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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear whether the disclosure tied to paragraph 71 is referring to a thickness ratio or are partially missing t
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 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.
Regarding claim 15, the thicknesses of the first and second layer are described as 4-8 and 1 respectively, however there are no given units. It is unclear whether the values are supposed to be a thickness ratio or are missing units of measurement with the core having incorrect values (see e.g. core is defined as being at least 10 µm to 80 µm in paragraph 66 on pg. 17).
For purposes of examination and compact prosecution, the thickness will be interpreted as a ratio of 1:4 through 1:8.
Additionally, it is not specified whether this is before or after stretching, and for purposes of compact examination will be interpreted as before heat stretching occurs. It is also not clarified whether this embodiment is with a single second layer or two second layers. It will be interpreted as the former with any additional layers in the prior art being obvious.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al (WO-2016192901-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida et al teaches a heat-shrinkable film (see e.g. a multi-layer shrink film on pg. 3, line 22) comprising: a first layer (see e.g. core layer on pg. 3, lines 22 and 29) containing at least one of a petroleum resin, a terpene -based resin, or a rosin- based resin (see e.g. hydrocarbon resins modify properties of polyolefin polymers and include rosin resins, terpene resins, and Petroleum resins on pg. 4, lines 8-12 and pg. 8, lines 10-16) and containing a propylene-based resin (see e.g. propylene based elastomer and propylene based plastomer on pg. 3 lines 29-30, and pg. 4 line 1), a cyclic olefin-based resin (see e.g. cyclic olefin copolymer on pg. 4, line 2), and an ethylene- based resin (see e.g. the core may comprise up to 5 % by weight of a linear low-density polyethylene on pg. 4, line 6-7 and in examples 1-7, and 10 on pgs. 18-21).
Yoshida et al teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the ethylene component of the ethylene-based resin is in an amount of 50 mol% or more and having a melting point of 70°C or higher. It is reasonable to conclude that the property is inherent to Yoshida et al. Support for said conclusion is found in the use of like materials which would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Yoshida et al teaches the additional use of linear low-density polyethylene within the core, (see e.g. the core may comprise up to 5 % by weight of a linear low-density polyethylene on pg. 4, line 6-7 and in examples 1-7, and 10 on pgs. 18-21).
The specification of the instant application discloses that linear low-density polyethylene is an exemplary ethylene-based resin (see e.g. examples of ethylene-based resin include linear low-density polyethylene in paragraph 44) the properties of the ethylene component in an amount of 50 mol% or more and melting point of 70C or higher, would be expected.
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 anticipation has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ([p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.”).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida et al teaches that the heat-shrinkable film further comprises: a second layer (see e.g. skin layer on pg. 3, lines 22-23) stacked on at least one side of the first layer (see e.g. core layer “11” is sandwiched between the first “13” and second “15” skin layer in Figure 2 and on pg. 4, lines 3-5 and pg. 15, lines 26-30) and containing a thermoplastic resin (see e.g. skin layer contains cyclic olefin copolymer and further contains linear low density polyethylene on pg. 4 lines 16-18).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Labeled Yoshida (WO-2016192901-A1) Published 2016
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida et al teaches that when a total of a thermoplastic resin contained in the first layer is 100% by weight, the first layer contains the ethylene-based resin in an amount of 0.1% by weight or more and 65% by weight or less (see e.g. the core may comprise up to 5 % by weight of a linear low-density polyethylene on pg. 4, line 6-7 and in examples 1-7, and 10 on pgs. 18-21).
Regarding claim 7, The heat-shrinkable film according to claim 1, wherein the ethylene-based resin has a density of 0.88 g/cm3 or more and 0.95 g/cm3 or less (see e.g. the low-density polyethylene used in the present specification preferably has a density of from 0.910 to 0.935 g/cm3 on pg. 9, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida et al teaches ethylene-based resin (see e.g. the core may comprise up to 5 % by weight of a linear low-density polyethylene on pg. 4, line 6-7 and in examples 1-7, and 10 on pgs. 18-21).
Yoshida et al teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the ethylene component of the ethylene-based resin has a melting point of 75°C or higher. It is reasonable to conclude that the property is inherent to Yoshida et al. Support for said conclusion is found in the use of like materials which would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Yoshida et al teaches the additional use of linear low-density polyethylene within the core, (see e.g. the core may comprise up to 5 % by weight of a linear low-density polyethylene on pg. 4, line 6-7 and in examples 1-7, and 10 on pgs. 18-21).
The specification of the instant application discloses that linear low-density polyethylene is an exemplary ethylene-based resin (see e.g. examples of ethylene-based resin include linear low-density polyethylene in paragraph 44) the properties of the ethylene component in an amount of 50 mol% or more and melting point of 70C or higher, would be expected.
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 anticipation has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ([p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.”).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida et al teaches when a total of a thermoplastic resin contained in the first layer is 100% by weight, the first layer contains the cyclic olefin-based resin in an amount of 0.1% by weight or more and 85% by weight or less (see e.g. 5% by weight to 25 % by weight of a cyclic olefin copolymer within the core on pg. 4, line 2), and has a glass transition temperature of 20°C or higher and 130°C or lower (see e.g. cyclic olefin copolymers (COCs) where the glass transition temperature of the COC is usually in the range of 60°C to 120°C and more preferably from 70°C to 80°C, with as low a glass transition temperature as 50°C on pg. 9, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida et al teaches that the heat-shrinkable film has a density of 0.95 g/cm3 or less (see e.g. (see e.g. multilayer shrink film exhibits densities well below 1 g/cm3 and further below 0.945 g/cm3 on pg. 3 lines 19-20 and in Table 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
256
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
294
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Table 5: Highlighted Yoshida et al (WO-2016192901-A1) Published in 2016
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida et al teaches that the heat-shrinkable film has a haze of 10% or less (see e.g. the multi-layer shrink film may have a haze of less than 10 % in pg. 5, lines 4-5 and Table 5).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida et al teaches heat-shrinkable label (see e.g. in product packaging it is common to place a shrinkable label, such as a heat-shrinkable label around the container where the shrinkable label is made from a decorated shrinkable film on pg. 1 lines, 14-19) comprising: the heat-shrinkable film (see e.g. the multi-layer shrink film may be converted into a sleeve label on pg. 15, lines 8-21).
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 4-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (WO-2016192901-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida et al teaches that when a total of a thermoplastic resin contained in the first layer is 100% by weight, the first layer contains the propylene-based resin in an amount of 10% by weight or more and 75% by weight or less (see e.g. the core layer, made entirely of thermoplastics, comprises 10-40 wt.% of a propylene based elastomer and 25-45 wt.% of a propylene based plastomer on pg. 3, lines 29-30 and pg. 4, line 1. Combining both the propylene-based resins together, the range becomes 35 wt.% to 95 wt.%).
Yoshida et al teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach the Vicat softening temperature of the propylene-based resins being 90°C or higher. It is reasonable to conclude that the property is inherent to Yoshida et al. Support for said conclusion is found in the use of like materials which would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Yoshida et al teaches that the propylene-based elastomers may be propylene-α-olefins with the α-olefin being 6-25 wt% (see e.g. propylene-based elastomers such as propylene-alpha-olefin elastomers comprise 6 to 25 wt.% alpha-olefin and ethylene is particularly suitable on pg. 6, lines 7-16) and having a MFR of .01g/10 min-10 g/10 min (see e.g. Melt flow rate at 230C of 0.1 g/10 min to 10 g/10 min on pg. 6, lines 19-22) and a density of 0.80-0.90 g/cm3 (see e.g. propylene-based elastomers preferably have density of 0.80-0.90 g/cm3 on pg. 6, lines 16-18).
Yoshida et al also discloses that the propylene-based plastomer is not limited as long as the polymer contains propylene as a constitutional monomer, propylene homopolymer, or a copolymer containing an α-olefin (see e.g. propylene based plastomers are not particularly limited, as long as being a polymer containing propylene as a constitutional monomer, and can be either a propylene homopolymer or a copolymer containing a copolymerization component such as an a-olefin (propylene-a-olefin copolymer) on pg. 6, lines 30-31 and pg. 7, lines 1-2). The α-olefin can be an ethylene, 1-butene, 1-pentene etc. (see e.g. propylene-α-olefin copolymers include ethylene and α-olefins having 4 to 20 carbons such as 1-butene, 1-pentene, 1-hexene, 4-methyl-1-heptene, 1-optene, 1-nonene, and 1-decene on pg. 7 lines 7-13). The propylene-based plastomers have a desired density of 0.88 to 0.93 g/cm3 (see e.g. propylene based plastomers (PBP) used in the present invention have a density between 0.88 g/cm3 to 0.93 g/cm3 on pg. 6, lines 27-29). Yoshida et al also discloses the MFR of PBP preferably 0.1 to 10 g/10 min (see e.g. melt flow rate at temperature of 230°C is preferably 0.1 to 10 grams per 10 minutes on pg. 8, lines 3-6).
In the instant application, acceptable propylene-based resins that can be used are copolymers containing propylene as the main component, such as propylene-based elastomers, and propylene with α-olefin such as ethylene, 1-butene, 1-pentene etc. (see e.g. propylene-based binary copolymers and propylene-based ternary copolymers that contain propylene as the main component and an α-olefin as a copolymerization component is preferable, where the α-olefin may be ethylene, 1-butene, 1-pentene, 1-hexene, 4-methyl-1-pentene, 1-octene, and the like with the copolymerization component being 1 to 10 mol.% where additional examples include long-chain branching polypropylene and propylene-based elastomers in paragraph 26). The instant application notes the preferred MFR is 1.0 g/10 min to 10.0 g/10 min (see e.g. melt flow rate at 230°C is preferably 1.0 g/10 min or more and 10.0g /10 min or less in paragraph 28) and have a density between 0.89 to 0.93 g/cm3 (see e.g. preferred polypropylene-based resin density of 0.89 g/cm3 or more and 0.93 g/cm3 or less in paragraph 29). The propylene-based resin has a temperature of 90°C or higher, where if two different types of propylene-based resin are used in a mixture, the Vicat softening temperature calculated by summing the products of the Vicat softening temperatures and blending proportions (see e.g. resin mixture containing two or more types of propylene-based resins, Vicat softening temperature calculated by summing the products and blending proportions in paragraph 27). All the examples given in Yoshida are the same as those in the instant application, even with the Vicat softening temperatures being summed and blending proportions as all examples given in Yoshida are also in the Instant application. It would be expected for the combination of propylene elastomer and propylene plastomer to have a Vicat softening temperature of 90°C or higher.
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 obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ([p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida et al teaches that when the total of the thermoplastic resin contained in the first layer is 100% by weight, the first layer contains the propylene-based resin in an amount of 10% by weight or more and 50% by weight or less (see e.g. the core layer, made entirely of thermoplastics, comprises 10-40 wt.% of a propylene based elastomer and 25-45 wt.% of a propylene based plastomer on pg. 3, lines 29-30 and pg. 4, line 1. Combining both the propylene-based resins together, the range becomes 35 wt.% to 95 wt.%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida et al teaches a thickness ratio of the film, where the second layer is 1, the first layer has a thickness of 4 or more and 8 or less (see e.g. where example 1 has a thickness ratio of 1:5:1 and examples 2-10 have a thickness ratio of 1.8.5:1 with each ratio being the unstretched film and in the format of (skin layer): (core layer): (skin layer) on pg. 18-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (WO-2016192901-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itoh et al (US-20160152390-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida et al teaches of antiblockers within the second layer but does not teach of the antiblockers being microparticles, being in the core layer, or that they are further surrounded by a closed pore (see e.g. skin layer further comprises other additives such as antiblock additives on pg. 12, lines 26-30 and pg. 13 lines 10-15).
Itoh et al teaches that the first layer further contains a microparticle (see e.g. organic or inorganic lubricants that are antiblocking agents may be added to any layer mainly the surface layer, intermediate layer, or inner surface layer, with the particle size of the inorganic or organic lubricants being 0.5 to 10 µm and more preferably, 1 to 7 µm making them microparticles in paragraphs 41-43), and in the first layer, a closed pore is formed so as to surround the microparticle (see e.g. where the antiblocking agent is enclosed in either the surface layer, intermediate layer, or inner surface layer in paragraph 51).
Yoshida et al and Itoh et al are analogous in the art because both are multilayered heat-shrinkable films that utilize the use of antiblocking agents to optimize the film’s properties. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the antiblockers in the second layer taught in Yoshida et al to be microparticles as taught in Itoh et al because the small particles are preferable (see e.g. average particle size is preferably 0.5 to 10 µm and more preferably 1 to 7 µm, where it is even more preferable to cut the portion of particles greater than 10 µm in paragraph 43 of Itoh et al) so they can fit into the similarly thin first and second layers, as antiblocking agents improve film slipperiness when producing the film and suitability for packaging (see e.g. organic lubricants, inorganic lubricants (antiblocking agents) preferably contained in layers to improve film slipperiness in paragraph 41 of Itoh et al).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the microparticle antiblockers in the second layer taught in Yoshida et al in view of Itoh et al to be within the first layer because antiblockers within the first layer would allow for the antiblockers to impart more of their antiblocking properties, such as increased slipperiness, decreased self-adhesion, film preferable for packaging (see e.g. organic lubricants, inorganic lubricants (antiblocking agents) preferably contained in layers to improve film slipperiness and suitability for packaging in paragraph 41 and inhibits adhesion to the film itself in 43 of Itoh et al).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the microparticle antiblockers in the first layer taught in Yoshida et al in view of Itoh to be further surrounded by enclosed pores as taught in Itoh et al because it would ensure the particles stay in one position and in the correct dispersion, desired layer, and/or miscible phase (see e.g. the inorganic fillers chosen for refractive index and dispersibility in paragraph 43 and is added to desired resin phase that constitute the desired layer or a resin miscible with it in paragraph 44 in Itoh et al).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida et al teaches antiblockers within the second layer but does not teach the antiblockers being microparticles, being in the core layer, or their concentration by weight being 0.005 parts by weight to 1 part by weight (see e.g. skin layer further comprises other additives such as antiblock additives on pg. 12, lines 26-30 and pg. 13 lines 10-15).
Itoh et al teaches when a total of a thermoplastic resin contained in the first layer is 100 parts by weight, the first layer contains the microparticles in an amount of 0.005 parts by weight or more and 1 part by weight or less (see e.g. antiblocking agents, particularly inorganic lubricants are added preferably in the proportion of 0.05 % by mass or more to 2% by mass or less, and more preferably 0.1 % by mass to 1 % by mass in paragraph 43).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the multilayer heat shrinkable film taught in Yoshida et al to include a low concentration of microparticles as taught in Itoh et al because it allows the resin to be in the desired phase, avoiding changing the miscibility while obtaining slipperiness and inhibiting adhesion to the film itself (see e.g. organic or inorganic lubricant preferably added to desired resin phase in paragraph 43, where inorganic lubricants inhibit adhesion in paragraph 43 and improve film slipperiness in paragraph 41 of Itoh et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida et al teaches of antiblockers within the second layer but does not teach of the antiblockers being microparticles, being in the core layer, or their size (see e.g. skin layer further comprises other additives such as antiblock additives on pg. 12, lines 26-30 and pg. 13 lines 10-15).
Itoh et al teaches that the microparticles have a most frequent particle size of 1 µm or more and 8 µm or less (see e.g. the particle size of the inorganic or organic lubricants being 0.5 to 10 µm and more preferably, 1 to 7 µm in paragraph 43).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the multilayer heat shrinkable film taught in Yoshida et al with microparticles of a particular size as taught in Itoh et al because the small particles are preferable (see e.g. average particle size is preferably 0.5 to 10 µm and more preferably 1 to 7 µm, where it is even more preferable to cut the portion of particles greater than 10 µm in paragraph 43 of Itoh et al) so they can fit into the similarly thin first and second layers, as antiblocking agents improve film slipperiness when producing the film and suitability for packaging (see e.g. organic lubricants, inorganic lubricants (antiblocking agents) preferably contained in layers to improve film slipperiness in paragraph 41 of Itoh et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (WO-2016192901-A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hu et al (US-20140353197-A1) and Muta et al (JP-2011056736-A).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida et al teaches that the second layer (see e.g. skin layer “13 and “15” on pg. 12 lines 17-30 and pg. 13 lines 3-15) contains a cyclic olefin-based resin (see e.g. skin layer contains at least 50 % of cyclic olefin copolymer preferably 70% by weight to 100 % by weight on pg. 12 lines 17-19 and pg. 13 lines 3-5), an ethylene-based resin (see e.g. skin layer contains comprises up to 30 % by weight of a linear low density polyethylene based on the total weight of the skin layer on pg. 12 lines 19-22 and pg. 13 lines 5-7), and antiblockers (see e.g. skin layer further comprises other additives such as antiblock additives on pg. 12, lines 26-30 and pg. 13 lines 10-15). Yoshida et al does not teach the use of at least one of a petroleum resin, a terpene-based resin, or a rosin-based resin within the second layer or that the antiblockers are specifically microparticles.
Hu et al teaches that the second layer contains at least one of a petroleum resin, a terpene-based resin, or a rosin-based resin (see e.g. internal and external sub-surface layers contain 60-90 wt. % of an ethylene-norbornene copolymer, with a norbornene content of 65 wt. % and a 10-40 wt. % of a hydrogenated petroleum resin in paragraph 18)
Yoshida et al and Hu et al are analogous in the art because both describe a multilayer heat shrinkable film comprising of the same materials. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second layer of Yoshida et al with the addition of a petroleum resin as taught in Hu et al because it would increase the bonding strength, increase the heat shrinkage rate, and the glossiness of the film (see e.g. aim of disposing internal external sub-surface layers is to increase bonding strength of internal and external surface layers at joints and increase the heat shrinkage rate, and the glossiness of the film in paragraph 18 of Hu et al).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to make the internal and external surface, and internal and external sub-surface taught in Hu et al integrally formed as it is an obvious engineering choice to increase manufacturing output and simplify production. MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) and In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Muta et al specifically teaches that the anti-blocking agents are microparticles (see e.g. average particle size of the antiblocking agent is preferably 0.05 µm or more and preferably 1 µm or more and 10 µm or less and more preferably 8 µm or less in paragraph 40).
Yoshida et al, in view of Hu et al and Muta et al are analogous in the art because all of them are multilayer heat shrinkable films. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the antiblocking agent particles taught in the second layer of Yoshida et al with a specification that they are microparticles as taught in Muta et al because if the particle size is too small it will be difficult for the particles to precipitate on the surface impacting slipperiness and antiblocking properties, while if the particle size is too large, it will impact the design when printing occurs, leading to bleeding ink impairing the appearance of the design (see e.g. antiblocking agents achieve slipperiness and antiblocking properties, where if the wrong size of additives are added, it becomes hard for the antiblocking agents to precipitate on the film surface hence not providing sufficient slipperiness in lower sizes and can lead to impaired design appearance and readability due to bleeding ink during printing in higher sizes in paragraph 40 of Muta et al).
Additional References
An additional reference in the prior art that can read on the claims is Maruichi et al (US-20150273803-A1) which teaches a heat-shrinkable film with a similar composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/T.N.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights