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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 1, the claim recites “a clumping fraction in a mixture of the polyester resin and other PET resins”. There is no recitation in the Specification regarding the amount of each to fulfil the test. The PET-S-08 test does not recite the amount of the components, only the testing methodology for the resulting mixture. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain how to ascertain the metes and bounds of the clumping fraction and renders the claim indefinite.
There is an issue of antecedent basis with regarding “the thermal shrinkage ratio” in (D4) that renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, There is an issue of antecedent basis with regarding “a thermal shrinkage ratio” in (D4’) that renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 3-5, it is uncertain how to read Expressions (1)-(3), as the ratio is a %, but the formula leads to a Celsius value. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain how to properly calculate a thermal shrinkage ratio from the formula and values given.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites the “standard deviation of the thickness measured under predetermined conditions”. However, it is uncertain what “predetermined conditions” are set, which would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from ascertaining the metes and bounds of the standard deviation and renders the claim indefinite. It is also uncertain why the formulas are labeled [Math .] and ellipses after the formula into a (#).
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, 2, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2022/0235187 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0274434 A1) and Wakai (JP 2001-293779 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches a heat-shrinkable polyester film (Abstract) comprising a polyester resin, a reaction of a polycarboxylic acid and polyalcohol. (Paragraph 0009). Yang teaches the film should have a clumping ratio, measured using APR PET-S-08, of 10% or less. (Paragraph 0074). Yang teaches the polyester resin should have a melting point, measured through DSC, of 190 – 230 degrees C. (Paragraph 0068). Yang teaches the polyester film should have a melting enthalpy measured using DSC, the melting heat quantity corresponding to a melting peak area at melting point, is greater than 9 J/g. (Paragraph 0057).
Yang teaches the film has a thermal shrinkage ratio in the main shrinkage direction measured under 70C/10 seconds from 0.1 to 50%. (Paragraph 0083). Yang teaches the film has a thermal shrinkage ratio in the main shrinkage direction measured under 80C/10 seconds is 23% or more. (Paragraph 0085).
These ranges taught by Yang overlap the claimed range. 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).
Yang does not specifically teach the polyester has the claimed shrinkage ratio at 60C/10 seconds.
Kim teaches a heat-shrinkable polyester film (Abstract), where Kim teaches the thermal shrinkage ratio in the main shrinkage direction of 60C/10 seconds is 2% or more. (Paragraph 0020). This overlaps the claimed range. Kim teaches this shrinkage ratio allows the heat-shrinkable polyester film to be used on HDPE containers or any container having an expansion starting at 50 degrees C, as the shrink label will not fall off the HDPE container at room temperature. (Paragraph 0004-0006). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the film of Yang has the claimed shrinkage ratio range at 60C/10 seconds as taught by Kim to allow the film of Yang to be used on different types of containers, including HDPE and those expanding at 50 degrees C.
Yang does not specifically teach the standard deviation of a thermal shrinkage ratio in the main shrinkage direction from 95 to 100C/10 seconds.
Wakai teaches a polyester heat-shrinkable film (Paragraph 0006; Abstract), where the standard deviation of a thermal shrinkage ratio in the main shrinkage direction at 90C/10 second is 1% or less. (Paragraph 0004). Wakai teaches having a standard deviation within this range ensures the variation of thermal shrinkage characteristics does not become too large and reduces the distortion to the printed matter on the shrink film. Wakai teaches the 90 degree is the set point for measuring the standard deviation, as it is the typical temperature for heat-shrinking a shrink film onto a container (Paragraph 0009). Yang teaches the film can be shrunk onto a container from 70 to 100 degrees C. (Paragraph 0082) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the standard deviation of the shrinkage ratio in Yang to the claimed range as taught by Wakai to all shrinkable temperatures, including 95-100 degrees C, to ensure there is no distortion of printed matter on heat shrinkable film.
Regarding Claim 2, Yang teaches a thermal shrinkage ratio in the main shrinkage direction at 90 C/10 seconds is 40% or more and at 100 C/10 seconds is 45 to 85%. (Paragraph 0086-0087). Thus, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the thermal shrinkage ratio from 95-100 C/10 seconds taught by Yang would overlap the claimed ranges, as 90C/10 second and 100C/10 seconds overlaps the claimed range of 70% or more.
Regarding Claim 6, Yang teaches a thermal shrinkage ratio in a direction perpendicular to the main shrinkage direction measured at 70C/10 seconds is -4% or more. (Paragraph 0089). This overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang teaches the polyester film can comprise a single copolyester. (Paragraph 0057). Yang teaches the crystallinity of the film can be controlled and has some crystallinity. (Abstract). Thus, the polyester resin has a crystalline polyester resin to amorphous polyester resin weight mixing ratio of 100:0.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Kim and Wakai, in view of Forloni et al. (EP 1140471 B1)
Regarding Claim 7, Yang teaches the thickness of the film is set to 100 to 100 microns. (Paragraph 0123).
Yang does not specifically teach a standard deviation of the thickness.
Forloni teaches heat-shrinkable films (Abstract). Forloni teaches having a thickness variation of 20% is unacceptable in the film industry and below 10% is a good value. (Paragraph 0028-0029). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the thickness variation under 10% to ensure the shrink film of Yang is acceptable to industry and presents a good value. This thickness variation range of 10% or less would yield a standard deviation range that would overlap the claimed range. 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).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
