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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JP 2005068328) in view of Smedberg et al. (US 2011/080304). It is noted that the disclosures of Yasui are based on a machine translation of the reference included in this action.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Yasui discloses polyolefin composition and laminate using the same (see paragraphs 0001 and 0027). The composition comprises linear ethylene polymer that has a melt flow rate of 0.1-30 g/10 min and density of 0.860 to 0.965 g/cm3 (see paragraph 0006). The melt flow rate is measured at 190 C and 2.16 kg (or 21.18 N - see paragraph 0016). The linear ethylene polymer includes linear low density polyethylene (see paragraph 0034). The linear ethylene polymer is made from 80-100 wt.% ethylene with the remainder (0- 20 wt.%) made from α-olefin including propylene (see paragraphs 0014-0015). Given the molecular weight of ethylene (~28 g/mol) and propylene (~42 g/mol), it is calculated when there is, for instance, 80 wt.% ethylene and 20 wt.% propylene, there is present 2.86 moles (80/28) ethylene and 0.48 moles propylene (20/42), and therefore 85.6 mol% (2.86/3.34) ethylene and 14.4 mol% propylene. There is no disclosure in Yasui of a crosslinking agent.
Yasui does not disclose the total of vinyl and vinylidene as presently claimed.
Smedberg et al. disclose ethylene copolymer that includes linear low density polyethylene made from ethylene and propylene (see paragraphs 0027 and 0067-0070) that has melt flow rate (MFR) of at least 2.3 g/10 min (see paragraph 0024). The ethylene copolymer has double bonds that include vinyl, vinylidene, or mixtures thereof (see paragraph 0026) where the amount of double bonds is at least 0.6/1000 carbon atoms (see paragraph 0031). The ethylene copolymer having such MFR and amount of vinyl/vinylidene results in a composition that has excellent processability properties without causing or increasing sagging (see paragraphs 0018 and 0028).
In light of the motivation for using linear low density polyethylene with vinyl and vinylidene of at least 0.6/1000 carbon atoms disclosed by Smedberg et al. as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use linear ethylene polymer in Yasui that has such content of vinyl and vinylidene in order to produce a composition that has excellent processability properties without causing or increasing sagging.
Regarding claim 2, Yasui discloses the polyolefin composition comprises high-pressure low density polyethylene having a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 10 g/10 min and a density of 0.915 to 0.935 g/cm3 (see paragraph 0006). The melt flow rate is measured at 190 C and 2.16 kg (or 21.18 N - see paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 3, Yasui discloses the polyolefin composition comprises 70-93 wt.% high-pressure low density polyethylene and 7-30 wt.% linear ethylene polymer (see paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 6, although there is no disclosure of the density and the melt flow rate of the polyolefin composition as presently claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the amounts of high-pressure low density polyethylene and linear ethylene polymer as well as their melt flow rates and densities in Yasui in view of Smedberg et al., to produce a polyolefin composition with melt flow rate and density, including that presently claimed, that has desired properties including flowability, strength, and stiffness.
Regarding claims 8-9, Yasui discloses a laminate comprising outer layer made from the polyolefin composition that is directly laminated on a polyamide substrate (see paragraphs 0027-0029).
Regarding claim 11, Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. do not disclose extrusion coating method as presently claimed.
However, it is noted that “[E]ven though product‑by‑process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product‑by‑process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. meets the requirements of the claimed laminate, Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 12, Yasui discloses forming a laminate using the polyolefin composition (see paragraphs 0027, 0029, and 0035).
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JP 2005068328) in view of Smedberg et al. (US 2011/080304) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2003/0175538).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 14-15, Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. disclose polyolefin composition as set forth above.
Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. do not disclose the number of branches as presently claimed.
Yamaguchi et al. disclose composition comprising high pressure low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene (see paragraphs 0018, 0021, and 0085). The linear low density polyethylene is made from ethylene and propylene (see paragraphs 0093-0096). The linear low density polyethylene has 5 to 30 short chain branches for every 1000 carbon atoms in order to produce composition with proper adhesiveness and impact resistance (see paragraph 0097). The short chain branches would necessarily include those from propylene.
In light of the motivation for using linear low density polyethylene having 5 to 30 short chain branches for every 1000 carbon atoms disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use linear ethylene polymer having 5 to 30 short chain branches for every 1000 carbon atoms in Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. in order to produce a composition with proper adhesion and impact resistance.
Given that the linear ethylene polymer of Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. and Yamaguchi et al. has density of 0.860 to 0.965 g/cm3 and 5 to 30 short chain branches for every 1000 carbon atoms, when, for instance, density is 0.914 g/cm3 and number of branches is 30, the linear ethylene polymer satisfies Equation 1:
30 ≥ -1157*0.914 +1080 or 30 ≥ 22.5
and satisfies Equation 2:
30 ≥ -1157*0.914 +1084 or 30 ≥ 26.5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JP 2005068328) in view of Smedberg et al. (US 2011/080304) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodama (JP 2016160266). It is noted that the disclosures of Kodama are based on a machine translation of the reference included in this action.
Regarding claim 6, Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. disclose polyolefin composition as set forth above.
Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. do not explicitly disclose the density and melt flow rate of the polyolefin composition as presently claimed.
Kodama discloses resin composition comprising linear low density polyethylene (see paragraphs 0017-0018) and high pressure radical polymerization low density polyethylene (see paragraph 0032). Kodama discloses the composition has a density of 0.918 to 0.940 g/cm3 and that if the density is lower, rigidity of the film will be low and if the density is higher, strength and transparency decrease (see paragraphs 0042-0043). Kodama also discloses that the composition has melt flow rate (MFR) of 0.4 to 5 g/10 min and that if the MFR is lower, fluidity is poor and if the MFR is higher, molding becomes difficult and strength is reduced (see paragraph 0044).
In light of the motivation for using polyolefin composition with specific density and melt flow rate disclosed by Kodama as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polyolefin composition in Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. with density and melt flow rate, including that presently claimed, in order to produce polyolefin composition with good rigidity, strength, transparency, fluidity, and moldability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JP 2005068328) in view of Smedberg et al. (US 2011/080304) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giles, Jr. et al. (“Extrusion: The Definitive Processing Guide and Handbook).
Regarding claim 13, Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. disclose polyolefin composition and laminate as set forth above.
Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. do not disclose using extrusion coating.
Giles, Jr. et al. discloses extrusion coating using high melt temperatures to lower melt viscosity in order to improve coating thickness uniformity and adhesion (see page 466, first full paragraph).
In light of the motivation for using extrusion coating disclosed by Giles, Jr. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use extrusion coating to form the laminate of Yasui in view of Smedberg et al. in order to produce a laminate with improved thickness uniformity and adhesion.
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (EP 2223802) in view of Kodama et al. (JP 2017061123) and Smedberg et al. (US 2011/080304). It is noted that the disclosures of Kodama et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included in this action.
Regarding claims 1-2, Sakamoto discloses polyethylene resin composition (see paragraph 0083) comprising (a) high pressure radical process low density polyethylene having melt flow rate of 0.1 to 30 g/10 min at 190 C and 21.18 N and density of 0.905 to 0.940 g/cm3 (see paragraph 0084) and (b) linear low density polyethylene having melt flow rate of 2 to 70 g/10 min at 190 C and 21.18 N and density of 0.905 to 0.940 g/cm3 (see paragraphs 0095-0097, 0101, and 0103). There is no disclosure in Sakamoto of a crosslinking agent.
Sakamoto does not disclose the amount of ethylene and propylene in the linear low density polyethylene and the total of vinyl and vinylidene as presently claimed.
Kodama et al. disclose linear low density polyethylene (see paragraph 0088) made from 80-100 wt.% ethylene and 0-20 wt.% α-olefin including propylene to produce a molded article with a good balance of rigidity and impact strength (see paragraph 0093). Given the molecular weight of ethylene (~28 g/mol) and propylene (~42 g/mol), it is calculated when there is, for instance, 80 wt.% ethylene and 20 wt.% propylene, there is present 2.86 moles (80/28) ethylene and 0.48 moles propylene (20/42), and therefore 85.6 mol% (2.86/3.34) ethylene and 14.4 mol% propylene.
In light of the motivation for using linear low density polyethylene made from 80-100 wt.% ethylene and 0-20 wt.% propylene disclosed by Kodama et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to use linear low density polyethylene in Sakamoto that is made from 80-100 wt.% ethylene and 0-20 wt.% propylene, including amounts presently claimed, in order to produce a composition with a good balance of rigidity and impact strength.
Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. do not disclose the total of vinyl and vinylidene as presently claimed.
Smedberg et al. disclose ethylene copolymer that includes linear low density polyethylene made from ethylene and propylene (see paragraphs 0027 and 0067-0070) that has melt flow rate (MFR) of at least 2.3 g/10 min (see paragraph 0024). The ethylene copolymer has double bonds that include vinyl, vinylidene, or mixtures thereof (see paragraph 0026) where the amount of double bonds is at least 0.6/1000 carbon atoms (see paragraph 0031). The ethylene copolymer having such MFR and amount of vinyl/vinylidene results in a composition that has excellent processability properties without causing or increasing sagging (see paragraphs 0018 and 0028).
In light of the motivation for using linear low density polyethylene with vinyl and vinylidene of at least 0.6/1000 carbon atoms disclosed by Smedberg et al. as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use linear low density polyethylene in Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. that has such content of vinyl and vinylidene in order to produce a composition that has excellent processability properties without causing or increasing sagging.
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto discloses polyethylene resin composition comprising 10-90 wt.% high pressure radical process low density polyethylene and 10-90 wt.% linear low density polyethylene (see paragraph 0105).
Regarding claim 6, although there is no disclosure of the density and the melt flow rate of the polyolefin composition as presently claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the amounts of high-pressure low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene as well as their melt flow rates and densities Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al., to produce a polyethylene resin composition with melt flow rate and density, including that presently claimed, that has desired properties including flowability, strength, and stiffness.
Regarding claims 7-8, Sakamoto discloses using the polyethylene resin composition to make a laminate where the laminate includes substrate and foamable resin layer made from the polyethylene resin composition (see paragraphs 0001 and 0141).
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto discloses that the laminate includes the polyethylene resin composition layer and a thermoplastic resin layer made from polyamide on both sides of a paper substrate (see paragraphs 0141, 0148, and 0154).
Sakamoto also discloses including additional layers including inner layers and outer layers that include reinforcing layers or barrier layers made from polyamide (see paragraphs 0152-0153). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the reinforcing layer and/or barrier layer as the outermost layer of the laminate which would result in direct contact with the foamable resin layer made from the polyethylene resin composition or as an inner layer on the substrate which would result in direct contact with the foamable resin layer made from the polyethylene resin composition in order to produce a laminate with the desired barrier properties and strength.
Regarding claim 10, Sakamoto including additional layers including inner layers and outer layers that include barrier layers including metal deposited films or metal foils (see paragraphs 0152-0153). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the barrier layer as the outermost layer of the laminate which would result in direct contact with the foamable resin layer made from the polyethylene resin composition or as an inner layer on the substrate which would result in direct contact with the foamable resin layer made from the polyethylene resin composition in order to produce a laminate with the desired barrier properties
Regarding claim 11, Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. do not disclose extrusion coating method as presently claimed.
However, it is noted that “[E]ven though product‑by‑process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product‑by‑process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. meets the requirements of the claimed laminate, Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 12, Sakamoto discloses method of forming a laminate using the polyethylene resin composition (see paragraph 0154).
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (EP 2223802) in view of Kodama et al. (JP 2017061123) and Smedberg et al. (US 2011/080304) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2003/0175538).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 14-15, Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. disclose polyethylene resin composition as set forth above.
Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. do not disclose the number of branches as presently claimed.
Yamaguchi et al. disclose composition comprising high pressure low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene (see paragraphs 0018, 0021, and 0085). The linear low density polyethylene is made from ethylene and propylene (see paragraphs 0093-0096). The linear low density polyethylene has 5 to 30 short chain branches for every 1000 carbon atoms in order to produce composition with proper adhesiveness and impact resistance (see paragraph 0097). The short chain branches would necessarily include those from propylene.
In light of the motivation for using linear low density polyethylene having 5 to 30 short chain branches for every 1000 carbon atoms disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use linear low density polyethylene having 5 to 30 short chain branches for every 1000 carbon atoms in Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. in order to produce a composition with proper adhesion and impact resistance.
Given that the linear low density polyethylene of Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al., Smedberg et al., and Yamaguchi et al. has density of 0.905 to 0.94 g/cm3 and 5 to 30 short chain branches for every 1000 carbon atoms, when, for instance, density is 0.914 g/cm3 and number of branches is 25, the linear low density polyethylene satisfies Equation 1:
30 ≥ -1157*0.914 +1080 or 30 ≥ 22.5
and satisfies Equation 2:
30 ≥ -1157*0.914 +1084 or 30 ≥ 26.5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (EP 2223802) in view of Kodama et al. (JP 2017061123) and Smedberg et al. (US 2011/080304) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodama (JP 2016160266). It is noted that the disclosures of Kodama are based on a machine translation of the reference included in this action.
Regarding claim 6, Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. disclose polyethylene resin composition as set forth above.
Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. do not explicitly disclose the density and melt flow rate of the polyolefin composition.
Kodama discloses resin composition comprising linear low density polyethylene (see paragraphs 0017-0018) and high pressure radical polymerization low density polyethylene (see paragraph 0032). Kodama discloses the composition has a density of 0.918 to 0.940 g/cm3 and that if the density is lower, rigidity of the film will be low and if the density is higher, strength and transparency decrease (see paragraphs 0042-0043). Kodama also discloses that the composition has melt flow rate of 0.4 to 5 g/10 min and that if the MFR is lower, fluidity is poor and if the MFR is higher, molding becomes difficult and strength is reduced (see paragraph 0044).
In light of the motivation for using polyolefin composition with specific density and melt flow rate disclosed by Kodama as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polyolefin composition in Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. with density and melt flow rate, including that presently claimed, in order to produce polyolefin composition with good rigidity, strength, transparency, fluidity, and moldability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (EP 2223802) in view of Kodama et al. (JP 2017061123) and Smedberg et al. (US 2011/080304) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giles, Jr. et al. (“Extrusion: The Definitive Processing Guide and Handbook).
Regarding claim 13, Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. disclose polyethylene resin composition and laminate as set forth above.
Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. do not disclose using extrusion coating.
Giles, Jr. et al. discloses extrusion coating using high melt temperatures to lower melt viscosity in order to improve coating thickness uniformity and adhesion (see page 466, first full paragraph).
In light of the motivation for using extrusion coating disclosed by Giles, Jr. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use extrusion coating to form the laminate of Sakamoto in view of Kodama et al. and Smedberg et al. in order to produce a laminate with improved thickness uniformity and adhesion.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s persuasive arguments filed 10/14/2025, the rejections of record are overcome. New grounds of rejection are set forth above and therefore, the following action is no-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Callie Shosho whose telephone number is (571)272-1123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 am - 5:00 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787