the transparent resin layer comprise homopolypropylene (4) ([0039-0044, 0052-0056, 0091-0093]).
While the reference does not expressly teach the density of the polypropylene, density is an inherent property of the polymer, which as evidenced by “Propylene” by Lenntech, which teaches that polypropylene has a density range of 0.910-0.928 g/mL (0.910-0.928 g/cm3), completely encompassed within the claimed range of 0.90-0.96 g/cm3 as recited by claim 15 and the claimed range of 0.90-1.40 g/cm3 recited by claim 16.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (JP 2009-018439A, machine translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 13, Shibata et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) and the transparent thermoplastic resin layer (4) each contain polypropylene in an amount of 5 mass% or greater and 99 mass% or less relative to the total mass of each individual layer, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based upon the desired properties of the resultant film layers.
The limitations reciting “biomass-derived polypropylene” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Shibata et al. discloses the structure of claim 12 as described above.
Regarding claim 14, Shibata et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches that the thickness of the colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) is preferably between 12 and 25mm ([0010]), completely encompassed by the claimed range of 10 mm or greater and 150 mm or less.
Shibata et al. further teaches that the thickness of the transparent thermoplastic resin layer (4) is preferably between 70 mm and 200 mm ([0013]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 mm or greater and 150 mm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Claim 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (JP 2009-018439A, machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of Boswell et al. (US 2011/0120902).
Regarding claim 12, Shibata et al. teaches a decorative sheet comprising a colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) comprising polypropylene, a urethane adhesive resin (3) and a transparent thermoplastic resin (4) comprised of polypropylene ([0010-0016]).
Should the Applicant disagree with the above interpretation regarding the limitation reciting “each of the colored thermoplastic resin layer and the transparent thermoplastic resin layer is a resin formed of a resin composition containing biomass-derived polypropylene which is obtained by polymerizing a monomer containing biomass-derived propylene” being a product by process limitation, Boswell et al. teaches a container, label and cap made from sustainable materials ([0007]). Boswell et al. teaches that the label (decorative sheet) is comprised of a substrate including a bio-based polymer, such as bio based polypropylene, wherein the substrate has a bio-based content of at least 90% ([0010, 0013, 0016, 0022, 0028, 0045-0050]). The container, label and cap taught by Boswell et al. is advantageous because it has the same look and feel as similar articles made from petroleum-based sources, yet has improved sustainability, as well as reduction in fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide mission ([0020-0021]). Boswell et al. further teaches that increasing the amount of bio-based polymers used in the claimed invention can increase the stress crack resistance, impact resistance, surface gloss and decrease opaqueness ([0023]). Boswell et al. teaches a specific embodiment wherein bio-based polypropylene is used for the container, cap and label, such that when the label is comprised of bio-based polypropylene, it has a density of less than 1g/mL to aid in separation during floatation process of recycling ([0072-0085]).
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 colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) comprising polypropylene and the transparent thermoplastic resin (4) comprised of polypropylene of the decorative sheet taught by Shibata et al. to include bio-based polypropylene as taught by Boswell et al., as Bowell et al. teaches numerous environmental advantages to using bio-based polymers. Boswell et al. further teaches that bio-based polymers have the same look and feel as petroleum based polymers, but are advantageous in their decrease in fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emission, while increasing stress crack resistance, impact resistance and surface gloss. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a substitution based upon the advantageous environmental impacts disclosed by Boswell et al.
Regarding claim 13, Shibata et al. in view of Boswell et al. teaches all the limitation of claim 12 above. Boswell et al. further teaches that the properties of the sustainable article can be tuned by varying the amount of bio-material, recycled material and regrind material used to form the container, cap and label, wherein the label can have a bio-based content of at least about 90% ([0023-0025, 0072-0085]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
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 amount of bio-based material in the colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) comprising polypropylene and the transparent thermoplastic resin (4) comprised of polypropylene of the decorative sheet taught by Shibata et al. in view of Boswell et al. to be at least 90% in content (mass) as taught by Bowell et al. to achieve the advantageous environmental impacts.
Regarding claim 14, Shibata et al. in view of Boswell et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, and Shibata et al. further teaches that the thickness of the colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) is preferably between 12 and 25mm ([0010]), completely encompassed by the claimed range of 10 mm or greater and 150 mm or less.
Shibata et al. further teaches that the thickness of the transparent thermoplastic resin layer (4) is preferably between 70 mm and 200 mm ([0013]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 mm or greater and 150 mm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (JP 2009-018439A, machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of in view of Boswell et al. (US 2011/0120902), as evidenced by “Propylene” by Lenntech https://www.lenntech.com/polypropylene.htm, via Internet Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20191017111648/https://www.lenntech.com/polypropylene.htm, October 17, 2019).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Shibata et al. in view of Boswell et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, and as previously stated, Shibata et al. teaches that the colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) and the transparent thermoplastic resin (4) are comprised of polypropylene ([0010-0016]).
While the reference does not expressly teach the density of the polypropylene, density is an inherent property of the polymer, which as evidenced by “Propylene” by Lenntech, which teaches that polypropylene has a density range of 0.910-0.928 g/mL (0.910-0.928 g/cm3), completely encompassed within the claimed range of 0.90-0.96 g/cm3 as recited by claim 15 and the claimed range of 0.90-1.40 g/cm3 recited by claim 16.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horio et al. (US 2019/0248100).
Regarding claim 13, Horio et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
While the reference does not expressly teach that the colored thermoplastic resin layer (1) and the transparent thermoplastic resin layer (4) each contain polypropylene in an amount of 5 mass% or greater and 99 mass% or less relative to the total mass of each individual layer, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based upon the desired properties of the resultant film layers.
The limitations reciting “biomass-derived polypropylene” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Horio et al. discloses the structure of claim 12 as described above.
Regarding claim 14, Horio et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches that the thickness of the base material sheet (2) is preferably 40 mm to 100 mm ([0043]), completely encompassed by the claimed range of 10 mm or greater and 150 mm or less.
Horio et al. further teaches that the thickness of the transparent resin layer comprising homopolypropylene (4) is 40 mm or more and 300 mm or less ([0056]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 mm or greater and 150 mm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Claims 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horio et al. (US 2019/0248100) in view of Boswell et al. (US 2011/0120902).
Regarding claim 12, Horio et al. taches a decorative sheet comprising a base material sheet (2) comprising homopolypropylene, colored by adding a colorant, a transparent adhesive layer (7) and a transparent resin layer comprising homopolypropylene (4) ([0039-0044, 0052-0056, 0091-0093]).
Should the Applicant disagree with the above interpretation regarding the limitation reciting “each of the colored thermoplastic resin layer and the transparent thermoplastic resin layer is a resin formed of a resin composition containing biomass-derived polypropylene which is obtained by polymerizing a monomer containing biomass-derived propylene” being a product by process limitation, Boswell et al. teaches a container, label and cap made from sustainable materials ([0007]). Boswell et al. teaches that the label (decorative sheet) is comprised of a substrate including a bio-based polymer, such as bio based polypropylene, wherein the substrate has a bio-based content of at least 90% ([0010, 0013, 0016, 0022, 0028, 0045-0050]). The container, label and cap taught by Boswell et al. is advantageous because it has the same look and feel as similar articles made from petroleum-based sources, yet has improved sustainability, as well as reduction in fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide mission ([0020-0021]). Boswell et al. further teaches that increasing the amount of bio-based polymers used in the claimed invention can increase the stress crack resistance, impact resistance, surface gloss and decrease opaqueness ([0023]). Boswell et al. teaches a specific embodiment wherein bio-based polypropylene is used for the container, cap and label, such that when the label is comprised of bio-based polypropylene, it has a density of less than 1g/mL to aid in separation during floatation process of recycling ([0072-0085]).
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 base material sheet (2) and the transparent resin layer comprising homopolypropylene (4) of the decorative sheet taught by Horio et al. et al. to include bio-based polypropylene as taught by Boswell et al., as Bowell et al. teaches numerous environmental advantages to using bio-based polymers. Boswell et al. further teaches that bio-based polymers have the same look and feel as petroleum based polymers, but are advantageous in their decrease in fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emission, while increasing stress crack resistance, impact resistance and surface gloss. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a substitution based upon the advantageous environmental impacts disclosed by Boswell et al.
Regarding claim 13, Horio et al. in view of Boswell et al. teaches all the limitation of claim 12 above. Boswell et al. further teaches that the properties of the sustainable article can be tuned by varying the amount of bio-material, recycled material and regrind material used to form the container, cap and label, wherein the label can have a bio-based content of at least about 90% ([0023-0025, 0072-0085]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
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 amount of bio-based material in the base material sheet (2) and the transparent resin layer comprising homopolypropylene (4) of the decorative sheet taught by Horio et al. in view of Boswell et al. to be at least 90% in content (mass) as taught by Bowell et al. to achieve the advantageous environmental impacts.
Regarding claim 14, Horio et al. in view of Boswell et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, and Horio et al. further teaches that the thickness of the base material sheet (2) is preferably 40 mm to 100 mm ([0043]), completely encompassed by the claimed range of 10 mm or greater and 150 mm or less.
Horio et al. further teaches that the thickness of the transparent resin layer comprising homopolypropylene (4) is 40 mm or more and 300 mm or less ([0056]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 mm or greater and 150 mm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horio et al. (US 2019/0248100) in view of Boswell et al. (US 2011/0120902), as evidenced by “Propylene” by Lenntech https://www.lenntech.com/polypropylene.htm, via Internet Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20191017111648/https://www.lenntech.com/polypropylene.htm, October 17, 2019).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Horio et al. in view of Boswell et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, and as previously stated, Horio et al. teaches that the base material sheet (2) and the transparent resin layer comprise homopolypropylene (4) ([0039-0044, 0052-0056, 0091-0093]).
While the reference does not expressly teach the density of the polypropylene, density is an inherent property of the polymer, which as evidenced by “Propylene” by Lenntech, which teaches that polypropylene has a density range of 0.910-0.928 g/mL (0.910-0.928 g/cm3), completely encompassed within the claimed range of 0.90-0.96 g/cm3 as recited by claim 15 and the claimed range of 0.90-1.40 g/cm3 recited by claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785