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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending. Claims 7-14 were withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and the Declaration under Rule 132 by Mr. Otacilio Berbert (“the Berbert Declaration”) filed 9/15/2025 have been carefully studied, and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant contends that (1) Bekele does not teach the instantly claimed recyclable film (remarks, page 7, fifth para), and that (2) there is no motivation to combine Paben and Dow with Bekele (remarks, page 7, last para), in particular, per applicant, Dow’s disclosure is limited to haze reduction (remarks, page 8, second para),
In response to contention (1), in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2145.
In response to contention (2), in response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). MPEP 2145. In this case, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s characteristic of Dow that Dow’s disclosure is limited to haze reduction. It is noted Dow teaches the use of Retain 3000 as compatibilizer, and Dow expressly teaches Retain 3000 is a known compatibilizer for the benefit of enhancing the dispersion of polar polymers into the polyolefin matrix (page 3, last para).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bekele, to include and select for the tie layer of the film taught by Paben to be Retain 3000 as taught by Dow, for the obvious benefit of enhancing the dispersion of polar polymers into the polyolefin matrix as taught by Dow. The compatibilizer disclosed in paragraph 040 of the instant specification would therefore be obtained. A low molecular weight functionalized polyethylene and assisting incorporation of the first and second polar layers into the polyethylene recycle stream would therefore be obtained.
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.
Claims 1-6, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “low molecular weight anhydride…functionalized polyethylene” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term low molecular weight anhydride is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition, it is not clear what “low molecular weight anhydride functionalized” represents. It appears that applicant may have intended to recite “anhydride functionalized low molecular weight polyethylene”. For purpose of examination, the examiner considers that prior art teaching any anhydride functionalized polyethylene as meeting the claimed limitations. Claims 2-6, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency of claim 1.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 15, 17 and 19 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekele et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0244664 A1) in view of Paben (Plastics Recycling Update) and Dow (of record, entitled “Retain polymer compatibilizer”) and Yuno et al (WO 2017/110890 A1; English translation) as evidenced by Sasaki et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0233099 A1) and Miura et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0140917 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Bekele et al disclose a film (paragraph 0005) comprising a first layer comprising modified polyamide (paragraph 0012) and a third layer that is a tie layer (paragraph 0017) that is polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride (paragraph 0062) and a fourth layer adhered directly to the tie layer (paragraph 0020) that is ethylene / vinyl alcohol copolymer (paragraph 0021) and a second layer that is unmodified polyamide (paragraph 0014) between the first layer and the third layer (paragraph 0005) and an additional layer that comprises any polymer disclosed by Bekele et al (paragraph 0020) and that is both surfaces of the film, as shown in an example of paragraphs 0023 – 0029, in which the additional layer is designated layer ‘E.’ The fourth layer is therefore a first polar layer comprising a polar polymer that is polyamide, and the second layer is a second polar layer, and the layers can comprise an additive (paragraph 0094).
The first polar layer comprises a polyamide that is ‘discussed below’ (paragraph 0021) which is an aliphatic polyamide (paragraph 0033) or a modified polyamide (paragraph 0045). The term ‘polyamide’ therefore means a polyamide that is not modified. The film is printed, and because the film is transparent the print is seen clearly through the film (paragraph 0092). The film is formed into a package for packaging an article, by sealing the film to another, identical film using a fin seal, using an adhesive (paragraph 0106). The additional layer, which is at both surfaces, is therefore a sealant layer, and the sealant layer comprises polyethylene (paragraph 0021). The first polar layer, the tie layer and the second layer together are therefore structurally identical to a base film and the first layer is structurally identical to a layer of adhesive between the base film and the sealant layer. The film is oriented and annealed (paragraph 0105) and has a shrink value of less than 10% in both the machine and transverse directions (non — heat shrinkable; paragraph 0103). The film is therefore oriented such that it has the claimed shrink value.
Bekele et al do not disclose that the film is recyclable, but Miura et al disclose that aliphatic polyamides are recyclable (paragraph 0066 of Miura et al). Bekele et al also do not disclose that the fin seal is only at the periphery between the two films. However, Sasaki et al disclose that fin seals are seals at a periphery (paragraph 0082 of Sasaki et al).
Bekele et al also do not disclose a compatibilizer that assists in the incorporation of the polar polymer into a polyethylene recycling stream.
Paben teaches a pouch comprising an additive that is Retain as a compatibilizer for recycling, for the purpose of compatibilizing ethylene / vinyl alcohol copolymer and polyethylene do enable recycling (first page). Paben is in the same field of endeavor, which is pouches, as evidenced by the first page.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the tie layer of the pouch disclosed by Bekele et al to comprise a tie layer comprising Retain in order to compatibilize ethylene / vinyl alcohol copolymer and polyethylene as taught by Paben.
Paben does not teach Retain that is Retain 3000. However, Dow teaches the use of Retain 3000 as compatibilizer, as Retain 3000 is a known compatibilizer for the benefit of enhancing the dispersion of polar polymers into the polyolefin matrix (page 3, last para). Dow is in the same field of endeavor, which is compatibilizers as evidenced by page 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bekele, to include and select for the tie layer of the film taught by Paben to be Retain 3000 as taught by Dow, for the obvious benefit of enhancing the dispersion of polar polymers into the polyolefin matrix as taught by Dow. The compatibilizer disclosed in paragraph 040 of the instant specification would therefore be obtained. A low molecular weight functionalized polyethylene and assisting incorporation of the first and second polar layers into the polyethylene recycle stream would therefore be obtained. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 made of record in this Office Action.
Bekele et al fail to disclose printed indicia applied to the base film and between the base film and the sealant. However, Yuno et al teach a film for a container having printing on any layer of the film, as long as the printing can be seen from outside the container, for the purpose of providing symbols (Description of Embodiments). Yuno et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is films as evidenced by the Description of Embodiments. It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for any layer of the package disclosed by Bekele et al to be printed, in order to provide symbols as taught by Yuno et al.
With regard to Claims 2 —4, in another example, the additional layer is only one surface of the film, and the first polar layer is the other surface (paragraphs 0023 – 0029 of Bekele et al). It is not disclosed that the first polar layer is the outer surface. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for a first polar layer that is the outer surface, because in an alternative example the additional layer is only one surface of the film.
With regard to Claims 6, 17 and 19, a base film and a sealant layer having a shrink value of less than 10% in both the machine and transverse direction are therefore disclosed.
With regard to Claim 15, Bekele et al disclose an additional second layer, designated layer ‘C,’ between the base film and the sealant (paragraphs 0023 – 0029) and Bekele et al also disclose that polyamide is a barrier (paragraph 0002).
With regard to Claim 20, the package is a pouch (paragraph 0106 of Bekele et al), and therefore comprises a mouth that is configured to be opened, or opened wider, for complete product removal.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekele et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0244664 A1) in view of Paben (Plastics Recycling Update) and Dow and Yuno et al (WO 2017/110890 A1; English translation) as evidenced by Sasaki et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0233099 A1) as evidenced by Miura et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0140917 A1) and further in view of Shida et al (U.S. Patent No. 4,452,942).
Bekele et al, Paben, Dow, Yuno et al, Sasaki et al and Miura et al disclose a film as discussed above. With regard to Claim 5, Bekele et al, Paben, Dow, Yuno et al, Sasaki et al and Miura et al fail to disclose polypropylene.
Shida et al teach an adhesive (column 1, lines 38 — 41) comprising a polypropylene (ethylene — olefin copolymer; column 1, lines 47 — 53) for the purpose of obtaining excellent adhesive strength (column 1, lines 55 — 56).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the for the film disclosed by Bekele et al to comprise polypropylene in order to obtain excellent adhesive strength as taught by Shida et al.
With regard to Claim 16, linear low density polyethylene is also taught by Shida et al (column 1, lines 47 — 53).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights